|
Publication of the Research/Action Team on Nonviolent
Large Systems Change, |
|
Home Subscribe Funding About the Journal Editorial Team Questions/Feedback Links Past Issues Current Issue |
|
TABLE OF CONTENTS Becoming Humane - Being Humane: Evolution of
the Humane - Globalization of Peace - World in Balance: The Real Causes of
War beyond the Multicausal Approach A Non-violent Path to
Eradicate Terrorism: Covenant with the Poor: Globalisation, Human Solidarity and Spirituality Islamic Nonviolence and Nonviolence in Islam Joha's Nail Abbas and the
Lame Duck Nonviolence in Making the United Nations a Better Broker of Peace War is a State of 2-State Solution on Life Support The Who Wants Peace? Israelis Need Drastic
Change in Approach to Peace Can Media Talk Peace Global To Do List to Combat Terrorism |
Vol. XX, No.2 Winter, 2006 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. Becoming Humane - Being Humane: Evolution of the Humane - Globalisation
of Peace - World in Balance The Real Causes of War beyond the Multicausal
Approach Olek Netzer http://uuhome.de/global/downloads/dehum.pdf Psychology
can be regarded as very subversive when it enters the arena of power
politics, Carl Rogers, 1977 "How exactly does it happen that
normal human beings, all endowed with a conscience, an awareness of their
individual responsibility for their judgment and choice of truth over
untruth, reason over irrationality, justice over injustice and morality over
sin, - manage to justify in their own eyes even the most inhuman atrocities
and acts of self and others mass-destruction?" My own 30-years long systematic effort
to find good answers to questions such as "By virtue of what mechanisms
do we turn human 'others' into enemies?", begun with a war trauma. I
managed to recover out of it only when I found the answer to the question
"what causes wars" that I felt was true, based on what I realized
were the real causes, unlike my earlier conventional conceptions about the
causes of wars that suddenly seemed completely inadequate. Since then I
adopted the "Direct Causation Approach" that requires focusing on
the direct-physical causes of a life-threatening condition inside the human
organism. Following that approach, I begun
focusing on the inner-psychological space in which ideas governing
war-oriented thinking and motivation existed. The result has been a detailed
description of the mental mechanisms operating in war-oriented normal people
I called Theory of Dehumanization.
To the best of my belief and as far as my experimentation and experience have
confirmed it deciphers the code of human politically-ideologically motivated
destructive intergroup behavior. Its applications
make healing possible. My message to the community of scholars
working on psychological interpretation of war is therefore the need to keep
the Direct-Causation Approach in
view if they intend to become a "helping profession" in a reality
of politically motivated destructiveness rather than only understand and
explain it. The first part of this essay will make the argument for following
the Direct Causation approach. The second part will present the process and
results of my own taking it -- the Theory of Dehumanization and its
applications. In July 1970, on the Syrian front, the
army ambulance I navigated to a UN outpost was hit and all my companions were
torn to pieces. Traumatized, I could not erase the sensory experience of
those moments from my inner vision, as if it were happening in the present
and projected on my mind's screen again and again. I wanted to get over it,
but I became convinced--perhaps obsessed--by the thought that I would not be
able to go on living without coming to understand, but really understand, why
it had happened. I could not find the real causes in
anything I had learned about the causes of war. My conceptual maps pointed in
directions that stroke me as erroneous and irrelevant. Historical causes,
economic causes, complex causes: two peoples clashing over the same
territory, the Arab belligerence, occupation of that Syrian territory by my
country In my first new realization, the missile
reached us at the end of a chain of causation beginning in Biblical times
with the conquest of the Land of Canaan by the Hebrews--actually much
earlier--propelled through endless links of causes turned effects turned
causes, down to the causes for emergence of modern science that enabled some
distant people to devise the chemical reaction and construct the technology
that caused the explosive material in the missile to turn my companions into
bloody splinters. I got over my trauma when the real
cause, so it felt, presented itself to my awareness. The real cause was the
obvious one: the Syrian gunner on the other side wanted to hit us, his
target, aimed well and pulled the trigger. Had he not wanted to hit us at
that moment, he would not have to. Why do I call that the "Real"
cause? Because if there is any link in the chain of causation leading to war
that is not abstract, that we can not just conceptualize but touch in order
to break that chain, the living human link is the only one touchable. In the
most real, concrete and functional sense, we could not have wars if people
did not fight willingly being convinced that they should. The 9/11 terrorists
did it in full consciousness, feeling justified in face of their conscience,
morality, history, religion, society. Otherwise,
they would not have done it, would they? -- If all other contributing factors
remained equal but people would just not conceive shooting and bombing and
burning and killing as an option to solve their problems with other people,
there could be no war. Thus, by only describing events taking place in the
nonverbal world, we arrive at an awareness that is very uncommon in our and
other cultures: the real causes of wars are not abstract but living people. Economic, Political, or Historical
Causes are abstract constructs. In reality, all we can ever observe is some
people sending other people to war because of what they, inside their skulls,
conceptualize as their "Economic Interests" or whatever, usually
their concepts about the malice of and danger imminent in the
"enemy". As long as we do not act consistently upon that simple
truth, we could see or experience endless horrors and suffering, unable to
touch their real causes. This down-to-persons awareness of
causation brought me to the realization that if anyone wanted to heal
infectious societal diseases such as wars, they would need to investigate
human thinking that causes it directly. Then I begun to learn all I could
from reliable scientific sources about the processes by which warring people
perceive and construct their political realities. Very soon I learned that
this field was completely dominated by the multiple causation approach. It meant, that if my realization that the relevant causes for
making a difference are the direct ones was valid -- that multiple-causation
approach was in itself the cause why research in the area is bound to be
ineffective. In the 1958 seminal work of Gordon Allport, The Nature
of Prejudice, the multiple causation approach was postulated very
emphatically, "as forcefully as possible": Are discrimination and prejudice facts
of the social structure or of the personality structure? The answer we have
given is both. And we emphasize once again, as forcefully as possible, that a
multiple approach is required. ...help comes from Historical, Sociocultural, and Situational analysis, as well as from
analysis in terms of Socialization, Personality Dynamics, Phenomenology, and
finally, but not least important, in terms of actual Group Differences. To
understand prejudice and its conditions the results of investigations at all
these levels must be kept in mind... there is no other way. (p. 476.) Let there be no doubt, that what Allport refers to as "discrimination" and
"prejudice", is the same state of mind as war-orientation (in the
same year federal troops were sent to protect black students in the newly
integrated schools and the governor of Arkansas declared "This is now an
occupied territory"). But Allport was very
optimistic about the future of "the infant science of human
conflict" which was, he felt at the time, "thriving". Nearly
half-century later that science was still following the multiple-causation
approach but the mood has been pessimistic all around. Neil Kressel, one of the leading American scholars in the
field of Political Psychology wrote in the last decade of the 20th century
"There probably remains some residual frustration and disillusionment
growing out of the field's collective inability to make much difference in
the world"). Worse, "..no straightforward
and consensual psychological science has arisen to meet the needs of
political scholars. Instead, modern psychologists, sociologists, and
biologists forge competing images of human nature and a convergence of
outlooks appears unlikely in the foreseeable future". In contemporary studies, psychologists
uphold this multiple-causation approach and build abstract models. They
insist, as if anyone was in a danger of forgetting it, that "at all
points, political and psychological studies are inextricably
intertwined". The pessimistic view of what lies ahead may be summarized
in the words of the Dutch researcher Johan van der Dennen, who is reputed for having amassed over 100,000
sources on political violence: "In retrospect it seems clear that the
phenomena dealt with can be approached from so many different points of view,
from so many disciplines, and on so many levels, that a unitary comprehensive
theory is hardly to be expected in the near future". In view of the fact that war is a
consciously motivated human behavior, the idea that, since "political
and psychological studies are inextricably intertwined" (above) they are
qualitatively not different from one another, could be based on a fundamental
methodological error. The "intertwined" causes are not all the
same: some are real-direct causes motivating people, other are indirect
causes that might or might not affect them. The assumptions we make about causation
govern our approach to changing the condition. In medicine, or in any helping
profession, without knowing the physical or closest-to-physical psychological
agents - viruses, germs, neuroses, etc. -we cannot deal with critical factors
in changing the condition. Changing only the indirect causes of illness, such
as economic conditions, nutrition or sanitation, we practice hygiene and
hopefully prevent the spread of disease. But hygiene is not medicine and
prevention is not healing once the human organism becomes infected. As I
submit this essay to you, I still feel rather lonely in my feeling that the
mainstream research has failed to follow that simple principle of scientific
approach that stipulates, that in order to help a human condition one must
first and foremost ascertain the DIRECT-physical causes. We need to change
that multi-causation approach before we could make a difference. Having chosen the direct-physical causation approach, I begun
by looking at what was obvious in the behavior of racist, ethnocentric,
nationalistic, etc. bigots, fanatics and single-minded supporters of all war
operations (my living environment is a perfect laboratory for becoming a
participant-observer). First, since under all multiple conditions and
influences people commit organized violence against other people consciously,
I decided that the organ I should investigate in order to locate the direct
quasi-physical causes of warlike thinking and behavior is the conscious part
of the mind, the socially acquired system of Orientation. Moreover, anywhere in the world and no
matter how absurd and evil in my and your view, the fanatics of conflict must
have a moral justification for what they believe and what they do, same as
the rest of us. The perpetrators of socially sanctioned evil anywhere behave
as if they were under compulsion to believe they are right and their enemies
are wrong. I therefore began investigating how they manage; how exactly they
manage to massacre or victimize helpless victims without compromising their
own highest human values. I reasoned, that if I
could interfere with their rationalization or self-justification system it
would be like interfering with the direct causes, which is what one must do
if one wishes ever to develop some remedies. Since "Conceptions of right
and justice form an inescapable part of the context of political_
reasoning", I surmised that if I could find ways to undermine that
justification system I would effectively neutralize the effects of the
"virus" - a hope that in my private experience has been sustained
beyond my own expectations. The research-questions leading to the
Theory of Dehumanization were formulated on the lowest possible level of
abstraction: "How exactly does it happen that normal individuals, all
possessing a conscience, an awareness of their individual responsibility for
their judgment and choice of truth over untruth, reason over irrationality,
justice over injustice and morality over sin, - manage to justify in their
own eyes even the most inhuman atrocities and acts of self and others
mass-destruction? In what ways exactly they are different from others (me)?
What exactly, if anything, can be objectively defined as wrong with them?
Which of their organic functions of perceiving, thinking, and telling right
from wrong, are affected? How? How does it happen? When? - The theory of
Dehumanization embodies answers to all those questions.
The evidence regarding beliefs\thinking about war and conflict was
collected from public communication media in The other mechanism, Blind Areas, turned out to be a major
discovery in the researching process. It has been found with astonishing
significance that persons, who consistently expressed their views in patterns
that conformed to the "We Right, Them Guilty" cognitive map of
social orientation, practically never (sic!) gave expression to any awareness
of even the most obvious human realities that did not conform to that map.
