Nonviolent Change Journal

Vol. XIX, No.2 Winter, 2005

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

Recent nonviolent regime changes in the Balkans have stunned the world with their speed. We in the first world marvel at how, in a year's time, Serbia and Georgia both built nation-wide civil disobedience movements. 1 Perhaps the pragmatic appeal of these movements (and funding from the U.S. government) was the key to their swift success.

Besides the moral allure of nonviolence, these movements promised pragmatic change to those who joined them. In contrast, the road to nonviolence in the developed world is often seen as a slow evolution of philosophy, or consciousness. Yet perhaps a more rapid and more practical approach is available to boost nonviolent movements in the first world.

Without the agitation provoked by blatant racial oppression, occupation, or authoritarian leadership, the developed world struggles to invoke widespread commitment to nonviolent movements at home. Instead, realists and advocates of nonviolence find themselves locked in a stagnant dance of ideas.

On one hand, the age-old realist view continues to hold sway. Arguing that murder is part of human nature, realists point to the inevitable recurrence of violence in human and animal history as proof. Meanwhile, nonviolent practitioners believe that what sets humans apart from animals is the faculty of choice. They highlight the capacity, right now, for each and every human being to choose never to kill.

While the gandhian lubricant for the gears of realism is civil disobedience, without the means to build a large-scale movement, promoters of nonviolence remain trapped in a war of ideas. If nonviolent movements are the only tool for agitating this shift in consciousness, peace activists may have a long time to wait.

So how can people in the modern world more quickly establish the moral courage to walk the nonviolent road? The first step may be an awakening of empathy. People condone many of the wars occurring today because they have trouble empathizing with their enemies. In his 2002 book, War is a Force that Gives us Meaning , Chris Hedges, a seasoned war correspondent and long-time reporter for the New York Times , describes how in war, the face of the enemy is blurred. Politicians and the media craft a mythological version of national conflict as a struggle between good (us) and evil (them). Caught up in its drama, war elevates us beyond our petty concerns and differences, uniting us with a sense of moral purpose.

What is so tempting, Hedges argues, about forgetting the humanity of our enemies is that it enables us to draw intimately together, expanding our individual identities into a collective identity. There is a profound irony in the thought that love, as much as hate, commits us to the repetitious cycle of war.

As both sides blur the image of the "other" into an amorphous amalgamation of evil, they become willing to attack. But Hedges explains how war support evaporates when the illusion of war as a struggle between the forces of dark and light gives way to an understanding of the reality of war. Chaotic and bloody, selfish and brutal, the reality of war pierces the romanticized image of a glorious struggle. But for those of us unfamiliar with combat, it is extremely difficult to grasp this reality.

Most of us are not present when our enemies are killed so we never feel the warmth of their skin, see their eyes, or meet their families. This makes it difficult to genuinely empathize with their deaths.

When people find empathy raging inside themselves, and the reality of battle hits home as it did during the latter years of Vietnam, their war support wavers. So how is this empathy cultivated?

The media is generally the caretaker of empathy when it comes to war. These days however, the media (especially in the U.S.) rarely shows us much about our enemies. Instead, it focuses on the body counts of our own troops, the hardships of our own troops, and the victories of our own troops. The most obvious truth is hidden beneath this one-sided coverage. In war, BOTH SIDES LOSE!

The media also seldom depicts the misery left in the wake of war but instead, digests the event whole. It turns towards the future, describing new nightmares that may lie ahead. We are offered new conflicts to support and told to accept the legitimacy of past ones. Presented as a preventative to terror, it is difficult for us to see that war itself is the greatest terror.

Our empathy for the enemy might be re-sensitized through a loosening of wartime press law to pre-Grenada levels. We might also rely on our imaginations to bring enemy suffering to life, but for some reason (lack of use?), our imaginations are usually not vivid enough. Perhaps we are so sheltered from real images of war, that when we try to imagine what is occurring, we only have staged, cinematic memories to call upon.

If imagination is the first reason for our dysfunctional empathy, the second may be fear. Leaders generally convince the public to support war for its own safety. We are told that threats are immanent, and that without a war, our lives will come in grave danger. But the immediacy of threat is often an unclear matter.

How often do threats described by our leaders really equate to an intruder at our window, knife in hand? Though we would like to trust their judgment, Hedges reminds us that again and again, politicians use war in order to maintain and increase their power. Nationalism and the portrayal of threat as personal and immediate are effective tools for uniting popular support. It is easy to forget that our enemies, like us, are part of a similar power paradigm that will justify war for their own interests. Increasing awareness of power's machiavellian tactics is also a step in the right direction.

Few people fully embrace the philosophy of nonviolence, but few people are also willing kill, unless they believe their personal survival is immediately at stake. The key to deciding whether the threats we face are truly dire lies in a simple question: would I kill one of my "enemies", right now? War support should be seen as what it is: a personal decision to kill. For many of us, there may come a time when we would fight for our lives, but until we are personally willing to do so, why ask others to kill in our name?

In summation, a more practical and less philosophical way to broaden the appeal of nonviolence is by reinvigorating empathy. We can immediately begin this process by strengthening our ability to imagine the "other", and by putting our fears through a careful process of threat evaluation.

Practically, this means that advocates for nonviolence need to focus their pressure on the media to hold its lamp closer to the faces of our enemies. We need to increase media coverage of people in countries that are potential, current, and past military opponents.

It means increased education on a personal, inter-personal, professional, social, cultural and governmental level about the wiles of political ambition, the definition of "immediate threat" and what it really means to lend support to war.