For example, the evidence indicated, that not one leader or spokesperson in
the Israeli national consensus uttered, over a period of 20 years, a
spontaneous expression of warning that we might be forgetting that
"Them" are not one hostile entity but many different individuals,
men women and children, not all bad and many suffering in this conflict (the
"national consensus" designation applies to the authorities, the
establishment, all sources except those who were repeatedly referred to in political
discourse as "Bleeding Hearts" ("Lefties",
"Defeatists", "Self-hating", etc.). Not one consensual voice uttered a
spontaneous expression of awareness, that having to forcefully rule over the
Palestinians could be dangerous for the moral soul of Israelis; or that any
of the suppression\punitive measures against "Them" were
unjustified or too much; or that any of the (thousands) military operations
of all kinds were unnecessary or excessive; or that some aspect of our stand
against them could be not exactly right; or that some third-party mediation
effort toward resolution of the conflict should not be seen as a threat, or
that we could open some initiative toward reconciliation, etc. - blind areas
in place of obvious human realities. That finding was fully confirmed in
texts referring to war in other cultures past and present. The Theory
of Dehumanization organizes the identified Blind Areas and Patterned
Beliefs in ten headings: 1)We, 2)Them, 3)Bleeding Hearts, 4)Deviants,
5)Captives, 6)Leader, 7)Strategy, 8)Other Nations, 9)Morality, 10)Time.
Corresponding Blind Areas and Patterned Beliefs are listed under the ten
headings and comprise the Dehumanization Syndrome, a list of symptoms that
makes the condition operationally definable like any other psychological
condition (only, it is felt, with far greater precision). Analysis for
Dehumanization is performed by first classifying one's verbal expressions
(the relevant behavior of politicians is open, public knowledge) under each
of the 10 headings of the Syndrome and then comparing them to the Patterned
Beliefs. Individual diagnosis is made by noting, in addition, one's
inattention (over a length of time) to the realities covered in Blind Areas. Space does not permit presenting the
whole list of symptoms. Some examples of Blind Areas follow (the
corresponding Patterned Beliefs can be easily imagined): WE: The fact
that "We" (the Nation, the People, the
Country) is an abstract term, that in reality only individual human beings
exist. THEM: Their
(same as ours) humanity and individuality BLEEDING
HEARTS: The fact the WE (the nation, the people) and our leaders (leadership,
government, ruling party) are not the same thing, and therefore opposing the
government may not necessarily be against the nation while supporting the
government could be. STRATEGY:
The possibility, that the best tactics in certain situations is not using
force; the possibility that the best tactics is making a conciliatory move. MORALITY:
The moral obligation itself: measuring whatever we do to them and they do to
us with the same yardstick. TIME: The
fact that history, past, and future have no meaning other than in the
perception and thinking of people living in the present. The Dehumanization
Syndrome embodies the informed answer to the question how people can be
so irrational and immoral in a war situation: Their perception mechanism
filters out into Blind Areas all evidence that could lead them to the
realization that in fighting and killing they may not be doing the right
thing. The direct cause of unjustified wars is not what bigots, fanatics or
warmongers believe; it is what they do not think of and do not even perceive,
like their own fallible humanity, or the "enemy's" individuality
and equal humanity, or that the reality that justified war and enmity could
change in time. Blind Areas effectively protect the dehumanized against
experiencing any "cognitive dissonance" in committing even the
worst war crimes. The full Dehumanization Syndrome, which
is list of symptoms, the tool for analysis and the map of the inner space of
politically dehumanized minds will be sent by the
author to all upon request. The Theory of Dehumanization claims to
present the so far unattained breakthrough in social theory, because bringing
those areas of mental blindness to human awareness affects the direct inner
causes of the condition. The Blind Areas and Patterned Beliefs could be
compared, in terms of organic quasi-physical existence, to virus or software
programmed in the mental mechanism. Interfering with people's Orientation
System would be analogous to healing; whilst all other known methods of
prevention of intergroup prejudice and enmity
(improving political, geopolitical, social, economic, or educational
conditions, etc.) manipulate factors that indirectly affect the beliefs and
actions of people and therefore could have, at best, the effect of preventive
sanitation measures. Secondly, the Dehumanization Syndrome as
an analytical tool makes the condition objectively identifiable and definable
in terms of specific individual expression and behavior, and so it can be
approached, understood, and discussed scientifically as a psychological state
of mind, beyond the present level of political discourse in our culture that
regards various manifestations of Dehumanization, prejudice, racism,
fanaticism etc., as a matter of personal opinions and values (practically
never owned, always projected on some others), which lie beyond the reach of
objective scientific assessment. Applications in education, culture,
"Peace Studies", political discourse and political prediction are
such that, in my limited experience, justify the hope that intergroup conflicts and war as we experience them could
now begin to become things of the past. The Theory of Dehumanization deciphers
the code of destructive political behavior in conflict by discovering that
its motivational drive (the overriding "interest") is the need to
maintain one's orientation (identity) system in working order (Blind Areas
exist to prevent it from collapsing in face of human reality). Behavior of public figures identified as
dehumanized can be predicted, with great accuracy, to be in conformity with
any of the Patterned Beliefs, including Strategy ("The way to deal with
Them is force"; "If force has not worked more force should be
applied"). Many common illusions regarding "peace process" and
errors of conventional political analyzers could be thus avoided. On the
other hand, even a single spontaneous expression of awareness of reality
covered in a Blind Area, uttered by a person who was formerly diagnosed as
dehumanized, predicts (with very high probability) a radical turn-around in
his\her attitudes about the conflict. When children are old enough to learn
that there have been WE and THEM, wars, heroes and villains, victims and
perpetrators, etc., they are probably old enough to learn that there has been
Dehumanization, the most dangerous of social epidemics which they should
become able to identify in themselves and in others. The Dehumanization
Syndrome would make the concept definable, its symptoms identifiable in the
here-and-now, applicable to any historical, literary or contemporary text
analyzed in a classroom as well as to any real-life situation including one's
own. Students should learn the truth - relative to the best knowledge of
their teachers - about politically-ideologically-religiously motivated human
irrational and destructive behavior, by the same logic they learn the truth
about sex, evolution, history, and whatever is considered the truth to be
passed on to the next generation. In teaching historical, literary, and
contemporary political texts, content analysis for identifying the Patterned
Beliefs may be introduced. Content analysis for signs of awareness
of any of the Blind Areas is particularly recommended, since it would help
the analyzers to become aware of any such Blind Areas within themselves. By
applying the Theory of Dehumanization, even single classroom teacher, without
any technical gear or costly apparatus, could effectively arrest and prevent
the development of dehumanized thinking and feeling patterns in her or his
students. As the dehumanized system of orientation
has been found to be entirely dependant on its Blind Areas, prevention and
healing methods bring those Blind Areas into awareness. The single technique
found most effective is asking open questions about realities hidden in the
Blind Areas. This technique circumvents resistance since it does not question
the dehumanized beliefs about "THEM", but rather points at human
realities in the territory and in oneself, and asks persons, who normally
avoid paying attention to it, what they make of it. By that, it helps them
fill-in into their cognitive maps the human realities that were missing
there. To what extent and how soon such
educational practices will free people and their systems from prejudices and
warlike orientation? To what extent would war be regarded as an option for
resolving conflicts in a society of members who are aware of the dangers of
Dehumanization and are skilled in identifying its symptoms in their
environment of communicated ideas? - I can only hope some of you will try to
implement it in order that we all may find out. Recommended - Allport, Gordon W. 1954. The
Nature of Prejudice. - Dennen, van der
Johann. 1987, "In-group/out-group differentiation". In V. Reynolds,
V. Falger, & - Erikson, Erik. 1965.
"Psychoanalysis and ongoing History: problems of Identity Hatred and
Nonviolence", American Journal of Psychiatry. 122, 241-250. - Kressel, Neil J. 1990. "The
Politics of Knowledge Production in Social Psychology." Journal of
Social Psychology (130, pp. 5-28). - Koenigsberg, Richard A. 1992.
Hitler's Ideology. - Kressel, Neil J. 1993.
"Politics and human nature", in Neil Kressel
(ed.), Political Psychology. - Rogers, Carl R. 1977. Carl Rogers on Personal Power. - Rosenberg, S. W. 1988. Reason, Ideology and Politics. - Simpson, E. 1987. "The Development of Political
Reasoning". Human Development. 30, pp. 268-281. - Waller, James. 2002. Becoming Evil: How Ordinary People Commit Genocide and Mass Killing. A NONVIOLENT PATH TO ERADICATE
TERRORISM: COVENANT WITH THE POOR:
GLOBALIZATION, HUMAN SOLIDARITY AND SPIRITUALITY Kamran Mofid Abstract The topic which I
wish to address here is vast. All I can reasonably hope to do is paint a
picture with very broad brushstrokes. I deeply and passionately believe that
conflict/terrorism is mainly mobilized around the concept of justice. In many
cases, challenging injustice is the first step towards eliminating it. To
avoid violent conflict, concerted international action is needed to address
systemic economic/socio-political injustice. The undeniable fact of life
confronting us on this planet of ours is that there is gross and growing
inequality, amongst people, different nations and within nations. Billions of
people living in abject poverty, with no hope and no future, have become a
source of “…the development of terrorist cells”. Pragmatism and enlightened
self-interest suggest that another way based on compassion and generosity is
needed. A vibrant and
progressive democracy cannot be achieved in world in which individualism,
selfishness and Mammon worship prevails; a world in which most politicians
are elected by and for big business; where parliaments serve the stock
markets rather than the people; where environment is sacrificed to economic
growth and the poor everywhere are rendered destitute in the name of
structural adjustment. Nations need to
develop institutions of fair and transparent governance. They also need to
help provide health care, education, sanitation, as well as affordable
housing and encourage an inclusive society. Addressing injustice is central to the
resolution of most intractable conflicts and the eradication of terrorism.
Economic injustice, depravation and hopelessness are the real “Weapons of
Mass Destruction”, any where, and every where in the world.
No amount of military might, no amount of depleted uranium enriched
missiles and no amount of smart and not so-smart bombs will destroy
terrorism, as long as this world is so unjust, so unequal and so inhumane.
History is on the side of this argument and it would be an affront to
humanity to ignore this. Today the globalized
world economy, despite many significant achievements during the last few
decades, and especially since the end of the Second World War, in areas such
as science, technology, medicine, transportation and communication, is facing
major catastrophic socio-economic, political, cultural, spiritual and environmental
crises/ We are surrounded by global problems of inequality, injustice,
poverty, greed, marginalization, exclusion, intolerance, fear, depression,
anxiety, mistrust, xenophobia, terrorism, sleaze and corruption. These
problems are affecting the overall fabric of societies in many parts of the
world. Moreover, the twentieth century was the
bloodiest in human history, with holocausts, genocides, ethnic cleansing, two
world wars and hundreds of inter and intra-national wars. Furthermore, today after
decades of selfishness, greed, individualism, emphasis on wealth creation
without care about how this wealth is being created, the world is entering a
period of reflection, self-examination and a spiritual revolution. Many
people around the globe have come to an understanding that it is possible to
create a better world if a critical mass of people with a sense of human
decency and a belief in the ultimate goodness of humanity, rise and realize
their power to transform the world. More and more people around the world are
realizing that there are no short cuts to happiness. Material wealth is
important. This should not be denied. However, physical wealth is only one
ingredient for happiness. Realization of a complete sense of happiness, inner
peace and tranquility can only be achieved through acting more on virtues
such as wisdom, justice, ethics, love and humanity. This spiritual revolution
needs architecture and dedicated architects. In this study I argue that the
marketplace is not just an economic sphere, ‘it is a region of the human
spirit’. Whilst considering the many economic questions and issues we should
also reflect on the Divine dimension of life, Moreover, and should, in
contrast to what is practiced today, be concerned with the world of heart and
spirit. Although self–interest is an important source of human motivation,
driving the decisions we make in the marketplace every day, those decisions
nevertheless have a moral, ethical and spiritual content, because each
decision we make affects not only ourselves but others too. Today’s modern
economists consider their discipline a science, and thereby divorced from
ethical details, the normative passions of right and wrong. They have turned
their discipline into a moral-free zone.
In short, this study views the problem
and challenge of globalization partly from economic but primarily from
ethical, spiritual and theological point of view. How can we order the modern
world so that we may all live well and live in peace? In all, globalization
will need to combine economic efficiency to meet human needs with social
justice and environmental sustainability. The study moreover argues for the
creation of an "ecumenical space" for dialogue amongst
civilizations and the building of community for the common good by bringing
economics, spirituality and theology together. As it has been noted, and it is my
intention to argue further that, perhaps the most significant development in
the material world for nearly two decades is the phenomenon of globalization.
This is the accelerated integration of the global economy through finance and
trade. As noted above, spectacular breakthroughs in science and technology,
particularly information technology, have speeded up the process.
Even as it is an economic phenomenon, globalization is not limited to
the arena of economics and economic institutions. Its impact is felt on
political and social institutions, as well as culture. No human institution
is impervious to it. Even religion is challenged by it.
Globalization has brought prosperity and wealth to many nations and
individuals. It has brought the blessings of science and technology to more
and more people. It has shared knowledge and information on a scale which is
beyond measure. At the same time, it has its dark and dangerous side. The darkest manifestation of
globalization is the persistence of poverty, unemployment, and social
disintegration even as economies are being integrated in the global economy.
It is the continuing destruction of the environment and the marginalization
of women even as more and more wealth is created at an unbelievable pace.
Economic, social and political injustice have accelerated in the wake of the
frenzied transactions in global financial and trade markets. In all, around the world, inequality is
increasing, while the world is further globalising.
Moreover, even in the wealthier countries in the west, the gap between rich
and poor; have and have-nots is growing wider by the day. In addition, the meltdown in the value of the stock
market has left millions with no pension in their old age. Given the continuous existence of such
levels of abject poverty everywhere, and our inability or unwillingness to
over come it- is a true sign of a globalization of civilization in
denial. In this respect, the wise
words of Nelson Mandela rings true “Overcoming
poverty is not a gesture of charity. It is an act of justice. It is the
protection of a fundamental human right, the right to dignity and a decent
life. While poverty persists, there is no true freedom”. We are
caught in a strange world of contradiction: a world of progress and of
poverty. The poor, marginalized and excluded, have been forgotten. However,
even those who are well off financially, it seems, are unable to live well in
human terms. In the materialistically saturated western world, anxiety,
depression, insecurity and real desperation are the main causes of ill health
and premature death. We were told that economic prosperity, with its share
dividends and material comfort would bring us happiness. What a delusion! We need to wake up and begin to
see the bigger picture. The only remedy, we are told by neo-classical
ideologues and fundamentalists who have brought us all this misery to begin
with, is to strive for more of the same mores: more economic growth, more
production, more consumption, more cost-cutting, and more sacrifices to
achieve them as they impose harsh human and ecological costs. Who are the
people who think that all these sacrifices – personal, family, social,
cultural and ecological – are necessary to meet their bottom line? Looking at what is being recommended, we
can note that, nearly all of the proposals on the global economy concern the
need to unleash the power of the market, liberalize trade, deregulate and
privatize- which are all purely economic considerations. It is as though
humanity and the environment are irrelevant except as servants of the
overarching need to expand the global economy- as if that could satisfy all
human needs and aspirations. Material wellbeing, economic growth and wealth
creation are important. But, to create a world of true happiness, peace and
wellbeing, wealth must be created for a noble reason. Economics, commerce and
trade, without a true understanding of the aspirations of the people it is
affecting, cannot bring justice to all. Social transformation can be achieved
only when unselfish love, spirituality and a rigorous pursuit of justice are
embraced. It is important to recall that,
economics, from the time of Plato through to Adam Smith, John
Stuart Mill and others, was as deeply concerned with issues of social
justice, ethics and morality as with economic analysis itself. However,
most students studying economics today learn that Adam Smith was
the “father of modern economics” but do not know that he was also a moral
philosopher. In 1759, sixteen years before his Wealth of Nations, he published The Theory of Moral Sentiments, which
explored the self–interested nature of man and his ability to still make
moral decisions based on factors other than selfishness. In the Wealth of Nations, Smith laid the early
groundwork for economic analysis, but embedded it in a broader discussion of
social justice and the role of government. Students today know
only of Smith’s famous analogy of the “invisible hand” and refer to him
(rather obliquely) in defence of free markets. They
ignore his clear understanding that the pursuit of wealth
should not take precedence over social and moral obligations, and
of how a “divine Being” produces “the greatest quantity of happiness”. In short, they are taught that the free
market as a “way of life” appealed to Adam Smith. However, again they are not
told that, Adam Smith distrusted the morality of the market as a morality for
society at large. He neither envisioned nor prescribed a capitalist society,
but rather a “capitalist economy within society, a society held together by
communities of non-capitalist and non-market morality.” That morality for
Smith, included-among other things- mutual neighborly love; an obligation to
practice justice; a norm of financial support for the government “in
proportion to [one’s] revenue”; and a tendency in human nature to derive
pleasure from the good fortune and happiness of other people. It is my intention to argue that, grave
economic injustice prompts conflict and it is one of the main reasons for the
continued local, national and international terrorism. Indeed, as it has been
noted, history has shown that poverty often leads to war and armed conflict.
If many members of a society suffer from poverty or perceive huge disparities
in wealth, they are likely to consider their situation unjust. Furthermore,
economic injustice is often linked to unmet human needs, which can give rise to
protracted or violent conflict. Individuals may come to view violence as the only way to address the
injustice they have suffered and ensure that their fundamental needs are met.
This is especially likely if no procedures are in place to correct the
situation or bring about retributive or restorative justice. Justice conflicts often involve unequal power relationships, where the rights
and needs of the weaker group are subordinated to those of the dominant group.
This sort of injustice is often rooted in ideologies of exclusion that are
deeply embedded in people's ways of thinking and difficult to alter. Such
power imbalances limit the bargaining power of the group that suffers from
injustice, and make it more likely that the group will go to extreme ends to
make its voice heard. Therefore, as history has shown, time
and again, it is futile to believe that one can beat terrorism through the
use of a brutal force alone. We must understand that, it was the brutal force
which created the terrorism to begin with. In this regard, the wise words of
Albert Einstein rings true, “The world cannot get out of its current state of
crisis with the same thinking that got it there in the first place”. Our ability to project justice onto the
world requires love, the unconditional search for absolute truth, the
capacity to engage in an intimate dialogue with the natural universe within.
Justice is all about empowerment. If you can empower yourself and others with
justice, then, sustainability and good globalization will follow. There is an urgent need about realizing
unselfish love in our globalizing world. Love is a joyful and full-hearted
affirmation of the well-being of others that can be expressed in the forms of
tolerance and forbearance, forgiveness and reconciliation, compassion and
care, and service to the neediest as well as to the nearest. When we
extend ourselves to others in this way we become happier and more content,
for paradoxically, in the giving of self lies the unsought discovery of self. Moreover,
given our desire to realize a globalization which is good for all, it should
be noted that, social transformation can occur only when unselfish love,
spiritual experience and a rigorous pursuit of justice are linked. As it has been noted, because the
yearning for justice is a natural substance running through humanity’s cells,
by denying it we only pour more fuel on guilt’s fire. While love of justice
can yield great harvests for individuals, communities, societies, and nature
as a whole, this same passion can surface as hatred and violence when it is
not given the freedom to permeate our lives and keep our inner longing alive. Whether caught in material or spiritual
poverty, those robbed of the right to justice, become justifiably angry and
hateful. These emotions, in turn, inflame vengeful actions that perpetuate
more violent reactions. This cycle of violence and misery, can be broken only
with justice. This is the truth into which we must tune. This is the dream we
must bring into being: this is Globalization for the Common Good. Paul Ormerod,
former Director of Economics at the Henley Centre for Forecasting, in his
book, The Death of Economics notes
that” Good economists know, from work carried out within their discipline,
that the foundations of their subject are virtually non-existent…Conventional
economics offer prescriptions for the problems of inflation and unemployment
which are at best misleading and at worst dangerously wrong…Despite its
powerful influence on public life, its achievements are as limited as those
of pre-Newtonian physics…it is to argue that conventional economics offers a
very misleading view of how the world actually operates, and it needs to be
replaced”. An equally accomplished economist, Mark
Lutz, in his book, Economics for the
Common Good, observes that “Modern economics is the science of
self-interest, of how to best accommodate individual behavior by means of
markets and the commodification of human
relations…In this economic world view, the traditional human faculty of
reason gets short-changed and degraded to act as the servant of sensory
desires. There is no room for logic of human values and rationally founded
ethics. Human aspirations are watered down to skillful shopping behavior and
channeled into a stale consumerism. One would think that there must be an
alternative way to conceptualize the economy”. Therefore, what is
there to be done? Is there an alternative to this selfish, self-seeking,
neo-liberal, economic/money-only globalization? To this end, I
recommend the practical vision and mission of Globalisation
for the Common Good. Globalization for
the Common Good means the promotion
of ethical, moral and spiritual values – which are shared by all religions –
in the areas of economics, commerce, trade and international relations. It
emphasizes personal and societal virtues. It calls for understanding and
collaborative action – on the part of civil society, private enterprise, the
public sector, governments, and national and international institutions – to
address major global issues. Globalization for the common good is predicated
on a global economy of sharing and community, grounded in an economic value
system whose aim is generosity and the promotion of a just distribution of
the world’s goods, which are divine gifts. Globalization for the Common Good is
not about charity. It is not about collecting money. It is about justice. To
know justice and to serve it, is to feel the pain of, and to become one with
the sufferer; is to ask fundamental questions about the roots of injustice
and to fight for their eradication. Today’s global problems are not economic
or technological only. The solutions are not more economic growth,
privatization or trade liberalization. What the world needs is a Spiritual
Revolution, where I, I, me, me, culture is replaced with we and us culture.
Globalization for the Common Good is that needed culture: the culture of
solidarity and oneness with the poor, suppressed, marginalized and excluded.
Globalization for the Common Good is for the practice of Economics of
Compassion, Economics of Kindness and Economics of Solidarity. These kinds of
economics can only be practiced by people who are compassionate and kind.
Globalization for the Common Good is the way to build a world that is just,
free and prosperous. The Essential
Dimensions Of Globalization For The Common Good: The acknowledgement of God, Ultimate
Reality, or the One. Our lives are
grounded in an Ultimate Reality, the source of the sacredness of all life and
of the spiritual power, hope, and trust that we discover in prayer or
meditation, in word or silence, and in our striving for just relationships
with all existence. The investment of Spiritual Capital. The most powerful way for faith and spiritual
communities to influence beliefs, norms and institutions is through prophetic
voice and public action. Highly visible faith and interfaith affirmation of
the great spiritual truths of peace, justice, and the sacredness of the Earth
and all life can make a tremendous contribution to Globalization for the
Common Good. Action and service by spiritual and faith communities and groups
can provide a vital source of inspiration and energy for the healing of the
world. The practice of selfless Love. The most important point of convergence shared by
the world’s great spiritual traditions is to be found in the practice and
power of selfless love for all humanity. It is the wellspring of the best
hope for a better future. The cultivation of interfaith
Dialogue and Engagement. It is
absolutely vital that religious and spiritual communities come together with
one another in honest and open dialogue. It is also essential that these
communities enter into dialogue with secular groups, organizations and
governments working for a better world. Religious and spiritual communities –
in mutual respect and partnership – must engage the critical issues that face
the planetary community as the 21st century unfolds. The nurturing of cultures of Peace. True cultural evolution is perhaps best measured in
the growing rejection of violent approaches to conflict resolution in favour of the cultivation of the infrastructures of
forgiveness, reconciliation and peace. Our greatest contribution to the
future lies in ensuring that our children grow to maturity in cultures of
peace. The struggle for Justice. Justice is the heart of all creation. It is the
profound feeling of oneness with all other beings in the universe. Today, it
finds its most vital expression in social and economic fairness, concern for
others and the vigorous defence of human rights. The realization of Gender
Partnership. Challenging the
assumptions and infrastructures of patriarchy is essential to cultural
evolution. Women and men, living and working together in harmony and equity,
can build stronger, more creative religious communities and societies. The path of Sustainability. In this rapidly changing world, our reverence for
the Earth will determine the fate of the entire community of planetary life.
This deep, visionary and unconditional caring for what is yet to come, is the
love of life embedded in ecological sustainability. The commitment to Service. Service is our link to spirit. Personal action for
a better world is the discernable manifestation of the divine in the human.
The essence of service is the grace of giving. We give because giving is how life
begins and how it continues. This process will enhance personal
responsibility for the common good. Globalization for the Common Good
affirms that economics is, above all, concerned with human well-being and
happiness in society and with care for the Earth. This cannot be separated
from moral and spiritual considerations. The idea of a “value-free” economics
is spurious. It demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of what it means to
be a human being. We affirm our conviction that genuine interfaith
dialogue and cooperation is a significant way of bringing the world together.
It is indispensable to the creation of the harmonious global culture needed
to build peace, justice, sustainability and prosperity for all. The call for
Globalization for the Common Good is an appeal to our essential humanity. It
engages the most pressing concerns of peoples the world over. Globalization for the Common Good, by
addressing the crises that face us all, empowers us with humanity,
spirituality and love. It engages people of
different races, cultures and languages, from a wide variety of backgrounds,
all committed to bringing about a world in which there is more solidarity and
greater harmony. This spiritual ground for hope at this time of wanton
destruction of our world, can help us to recall the ultimate purpose of life
and of our journey in this world. Dr. Kamran Mofid- was awarded a doctorate in economics from the University of
Birmingham, U.K in 1986. In 2001 he received a Certificate in Education in
Pastoral Studies from ISLAMIC NONVIOLENCE AND
NONVIOLENCE IN ISLAM
Sezai Ozcelik Institute for Conflict Analysis
and Resolution 3330 Blvd., (703)993-1300 sezaiozcelik@gmail.com http://www.geocities.com/tatarkirim This
paper will examine the Islamic contributions in the areas of peace,
nonviolence, and social change. My intention is to present the range of ideas
that characterize both historical and contemporary Islamic thoughts in terms
of peace and nonviolence. There is a need for a reinterpretation and
redefinition of the Islamic medieval theory and for the application of the
Islamic concepts to contemporary events. The
world Islam, which means submission, is a derivative of the word salaam
meaning peace. It is the religion of peace. The Qur’an emphasizes that peace is
a basic Islamic value. The value of peace manifests itself in the messages of
the Qur’an.
It treats peace the desired way as well as a value or reward for
righteousness. The Qur’an
describes Islam as the abode of peace: “And Allah summons to the abode of
peace, and leads whom He wills to the straight path” (10:1). Islam is peace
with God, peace with man, and peace with one’s own self. Moreover, the Muslim
greeting consists of the word salaam
(peace). Muslims greet each other by wishing and/or praying for peace for
each other- Assalamu Alaykum.
(May Peace be upon you)! It is a practice based on the Qur’an. The Qur’an states that the greeting
of those who are righteous and have been admitted to the heavens is “Peace!”
(14:23). It is important to reinterpret and redefine Islamic concepts such as
jihad (sacred struggle), qital (fighting), sabr (patience), adl (justice), umma (community),
sulha
(reconciliation), hijra
(exodus), diversity, and tolerance for understanding Islamic peace and
nonviolence. These concepts will be
examined below. There
are Islamic concepts in consonance with peace. For instance, the Qur’an attaches
great importance to patience (sabr). Patience implies reaction, whereas impatience
implies a violent response. The word sabr (patience)
exactly express the notion of nonviolence as it is understood in modern
times. It has been pointed out that the incident of Hijra (exodus) was a nonviolent
act that avoids a conflict. The Hijra (exodus) is an example of withdrawal and
non-cooperation as a protest and the practice of escaping from repression.
Moreover, throughout his life, the Prophet Muhammad never separated from the
path of peace, and nonviolent struggle except when God (Allah) ordered him to
engage in war on specific occasions- Badr, Uhud, and Hunayn. The Qur’an is a strong advocate of peace but permits Muslims
to fight to protect their faith, their freedom, their lands, and their
property. When means of peaceful change are pursued, violence is used as the
last resort. The Qur’an
forbids Muslims from initiating aggression or causing fitna (mischief, rioting), on
earth and exhorts them to make peace with their enemies if they are inclined
towards peace. Second,
the Islamic tradition connects peace with justice and peace should help the
mankind to create justice in the world. Peace, therefore, becomes a means to
create a just social order. In this sense, justice is the goal of life and
peace is the form of justice. The personal and collective struggle to build
justice on earth is the essence of jihad.
The objective of war, therefore, is neither to propagate Islam, nor is it to
gain territory for the Islamic state. Rather, the war aims to establish and
assure justice and to annihilate oppression and tyranny. Peace in Islam does
not mean the absence of war, but the absence of oppression and tyranny. Islam
considers that perpetual peace can only be attained when justice prevails.
Islam, therefore, allows war against regimes that prevent people from
choosing their ideals and practicing their beliefs (Safi,
1996, p.43). Islam
also stresses the importance of positive peace (the absence of structural
violence). It is a responsibility of the individuals as well as the state to
provide distributive justice and social welfare. This principle has created
one of the five “pillars of faith” in Islam. It is the duty of the Muslims to
pay a tax on surplus wealth (zakat) to the society and the state for the improvement of
the conditions of the poorest members in the society. In
his 23 year of Prophethood, the Prophet Muhammad
(S.A.V) spent the initial 13 years in Following
the Hijra (exodus) of the Islamic Prophet and
his supporters in the year 622, the first Islamic community (umma) was established in The
Meccan period was totally based on nonviolent
resistance and the virtues of patience (sabr), and steadfastness. In
the Medinan period, Muslims established the first
Islamic state and community (umma), and jihad
moved from the nonviolent resistance to an armed struggle. During the Meccan period, the Qur’an has mostly dealt with
the spiritual issues and ordered the jihad
from the heart and the mouth. Also, during this period, the Prophet showed no
inclination toward the use of force in any form, even for self-defense. He
followed a policy described as nonviolent resistance in spite of escalating
physical attacks directed at his followers and at him personally. The Prophet
insisted that the use of force was a last resort. He even ordered the most
vulnerable Muslims to seek refuge in One
of the Islamic ideas about peace is related to Islamic universalism and
Muslim solidarity. Because the Muslims constitute a political community (umma),
modernist thinkers suggest that there is some degree of transnational
cooperation among Muslims. Although they accept the idea that there may be
territorial states in international system, it is still be possible to create
a “Muslim League of Nations” that would be helpful in establishing a peaceful
co-existence between Islamic states. The existence of the Organization of the
Islamic Conference (OIC) that consists of fifty states and other
multinational Islamic organizations is an example of the Islamic universality
and solidarity. Another
idea in the Islamic tradition about peace is tolerance and diversity.
Although Islam emphasizes the importance of the order, similarities, and
solidarity within the Muslims, it also advocates diversity and tolerance. In
the earlier Meccan verses, the
question of faith was decided by the right of free choice: “To you
your religion and to me mine.” (109). Even though Muhammad failed to convert
pagan Meccans, Jews and Christians into Islam, the
following verses were sent: “If it had been your Lord’s will, they would have
all believed, all who are on earth. Will you then compel mankind against
their will to believe?” (10:99). However, this attitude shifted towards more
of an intolerant and exclusivist discourse in the Medina period where the Qur’an gave
permission to fight against non-Muslims, and even ordered not to take Jews
and Christians (5:51) as allies or protectors. Some scholars argue that the Qur’an emphasizes the separate character of
the Muslim community and distinguishes pagan Meccans,
Jews, and Christians in both the Meccan and Medinan periods. But the Medinan
chapters also contain verses about toleration: “Let there be no compulsion in
religion; truth stands out clear from error” (2:256). Also, the Prophet
himself has worked to sow the seeds of tolerance between Muslims and
non-Muslims. In one instance, the Prophet Muhammad found some scrolls of the
Torah among the things that the Muslims brought to him and he ordered that
they should be returned to the Jews. In another instance, the Prophet was
sitting when a Jewish funeral passed by. He stood up and his companions
followed his example. He said: “Is it not a human soul? If you ever see a
funeral, stand up.” (Abu-Laila, 1991, p. 66). Throughout
the human history, violence has been seen as the only effective means of
action in deep-rooted and protracted conflict situations. However, there is
another unwritten side in human history and that is nonviolent technique of
struggle. In his outstanding book, Gene Sharp indicates the basis of
nonviolence: “It is the belief that the exercise of power depends on the
consent of ruled who, by withdrawing the consent,
can control and even destroy the power of their opponent. In other words,
nonviolent action is a technique used to control, combat and destroy the
opponent’s power by nonviolent means of wielding power” (1973, p.4).
Non-violence should never be confused with inaction or passivity. It is not
inaction. It is action that is nonviolent. Non-violence is action in full
sense of the word. It is a forceful action that does not use violence. It is
a fact that non-violent activism is more powerful and effective than violent
activism. When human beings are faced with problems, they often resort to
violence in order to solve it. However, it is better to solve the problem by
peaceful means, avoiding violence, and confrontation. Nonviolent
techniques or nonviolent resistance includes public protest and persuasion,
speeches, petitions, and symbolic acts; many forms of social, political, and
economic non-cooperation or withdrawal and renunciation, such as refusal to
pay taxes or obey unjust laws, strikes, and boycotts to improve conditions or
gain greater power; as well as intervention and the use of independent
political institutions, or establishing ‘parallel’ organs of government.
These means of struggle involve protest and persuasion, challenge and
repression, strategy and discipline (Sharp, 1973, p.117-445). The
religion of Islam seeks for social change and justice through nonviolent
means if possible. It is believed that nonviolence is a norm and rule and
violence is an exception in the Islamic peace paradigm. Satha-Anand
claims that jihad is considered as
the sixth pillar of Islam and it can be used against tyranny, oppression, and
injustice with the nonviolent means (1993, p.9). Wahid believes that the
unity of umma
creates a sense of collectivity for the Islamic nonviolent action and
promotes the solidarity against oppressors (1993). Islam also balances the
unity of Islamic community with equality, common purpose, and brotherhood
with the encouragement of the pluralism and tolerance. Because
of Islam’s commitment toward social and political justice through opposing
injustice, corruption, and repression, Islam introduces active nonviolence in
its institutions and practices. For example, fasting can be used for both the
implementations of religious duty, and protest, boycott, and symbolic action
(Crow, 1998, p.12). Also, the Friday prayer, the idea of the umma, and the jihad can be applied for communal
purification, discipline and education in the nonviolent struggle. Zakat and waqf
(charitable endowment) promote social justice and positive peace. Moreover,
the concepts of reconciliation (sulha), forgiveness (afw), and patience (sabr) are
important elements in the Islamic religion and practice for the active
exercise of nonviolence (Ibid, Ozcelik, 1998). However,
many Muslims criticize nonviolence as a foreign concept and believe that
there is a lack of theological and cultural bases about nonviolence in
Islamic tradition. One of the Muslim scholars who has
taken a bold position about nonviolence in Islam is Jawdat
Said. In his work about the two sons of Adam, Cain and Abel, Said shows us
how God praised non-violent action. Cain, who wants to be accepted by God was
rejected by Him and resorted to a death threat against his brother. While the
other son, Abel was accepted by God and he responded to the death threat by
saying: “If you stretch out you hand against me to kill me, I shall not
stretch out my hand against you to kill you” (Qur’an, 5:28). Then Cain killed
Abel and lost God’s grace and mercy and became remorseful. This nonviolent
peaceful stand on the part of Abel is similar to the idea in Christianity
about turn the other cheek. This stance announces that human beings are
capable of resisting violence by nonviolence, and of transforming a violent
person into a remorseful one. Said points out that even self-defense is
prohibited by the Qur’an
and when people are faced with the aggressive hostility against them, they
should behave like Abel, the son of Adam! The Prophet said to his companions:
“Be as the Son of Adam!” Said also concludes that this nonviolent strategy is
not only a doctrine of the Prophet Muhammad, but also for the other
Messengers. In other words, Said claims that the Prophetic paradigm -Abel’s
abnegation of violence in the face of Cain’s murderous assault- is very
important and asserts that even violence in self-defense is morally
unjustifiable. (1998, p.5-8). Other
scholars enumerate why nonviolent jihad
(struggle) is necessary in Islam: n
Nonviolent
resistance is a weapon against the status quo; n
Nonviolent
political struggle is not pacifism, but active pacifism; n
It is more
appropriate long-term solutions; n
It evokes
sympathy and support for just causes; n
It is the
surest way to build psychological strength; n
It is the
weapon of the strong; not the weak; n
Oppressors
fear nonviolent struggle more than violent resistance (Crow and Grant, 1990,
p.79-85). The remarkable work of Abdul Ghaffar
Khan (1890-1988) presented an example for Islamic nonviolence. Although the Pathans faced executions, jail and persecution for years,
they used jihad (sacred struggle)
for peace. Abdul Ghaffar Khan was the leader of the
Pathans (or Pashtuns)
tribe in North India (today Apart from this first modern nonviolent resistance
example in Islam, there have been many cases in Muslim and Arab worlds: Egypt
(1919-1922), Peshawar Pathan (Pashtun)
Resistance (1930), Palestine General Strike (1936), Iraq Uprising (1948), Pattani Resistance in Thailand (1975), Iran Revolution
(1978-1979), Golan Druze Resistance (1981-1982), Defense of Al-Aqsa
Mosque-Jerusalem, Sudan Insurrection (1985), Palestinian nonviolent
resistance-Intifada
or “shaking off” (1987-89), Albanian National Movement in Kosovo (1989-1994).
(Bennett, 1990, p.41-57), Grant (1990, p.59), Biberaj,
1997, p.294). In
conclusion, while the Qur’an
does not prescribe an explicit ethic of nonviolence and peace, neither does
it give higher value to actions of violence. In the Qur’an, there are no consistent
or unequivocal general concepts for determining war, peace, and nonviolence.
Each Qur’anic verse is related to some specific
historical events. Thus, there are Qur’anic verses
that call for nonviolence, while others call for war. This is not a
contradiction, but a reflection of specific historical situations. For
example, where most Meccan verses focus on
spiritual issues, after the Hijra (migration) to References
Abu-Laila, Muhammed. (1991) “Islam
and Peace”, The Islamic Quarterly, vol.35,
no.1, First Quarter: 1991, 55-69. Bennett, Brad. (1990) “Arab-Muslim Cases of Nonviolent
Struggle”, in Arab Nonviolent Political
Struggle in the Middle East, Ralph E. Crow, et.al.,
Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 41-59. Biberaj, Elez.
(1997) “Kosova, Albanian National Movement”, in
Protest, Power & Change: An Encyclopedia of Nonviolent Action
from Act-up Women’s Suffrage”, Powers and Vogele,
eds., Crow, Karim D. (1998) Nonviolence
and Islam, A Round-Table Workshop Held February 14th 1997 at the Crow Ralph and Philip Grant. (1990) “Questions and Controversies
about Nonviolent Struggle in the Middle East”, in Arab Nonviolent Political Struggle in the
Middle East, Ralph E. Crow, et.al., Boulder,
CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 75-91. Doutgtherty James E. and Robert
L. Jr. Prfaltzgraff. (1996) Contending Theories of International
Relations: A Comprehensive Survey, Easwaran, Eknath. (1997) “Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan”, in Protest, Power & Change: An Encyclopedia of Nonviolent Action from Act-up Women’s
Suffrage”, Powers and Vogele, eds., Flinders, Timothy. (1990) “The Good Fight-Badshah
Khan, the Frontier Gandhi”, in Nonviolence
in Theory and Practice, Robert Holmes, ed., CO: Woolsworth
Publishing, 187-191. Grant, Philip. (1990) “Nonviolent Political Struggle in the
Occupied Territories”, in Arab Nonviolent
Political Struggle in the Middle East, Ralph E. Crow, et.al., Ozcelik, Sezai.
(1998). “Islam and Peace: A Dialogue”, Frontline,
Nonviolence International, vol.7, no.1, Summer 1998, 3-4. 42-43. Said, Jawdat. (1997) Peace and Nonviolence-in History and with
the Prophets’,
Conference
on “Islamic Values for Peaceful Change”, Satha-Anand, Chaiwat.
(1990) “The Nonviolent Crescent: Eight Theses on Muslim Nonviolent Action”, in Arab Nonviolent Political Struggle in the Middle East, Ralph E.
Crow, et.al., Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1990, 25-41. Sharp, Gene. (1973) The
Politics of Nonviolent Action, 3.vols., Wahiddudin, Khan. (1997) “Islam and Nonviolence” A Round-Table Workshop Held February 14th 1997 at the JOSHUA'S NAIL Uri Avnery September 17,2005 One day Joha,
the hero of popular Arab humor, sold his home. The price he demanded was
ridiculously low and he had only one condition: "on one of the walls
there is a nail that I am much attached to. I don't want to sell it."
The buyer readily agreed. Who cares about a nail? After some days, Joha
came to the house and hung his coat on the nail. After that he brought his
bed and started to sleep there. "The nail is so dear to me, that I can't
bear sleeping away from it," he explained. Another time he brought his
family to visit the nail and had a party there. In the end, the new owner
couldn't bear it anymore and bought the nail for a price many times higher
than he had paid for the home itself. Maybe the leaders of The story repeated itself in If one prefers a Polish story to an Arab
one, one can mention the lady who asked her dentist to take out all her
rotten teeth, except one - just to remind her how much it hurt. Now we have withdrawn from the Gaza
Strip. We have given up all the territory, driven out all the settlers,
demolished all the settlements. We have left only one nail on the wall: the
synagogues. These were not, God forbid, hallowed
buildings from antiquity, precious remnants from the past. Nothing but
buildings put up quite recently for praying and holding meetings, from which
all religious accessories had already been removed. The army proposed to
destroy them along with all the other houses there, and that is what the
government decided. But after the farce of the
"uprooting of the settlers" had come to an end, after the last
weeper had shed his tears on the shirt of a policeman in front of a TV
camera, after the last army officer had embraced a nationalist thug in
accordance with orders, the settlement rabbis suddenly remembered that the
synagogue buildings are sacred. They used God as a political instrument, as
they had done before with the babies. The Likud
ministers, who do not fear God the way they fear their party Central
Committee, changed their opinion with lightning speed and decided that it is
forbidden to destroy the synagogues. The government changed its position at
the last moment, without informing the Palestinian leadership and without
prior consultation with it. They did not even bother to inform the Supreme
Court, which had already ruled that the synagogues could be destroyed. That was a mean act, pure and simple. It
left the Palestinians on the horns of a dilemma: either to devote thousands
of soldiers to the guarding of empty buildings from here to eternity or let
the excited masses storm these hated symbols of the occupation that had
turned their lives into hell. As far as That was not the only nail that the
Israeli Joha left in the wall. Another nail was the
demolition of the Rafah border crossing. That also
came as a surprise, without prior dialogue with the Palestinians. Since the
Israeli government claims that the occupation of the Gaza Strip has come to
an end and it is relieved of its responsibility for the million and a half
inhabitants there, it means that we have closed a border between two foreign
territories: the Gaza Strip and This, of course, was not effective for a
single moment. What happened resembled the events after the fall of the
Berlin wall that had cut the two parts of the city off from each other, just
like the wall Israel built in Rafah: relatives who
had not seen each other for decades ran and embraced and multitudes streamed
to the other side in order to see, shop cheaply and vent their excitement. If the Egyptians had intervened
violently, they would have shown themselves to be enemies of the Palestinian
people. If the Palestinian policemen had shot at their own people, they would
have lost any moral authority. It is clear that no Israeli iron wall can cut And there are more nails: the Now that the "disengagement"
is finished, as it seems, one can pass unequivocal judgment: the entire
operation was incredibly stupid. It was foolish because it was
unilateral. It did not make cooperation possible, except on the lowest level
of a cease-fire while the withdrawal was going on. The withdrawal could have
been used for the building of psychological and political bridges between the
two peoples. It could have convinced the If the whole operation had been carried
out from the beginning in the spirit of a dialogue between equals, binding
agreements could have been reached concerning the crossing between the Strip
and Instead, everything was done in an
atmosphere of distrust and enmity. Israeli officers and politicians - without
exception - continued to behave and talk like military governors, using the
language of threats and arrogance. Their behavior proved that the occupation
is not really over - not in The Palestinian Joha
is a cunning fellow. The Israeli Joha is just
crude. ABBAS AND THE LAME DUCK Uri Avnery From:"Abbas
and the Lame Duck" October 10, 2005 A twenty-minute drive is all that
separates the Israeli Prime Minister's office in The day before yesterday, Ariel Sharon
declared for the who-knows-how-many-th time, that he had cancelled his planned meeting with Mahmoud Abbas. The reason: Abbas "is not doing anything against
terrorism". A routine pretext, but it seems that this time the act
itself is not mere routine.
The long campaign for the
elimination of Mahmoud Abbas
is entering its final phase. Much to the regret of Sharon & Co.,
Abbas cannot be "eliminated" the usual
way, as were Sheikh Ahmad Yassin and many other
Palestinian leaders. In the case of Abbas, it is
not even allowed to use the word "elimination" - an official term
of the Israeli army, taken straight from the Mafia lexicon. The ascent of Abbas
after the elimination of Yassir Arafat - still
shrouded in mystery - turned on a red light in That made a cautious approach
necessary. Carefully concealing his anger, Therefore, This week, the style was sharpened. No
more pity for poor Abbas, doing his best and
failing, but an outright attack on him. Abbas, it
is being said, doesn't really want to put an end to terrorism. The news pages
of all newspapers, from Maariv to Haaretz, were mobilized for this campaign. The radio and
television networks joined in with enthusiasm. At the same time, the violent confrontation
broke out again with full force. Who started it? Depends who is asked.
As always, each side declares that the new round began with an atrocity from
the other side. If one wants to, one can go back 120 years, to the first
stone thrown by a Palestinian shepherd at the first Jewish settler - or to
the first blow struck by the first Jewish settler on the head of a
Palestinian shepherd who had led his goats onto his field. As a matter of fact, the confrontation
has not stopped for a moment. The Palestinians did indeed declare a Tahidiya ("calm"), but that was only an
agreement among themselves. The Israeli army was no
party to it and continued with great vigor entering Palestinian towns and
villages, arresting "wanted" militants and killing some of them,
here and there. The new round started with the killing
of Luay Sa'adi, a
militant of the Islamic Jihad in the Tulkarm area,
who had already spent five of his 25 years in Israeli prisons. The army
described him as a very senior commander, a huge "ticking bomb".
The Jihad took up this ludicrous assertion with alacrity, because it
justified a major retaliation. In private, Palestinians said that he was just
a local activist. Either way: when It was confirmed with great speed. A Jihadist from a close-by Palestinian village carried out
a suicide bombing in the fruit market of the Israeli town Hadera,
five Israelis were murdered. (In the terminology used by all Israeli media,
as dictated from above, Israelis are always "murdered", while Arabs
"find their death", or, at most, are "killed".) The
village of the suicide bomber is separated from Hadera
by the high Separation Wall, but it seems that this did not hinder him.
Before his death, he was videoed declaring that he was taking revenge for the
killing of Sa'adi - disproving the army's
contention that the bombing had been prepared before the killing and had
nothing to do with it. As if it had only been waiting for this
outrage, the army went immediately into well-planned action. A choking
general blockade was imposed on the northern In the Gaza Strip, a parallel cycle
started. Out of solidarity with the While all over the world praise is
heaped on the "disengagement" and on Sharon, the Man of Peace, he
has launched a general offensive for the annexation of most of the Last week, all over the Palestinian
territories, the miserable living conditions were made even worse. That looks
like collective punishment, which is forbidden by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
But in reality, it was something worse: the aim is to sow despair among the
Palestinians, bring them to their knees, compel them to accept Sharon's diktat - to be content with 42% of
the West Bank (11% of pre-1948 Palestine) in several enclaves - and, ultimately,
to convince them to emigrate altogether. While attention is diverted by the
widespread military action, the settlements are being enlarged at a feverish
pace, and new settlements are springing up. The building of the Wall
continues vigorously, regardless of the Hadera
bombing which showed that its security value is doubtful. The dismantling of
the hundred "outposts" that were put up after 2001, as demanded by
the Road Map, is not even on the agenda. All the army did was to remove five
new "outposts" set up this week, with much mutual shoving and hitting,
without using tear gas, salt or rubber bullets or stun grenades, which are
seemingly reserved for Israeli peace activists. The demand by the Quartet emissary,
James Wolfenson, to open the absolutely vital
passage between the Gaza Strip and the For Nadav Shragai Source: Haaretz www.haaretz.com October 10, 2005 Distributed by the
Common Ground News Service with permission to reprint The security fence
enveloping Two studies conducted
recently by the Jerusalem Institute for the Study of Israel reveal that the
fence has hit hardest with regard to employment. Some 52 percent of those
interviewed said they had difficulties reaching their places of work or that
they had lost them entirely. Others reported that their businesses were hard
hit, and that customers had left. Some 44 percent of those interviewed said
they had stopped attending prayers at the The fence has caused
the collapse of commercial centers that were situated along the capital's
periphery, at places like a-Ram and the road to Bethany, and it has also had
an effect on the commercial centers of East Jerusalem itself, particularly on
the market inside the Old City market and on the market outside the Damascus
Gate and on the shops along the major shopping street of Salah
a-Din. Many people said they used to
go to prayers in the The two hospitals in Yisrael
Kimche, Maya Hoshen and Amnon Ramon, who have studied and followed the
developments in East Jerusalem over the years, propose that Israeli policy
planners take into account the economic, spiritual and social centrality of
Jerusalem in the lives of West Bank residents. The researchers believe that East
Jerusalem's ties with the The team of experts
recommends that the government adopt a policy that requires heavy resources.
They propose that it create new work places in Nadav Shragai writes for Haaretz. NONVIOLENCE IN Arun Gandhi Grandson of Mahatma Gandhi Reprinted with permission from the spring 2005 issue of Parables the newsletter for CityQuest. During my visit to However, in the context of the present,
if I believe that
the philosophy of nonviolence (and I insist it is a philosophy and not a
strategy) is a tool for the victim and not the aggressor. Let me
reiterate that an aggressor would not be an aggressor if he or she believed
in nonviolence. I am reminded of the words expressed by Napoleon, a
master at warfare who said, "The general who holds the initiative wins
the war." That is what I tried to impress upon
President Arafat during my talk with him and with the people of Out of understandable frustration the
Palestinians have resorted to the kind of violence that has brought terrible
violence into urban streets and to the doorsteps of innocent people. As
a result, the Palestinians have opened themselves to being branded as
"terrorists" and they have earned very little sympathy around the
world. There is no doubt that governmental
administrations around the world have devised sophisticated ways of dealing
with nonviolent activists, but that is the nature of the culture of violence.
The oppressor must find new ways of persecution through violence to maintain
control through fear of repercussions. The more fear one can generate the
greater the control. The philosophy of nonviolence has not worked
because not only has it been mutilated but very rarely does one make any
significant attempt to take it seriously enough to apply the basic principles
of nonviolence. I disagree with those who say
nonviolence is a strategy. If one needs an engineer to accomplish a
specific project you do not look for the needed talent in a medical school. Today
we respond with violent responses because we think, live, behave and respond
violently when faced with conflict. Correspondingly, therefore, if one has
to respond nonviolently it is essential that one lives, thinks, behaves and
acts nonviolently. Nonviolence cannot be practiced if a
person is filled with hate, anger, frustration and a desire to destroy. The
basis of nonviolence is that we recognize our adversary is wrong and we are
going to help educate them and change their way of thinking. That
appeal, as Gandhi demonstrated, can come only through self-suffering and sacrifice. This does not mean that we meekly submit
to injustice, but that we suffer the consequences of a moral stand against
injustice. This is why it is essential for the Palestinians to find the
Gandhi within them and through their experience reveal to the Israelis and to
the entire world beyond the "Gandhi" within them. MAKING THE UNIED
NATIONS A BETTER BROKER OF PEACE Ibrahim A. Gambari Source: The Daily Star(www.dailystar.com), October 8, 2005 Distributed by the
Common Ground News Service with permission to republish One of the least
controversial provisions adopted at the recent U.N. Summit in New York was
also one of the most promising - in fact, it could help end some of the
world's deadliest armed conflicts. World leaders endorsed plans by Secretary
General Kofi Annan to
strengthen the United Nations as an honest broker of peace accords. The Summit's call for
enhanced U.N. mediation and "good offices" capabilities is a
recognition of the critical role impartial third parties, including the
United Nations, have played in forging peace in many situations around the
world. Third parties can be especially helpful when years - even decades - of
killing have bred depths of hatred that simply cannot be bridged, unless
outsiders help the opposing parties to build communication and trust. The pursuit of peace is an
often-hesitant dance. Experience has shown it can take three to tango. At any given time, the
U.N. chief has dozens of special envoys deployed worldwide, providing good
offices on his behalf. Though they are active today in places like Third-party mediation
is an increasingly crowded field, with governments, regional and non-governmental
organizations, as well as some well-known individuals getting involved. The
United Nations has no monopoly. However, the United Nations - representing,
as it does, the international community in the broadest sense - can bring
unparalleled legitimacy to the task. U.N. mediators helped forge
seminal peace agreements in In some cases the secretary
general gets personally involved - as when Annan's
discreet good offices helped to avert fighting between In other instances,
as in Though it can claim
some notable contributions by some highly gifted diplomats, U.N. peacemaking
still needs to be enhanced. Envoys should be deployed with more than their
guts, guile and personal experience. The organization needs, for example, to
develop an in-house base of knowledge about peacemaking, and a better system
for selecting and training mediators for the challenges they will face in the
field. With the World Summit
behind us, work can now get under way to turn its broad endorsement of
strengthened U.N. peacemaking into specific actions. Proposals will need to
be developed and discussed both within the U.N. Secretariat and with the
member states of the organization. A high-level panel of
experts commissioned by the secretary general has proposed that the United
Nations build a team of experienced mediation professionals to support its
envoys in the field. One could imagine them providing advice on everything
from mediating techniques to how parties can navigate the kinds of
excruciating issues - dealing with war crimes, for example - that arise
repeatedly in peace negotiations. The panel also found
that the peacemaking department within the United Nations (the Department of
Political Affairs, which I head) has been grossly under-resourced, and should
be strengthened, in part, to better support U.N. envoys and mediation in
general. We cannot know when the next opening for U.N. peacemaking will
arise. There are a number of longstanding civil wars where some kind of
third-party mediation may eventually be called for - whether by the United
Nations alone or in partnership with others. We need to be ready
when our dance card is called. Ibrahim A. Gambari is United Nations Undersecretary-General for
Political Affairs. WAR IS A STATE OF Uri Avnery Conference on "Raising Children without Violence" Lecture in Some years ago I talked with a young
Israeli writer. I was struck by the fact that in spite of being very
successful and acclaimed by the critics, and that at
a relatively early age, she somehow exuded an air of insecurity. When I asked her about it, she broke
down. "I never told this to anybody. My whole childhood was hell. I did
not know that both my parents had been in This is violence - not physical
violence, but violence nonetheless. Many Israeli children have experienced
it, even when the State of Israel became more and more powerful, and Security
- with a capital S - became its fetish. We, Israelis and Palestinians, are
living in a permanent war. It has lasted now for more than 120 years. A fifth
generation of Israelis and Palestinians has been born into the war, like
their parents and teachers. Their whole mental outlook has been shaped by the
war from earliest childhood. Every day of their lives, violence has dominated
the daily news. In many ways, the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict is unique. Putting a complex historical process in its simplest
terms, it goes like this: 120 years ago, many Jews in But The historian Isaac Deutscher
has described the conflict in this way: A person lives on an upper floor of a
building that has caught fire. To save himself, he jumps from the window and
lands on a passerby below, injuring him grievously. Between the two, a mortal
enmity ensues. Who is in the right? Every war creates fear, hatred,
distrust, prejudices, demonization.
All the more so a war lasting for generations. Each of the two peoples has
created a narrative of their own. Between the two narratives - the Israeli
and the Palestinian - there is not the slightest resemblance. What an Israeli
child and a Palestinian child learn about the conflict from their earliest
years - at home, in kindergarten, in school, from the media - is totally
different. Let's take an Israeli child. Even if his
parents or grandparents were not Holocaust survivors, he learns that Jews
have been persecuted throughout history - indeed, he learns that history is
nothing but an endless story of persecution, inquisition and pogroms, leading
to the terrible Shoah. I once read the reports of a class of
Israeli schoolchildren, who had been asked to write down their conclusions
after visiting This feeling of being the eternal victim
still persists, even after we have become a powerful nation in the State of
Israel. It is deeply imbedded in our consciousness. Already in kindergarten, and then every
year in school, a Jewish child in Israel experiences an annual series of national
and religious holidays (there is no real difference between the two)
commemorating events in which Jews were victims and had to fight for their
lives: - Hannuka,
commemorating the fight of the Maccabees against
the Greek oppressors - Purim, the victory over
the Persians who tried to exterminate all the Jews - Passover, the flight of
the Israelites from slavery in - Remembrance day, devoted
to the Israeli soldiers killed in our many wars against the Arabs - Independence Day, our
desperate fight for survival in the 1948 war in which our state was founded; - Holocaust Day - The 9th of the month Av,
when the Jewish temple was twice destroyed, once by the Babylonians and five
centuries later by the Romans - Jerusalem Day, when we
conquered the Eastern part of the city, and much more, in the Six-day war. - Only Yom Kippur is a
purely religious holiday, but in our mind it irrevocably connected with the
terrible war of 1973. On each of these occasions, year after
year, there are special classes explaining its meaning, imprinting its
significance. The climax is the Seder on the eve of Passover, commemorating
the exodus from In the mind of the child, all these
events become intermingled. My wife Rachel, who for many years has been a
teacher of the first and second elementary school classes, says that the
children do not really understand who came before whom - the Romans or the
British, the Babylonians or the Arabs. The cumulative effect of this is a
world-view in which Jews at every period in every country had been threatened
with annihilation and had to fight for their lives. The whole world is,
always was and always will be, "against us". God - whether he
exists or not - has promised us our country, and no
one else has any right to it. This includes the Palestinian Arabs, who have
lived there for at least 13 centuries. With such an attitude, it is hard to
make peace. Now let's take a Palestinian child. What
does he learn? - That they belong to the
Arab people, who had a glorious empire and a flourishing civilization in the
Middle Ages, when Europeans were still barbarians, and who taught Europe
science and brought it enlightenment. - That the barbarian
Crusaders perpetrated a horrendous bloodbath in - That the Palestinians
were humiliated and oppressed for many centuries by rapacious foreigners,
first the Turks and then the European colonialists, who brought the Zionists
to Palestine in order to suppress all hope of the Arabs achieving freedom in
their own countries. - That in the great Nakba (calamity) of 1948, half the Palestinian people
were driven out of their homes and country by the Zionists, and that since
1967 all the Palestinians have been vegetating either as refugees or as
victims of an endless, cruel occupation.
Every Palestinian child grows up with a
deep feeling of resentment and humiliation, the feeling of being the victim
of a terrible injustice, able to redeem his people only by violent struggle,
heroism and self-sacrifice. How to make peace between two peoples in
the grip of two contradictory, seemingly irreconcilable, narratives?
Certainly not by diplomatic maneuvers. These can ease the situation
temporarily, but cannot in themselves put an end to the conflict. The history
of the Peace is a state of mind. The main task
of peace-making is mental: to get the two peoples, and each individual, to
see their own narrative in a new light, and - even more important - to
understand the narrative of the other side. To internalize the fact that the
two narratives are two sides of the same coin. This is mainly an educational
undertaking. As such, it is incredibly difficult, because it first has to be
absorbed by the teachers, who themselves are imbued with one or the other of
these world-views. Let me tell you a little story. Rachel
was teaching her class the Biblical story of how Abraham bought a plot in Rachel explained to her children that
that is the way business is conducted between the Bedouin in the desert even
now. It is crass to come straight out with the price,
one has to offer it first as a gift. Thus the transaction becomes polite and
life more civilized. In the intermission, Rachel asked the
teacher of the parallel class how she had explained the chapter to her
pupils. "Simple," she answered, "I told them that this is a
typical example of Arab hypocrisy. You can't believe a word they say. They
offer you a gift and than demand a high price!" For peace to become
possible, you need to change a whole mentality. That is what my friends and
I, in the Israeli Peace Bloc Gush Shalom, are trying to do. Is this possible
at all? Speaking here, in the center of what
used to be the capital of 2-STATE SOLUTION ON LIFE SUPPORT Rafi Dajani Source: Distributed by the Common Ground News Service with
permission to republish. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has
added one more milestone to its history: the For Israelis, the evacuation of settlers
was a clear acknowledgement of the end of the dream of Greater Israel. The
settler movement engendered sympathy and exhibited some hooliganism, but
proved to be no match to a determined government. The northern On the Palestinian side, the leadership
delivered on a peaceful withdrawal, and militant groups were able to exercise
discipline in not firing on evacuating Israelis. In addition, two competing
dynamics emerged among Palestinians. The first is that Beyond affecting internal political
equations, disengagement signaled the advent of a new paradigm of political
relations between Israelis and Palestinians. This paradigm is one of
unilateralism, and replaces the failing paradigm of negotiations for an end
of conflict and resolving of final-status issues. The challenge is ensuring that Israelis
and Palestinians meanwhile not move so far from the basic tenets of a
two-state solution as to make it impossible to move back to political
negotiations for a final settlement. For that to happen, unilateralism must
come with an expiration date, as it falls far short of meeting Palestinian
aspirations for freedom and statehood. In addition, both sides must refrain
from actions that foreclose a two-state solution, a solution that remains,
despite its mounting challenges, the only achievable and internationally
sanctioned solution to the conflict. More specifically, what is needed from
Israel is a complete cessation of targeted killings and mass arrests, a
freezing of settlement activity and the encirclement of East Jerusalem,
granting Gaza unimpeded access to outside markets, facilitating the
re-equipping of the Palestinian security forces, and giving Palestinians the
political breathing space to sort out their upcoming legislative elections.
Excluding Hamas is counterproductive, enhancing Hamas in the eyes of the Palestinian people and allowing
it to retain the veto power it currently has as a political actor outside the
official political process. Progress on these issues will strengthen
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas
and positively impact moderates competing in upcoming Palestinian legislative
elections. Empowering moderate Palestinians is in the national interest of For Palestinians, addressing the
internal Palestinian security situation remains a critical issue, one that
holds the greatest potential to derail eventual statehood. Militant groups
must cease all violent activity -- especially rocket fire, but including
others such as kidnappings and vigilante actions. Such activities are
immoral, ineffective and destructive to Palestinian national interests and
prospects for statehood. The latest militant group pledge to end all attacks
from Asking Abbas to
disarm his opponents without providing him the tools to do so and without
giving him and his people a political horizon is neither realistic nor
achievable. However, the Palestinian Authority can and should do more, irrespective
of Israel, including preventing attacks on Israel and punishing those who
violate the truce, maintaining security on the border with Egypt, and keeping
weapons off the street. Active The fulfilling of these basic
responsibilities by these three major parties to the conflict will allow the
two-state solution to remain on life support until the time comes to
resuscitate it and move toward realizing the vision of two states, Israel and
Palestine, living side by side in peace. Raafat
(Rafi) A. Dajani is the
executive director of the Washington-based American Task Force on THE WEST BANK CONNECTION Mark Rosenblum Source: The Forward
www.forward.com September 2, 2005 Distributed by the Common Ground News Service with
permission to republish Washington DC - President Bush was
right on the money when he lauded Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for
"having made a very tough decision" to carry out the evacuation of
settlements from Gaza and the northern West Bank, a bold choice of demography
(i.e., a Jewish state) over geography (i.e., the Land of Greater Israel).
Indeed, The president was also correct in saying
that, with But Bush was way off the mark when he
suggested that the establishment of better governance in Further, unless For example, Palestinian farm products
cannot be shipped from Finally, Gaza's ability to serve as a
testing ground for Palestinian institutions depends, in part, on the capacity
of the P.A. to point to a political horizon that gives the Palestinian people
confidence that if they do everything required of them, including the
rejection of violence and terrorism, they will be rewarded with an
independent state in both territories. For this reason, the Road Map cannot
be deferred. Bush should be pressuring the
Palestinians to meet their security responsibilities under the Road Map
(especially with regard to terrorists), while at the same time pressing
Israel to live up to its Road Map obligations — removing settlement outposts
and freezing settlement growth in the West Bank. No one is suggesting that Bush certainly must tend to the local
needs of * Mark Rosenblum
is the founder and policy director of Americans for Peace Now. WHO WANTS PEACE? ISRAELIS NEED
DRASIC CHANGE TO APPROACH PEACE Muli Peleg Source: Ynetnews (www.ynetnews.com), November 13, 2005 Distributed by the Common Ground News Service with
permission to republish
The conflict with the Palestinians has
again reached a violent stage, and again –as it does every time the pendulum
swings from calm to the drunkenness of murder – each side blames the other
for the renewed conflict. Because both peoples, Israelis and Palestinians,
are exposed to the media and the rhetoric of their leaders, everyone is
ensnared in the trap of denial and self-deception that prevents us from
freeing ourselves from the devastating bear hug of the blood ritual. The
Palestinians have wrapped themselves in the language of occupation. This
prevents them from viewing the conflict in any other way and from adopting a
perspective that could help them understand Israeli sensitivities. Israelis,
for their part, have gathered together under the umbrella of
"security" and "fighting terror" and comfortably dug
themselves into the imagery of "the few against the many," and of
people searching for peace but continually coming up empty-handed. This
mutual failure to communicate cannot be conducted by cross-cultural media,
and no side can understand or investigate the touchy dynamics of the other
side. Failure to
understand Leaders on each side fail to understand
the intricacies and are not experts in peace or conflict resolution. They are
best qualified and most able to glorify violence and the rhetoric of anger.
Each time they speak, the power bases of each side
begin to shake. As a result, they begin to build reality and rationalize in
order to justify militant action and basing the legitimacy of their rule on
it. And the public experiences the fruit of this process and simply nods its
collective head. But here the collective Israeli-Palestinian vision ends, and
the real obstacle to solving the conflict is opened wide. Here begins the
difference between the two sides. The difference is extended on three
points of understanding: nature of the conflict, the meaning of justice and
understanding of peace. Israeli consciousness has failed completely on all
three points. Firstly, the nature of the conflict: This is not a symmetrical
conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, and Second is the feeling of injustice: The
acute feelings fuel support for those pushing to continue the conflict. As
long as we fail to address the motif of justice, no process will bring us to
an end of the conflict. Most efforts to resolve,
administrate or change the path of the conflict concentrate on restoring
peace and quiet. But restoring normative life is not possible without dealing
with the failures that originally caused normative life to dissipate in the
first place. Treating the symptoms of conflict is always easier than treating
the root causes, but it has short-term effects ˆ and occasionally even makes
things worse. Third, next to justice, the drive for
peace, noble and honorable as it may be, was always vaguely worded in Israeli
discussion. For it to be true and serious, it must be detailed, and Israelis
must understand exactly what long-lasting peace entails, what the
repercussions of peace are, and what feelings and what self-image it could
shatter. The popular Israeli claim, "who doesn‚t
want peace around here?" could turn out to be a lie, if and when the fog
clears and people understand just what the real cost involved is. Bitter,
sobering pill None of these claims are pleasant to
the Israeli ear. The demand for reciprocity, desire to bring the conflict to
an end and the drive for peace were always, and will always be ways of
purification and easing of the conscience for many of our best and brightest.
It's very easy to fall apart over these claims and to place the collar of
failure on the other guy. But in order to stop the slaughter and to free both
peoples from the burden of violence, we require a drastic change in approach. This can only be accomplished by a deep
and fundamental internalization of these three points, and it is simply
unavoidable for Israelis to march further along the way, to extricate all of
us from the trap from which there is no exit, and from the illusion of
blaming the other. This will be a bitter pill to swallow, and it will not be
simple. Israelis, with the ongoing and active
support of governments and leaders, myths and justifications, self-mercy and
sacrifice psychology have built around themselves a thick labyrinth, that
protects them from this sobering up. Ten years ago, Yitzhak Rabin started to
cut away this thicket, but in doing so he aroused all the snakes against him. Dr. Muli Peleg is an expert on conflict resolution and political
violence at the Centre for Strategic Dialogue at CAN MEDIA TALK PEACE Mohammad Gohar Source: Common Ground News Service (www.commongroundnews.org),
November 17, 2005 Distributed by the Common Ground News Service with
permission to publish Arab-American relations have reached a
critical stage. Misconceptions, on both sides of the divide, threaten to
undermine the desires of mainstream citizens for peace, stability and
democratic progression. Mass media in the The time has come for a new localized
voice in media, committed to the production and support of sustained peace in
the region. Citizens in the Recent political trends in the region
have given broadcasters an opportunity to introduce greater professionalism
into their coverage. Governmental reform means more freedom for journalists
to fulfill their obligations as providers of information, context and
understanding. They can now execute stories faster, more accurately, and in
greater depth than before. They can even inform the region of political
developments once considered taboo by the establishment-progressive projects
such as the QUIZ Agreement, the withdrawal from Given this new framework, how can we
best promote peace itself as a fundamental right of all Arab citizens?
Political parties have an obligation to support peace initiatives, both in
their own communications departments, and by fostering a more open public
discussion of its value and necessity. This should not only be done in the
abstract, but peace must be incorporated into all categories of dialogue,
from economic growth, to foreign investment, to development projects, to
public infrastructure. Confrontational posturing must be abandoned, in
exchange for building a psychological linkage between peace and prosperity. Before this can happen, an accurate
study of popular opinion, with specific respect to the peace process, must be
conducted, providing a clear picture of audience viewpoints. This should be
done from the street, and must result in a thorough categorization based upon
age, gender, income brackets, social background and geography. One cannot
begin to persuade an audience without first knowing the audience. Based on
this gathered data, a team can formulate a new mechanism for approaching mass
media outlets and framing messages towards specific, target demographics. Without
the ability to target people with accuracy, words of peace will continue to
fall on deaf ears. Likewise, content must be crafted towards specific
platforms' satellite broadcasting, as an example, is a far different animal
from terrestrial radio, and simple re-versioning of material does not get the
message through. Different venues call for different approaches. In bringing this message to media
outlets, we must ask some crucial questions: Are the current public relations
apparatuses sufficient? Are we satisfied with the level of public response
we‚ve seen to the peace process? If not, perhaps
the time has come for a new, dedicated mechanism and vantage point from which
to build support. However, any new approach must take into full account the
diversity of media platforms facing Arab consumers now and in the immediate
future: satellite broadcasting, terrestrial television, radio broadcasts,
print journals, internet hubs including blogs and
news servers, mobile phone media platforms, and street advertisements. Only a
cross-media approach has a chance of achieving the kind of audience
penetration necessary for sustained peace building. We cannot discuss a fresh approach to
media, without raising the issue of finance. It is a well-reported fact that
terrorists and fundamentalist factions have invested far more capital in mass
media than their moderate counterparts have. As media becomes increasingly
privatized, the door is opened for investment from any source with desire and
capital. But without a counterbalancing influx of investment from the right
sources, viewpoints expressed throughout Pan-Arab media will continue to skew
towards counterproductive ideologies. Audiences in the To create an influx of private,
responsible media investment in the region, we must consider two phases.
Firstly, private media entrepreneurs will depend on startup assistance from Secondly, and more critical towards
creating a sustainable business model, a new mechanism of advertising revenue
must be introduced to the private media sector. The largest sources of
industrial advertising in the Mohammad Gohar
is the CEO of Video GLOBAL TO DO LIST TO COMBAT TERRORISM Maggie Mitchell Salem Source: Arab News
(www.arabnews.com), November 14, 2005 Distributed by the Common Ground News Service with
permission to republish Increasingly, it seems as though the
insane are running the asylum. Suspicion and distrust continue to overwhelm
global unity, stubbornness trumps common sense, and leaders‚ PR stunts not
only fail to win they actually succeed in offending the hearts and minds of
young people (more than 60 percent of the Middle East and South Asia). Yet,
despite all the doom and gloom, there are brief flashes of hope when you can
be lulled into thinking that perhaps those of sound mind will grow weary of
the constant abuse and suffering, resist their crazed captors and seize
control. Thursday was one of those days.
Thousands of Jordanians, venting their grief and united in anger took to the
streets to protest Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi,
whose Al-Qaeda in Al-Qaeda made a mistake in Global terrorism needs a global
response, not just conferences but coordinated action plans that require each
member to perform specific actions in defense of all. But to succeed, some
„sacred cows‰ of each country‚s domestic and foreign policy will have to be
sacrificed. Here is where the rational (dare I say realists?) have to triumph
over the reactionary. While there‚s certainly no guarantee
that any of the above is likely to happen any time soon, here‚s a 10-point
plan for rooting out Al-Qaeda or any other international affliction: (1) Take Islam
out of terror: Zarqawi and Osama Bin Laden need to
disguise their barbarity as „Islamic.‰ No one, not fellow Muslims and
certainly not Western leaders, should accept that label. Not a single
religion condones the deliberate murder of innocents. (2) (3) Values that inspire confidence and
trust: There‚s plenty of room for improvement in all countries. This global endeavour will demand each member nation agree to a basic
standard of civil and human rights, much like the 1975 Helsinki Accords which
countries behind the Iron Curtain signed to dialogue with Western European
nations. (4) Settling the (5) Rebranding (6)
Enfranchise peoples of the region: Democracy is about more than just
elections, is not a cure all and cannot be imposed by force. That said, more
and more young people have less and less to do, few opportunities for
employment, and are increasingly frustrated. They should be able to voice
their concerns, and not only in the mosque. Empower local governments to
tackle the problems of their communities, which should include forming or reinvigorating
municipal councils. (7) Your
passport is not a reason to discriminate: Whether Palestinian or Israeli,
American or Saudi, the same treatment should apply to all. A country’s
national security is ill-served by degrading prospective visitors, students,
businesspeople and academics. (8) Connect
peoples: Not everyone can travel study abroad or work for a global
enterprise. Traditional exchange programs should be supplemented by online
dialogue, interactive websites and 100 percent IT penetration of remote
regions. The goal is to expand horizons even for those who lack the means to
travel beyond them. (9) Expand
public-private partnerships: The expansion of IT programs to disadvantaged
communities is largely a product of corporate involvement and donations. More
might be forthcoming with better coordination and communication; the same
would apply to job creation. (10) "Your
true friend is one who is honest with you, not one who agrees with you."
(Arabic saying) Need I say more? Maggie Mitchell Salem is a political and
communications consultant based in Washington, DC. Previously she was
director of communications and outreach at the Middle East Institute and for
seven years served as a Foreign Service officer at the
|