The expansion of self-interest to the level of the nation may be beautiful when it comes in the form of help and care for our fellow nationals, but when it rallies us to kill other human beings simply because they live in countries which might one day threaten our own, it becomes a recipe for perpetual war. It is easy to see wars as precautionary while thinking about our own fears, but when we can empathize with the suffering and the sameness of our enemies, we begin to wonder if courage, rather than war, is the remedy for distant threats.

FOOT NOTES
After Vietnam, many in the U.S. government were alarmed by the media's power to affect war support. Copying the Great Britain's total media lock-down in the Falklands, the U.S. allowed zero media coverage of the 1983 Grenada invasion until after the conflict was over. In response to the media's outcries, the Regan administration's directed the formation of the Sidle Commission led by retired major general Winant Sidle. In 1984 the Commission suggested the "pool system" as a solution, under which the pentagon would immediately contact a small, rotating group of journalists in the event of conflict (by beeper). In exchange full coverage, the press had to allow local commanders to direct their ground movements and to transport their print medium for shipping back to news headquarters. While initially promising, the introduction of embedded journalists in the second Gulf War has not renewed the visceral and hard-hitting coverage prevalent during the Vietnam War

Niko Kyriakou is an activist and a journalist. He holds a Masters degree in Communications and Conflict Resolution from the Monterey Institute of International Studies.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever effects one directly, affects all indirectly... In any Nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self-purification; and direct action..."

"Each and every one of us punctually pays his share of sacrifice, aware of being rewarded by the satisfaction of fulfilling our duty, aware of advancing with everyone toward the new human being who is to be glimpsed on the horizon... The road is long and in part unknown; we are aware of our limitations. We will make the twenty-first century human being, we ourselves!"

The pen of destiny has finally inscribed the final chapter in the story of Yasser Arafat, one of history's most controversial revolutionaries. Yes, the curtain has closed on the drama of "Abu Amar," and the grand playwright seems to be taking a short rest before charging headlong into its next project: having completed the tale of the man, it must now tell the tale of the man's nation--and the only way this tale can be told is if the subjects themselves rise up to the call of the playwright, if the characters seize the almighty pen now being offered to them.

Yasser Arafat was the Palestinians' David Ben-Gurion. A reckless comparison? I think not. Both were devoted to their nations, so unlike other national leaders for they were willing to suffer any cost to themselves for the advancement of their cause. They both readily, even happily, suffered occupation, persecution, braved exile and risked death, so that one day, no matter how far away that day may be, their nations would be free to determine their own destinies: developing culturally and economically as they saw fit for themselves, able to defend themselves by themselves, no longer letting their safety depend upon the largess of those who had historically neglected, exploited and even slaughtered them. Both men were guerrilla generals who too often resorted to terrorism, even genocide, to accomplish their aims. As political leaders, both men found themselves under siege by enemies: Ben-Gurion by Jewish opponents within Israel, and by hostile Arab regimes all around; Yasser Arafat by King Hussein of Jordan then Sharon of Israel, who pursued him into Lebanon and beyond, then infamously imprisoned him in the Muqata. And most of all, both men were visionary revolutionaries who evolved, rightly so, beyond the mere status of first Israeli prime minister and first Palestinian president, to become symbols of their respective nations.

It is Arafat's symbolism which is of the utmost importance when one considers his meaning and his legacy. As Ben-Gurion was in life and even more so in death, Arafat has been idealized by his people. Talking to them on the streets of the major cities of Ramallah, Bethlehem and East Jerusalem, in sleepy poor towns like Beit Sira, in their homes and in their businesses, while they work the farms of Latrun, mow the grass in Modi`in, or demonstrate against the Separation Wall in Abu Dis, Palestinians readily admit the failings of their beloved Abu Amar: he was an autocrat, and with the self-entitlement of a shaykh he granted positions of power to undeserving friends and allies; he was corrupt--after all, his wife and daughter live luxuriously in Paris; both he and Rabin were fools to agree to the filibustering Oslo peace process; he was too gullible with the duplicitous Ehud Barak and Bill Clinton; and his Palestinian Authority was ineffective in bettering the quality of life for West Bankers and Gazans--though it didn't help, they accurately point out, when Netanyahu and Barak upped the pace of construction for illegal settlements, which was followed by Sharon's demolition of the Palestinians' fledgling national infrastructure during 2001-2003. Yet, whatever his failings as a political leader, it was Arafat's determination and fidelity to his cause that he shall be remembered for: " I am a Palestinian soldier," he proclaimed in 2003, "I will use my gun to defend not only myself but also defend every Palestinian child, woman and man and to defend the Palestinian existence."

As I sat across from a friend, sipping coffee and listening to the ebbing tones of hope in his desperate voice; as I rode across the mountains of the northern West Bank, my jeep weaving in between caravans of taxis, cars and trucks draped with mournful black banners and posters of the defiant PLO Chairman, all speeding diligently toward Ramallah; as I stood among the throng in the heart of the Muqata and, watching the helicopters lower, felt the pitiful cry, " Abu Amar! " shudder through my bones as a people welcomed their leader home one last time--I realized that yes, whatever doubts and dislikes we Westerners may have had about the man, and indeed whatever disappointments the Palestinians themselves may have secretly or openly harbored against him all throughout these grueling and dark days of the al-Aqsa Intifada, Arafat was indeed a symbol, the embodiment of all the Palestinian people's aspects, both good and bad: he was their clear-sighted, yet sometimes fundamentalist morality; he was their unwavering and heroic determination as well as their pigheaded guerillaism and unyielding kamikaze-mania; he was their remarkable willingness to let bygones be bygones, but he was also their unforgiving memory, recounting every wrong, every crime committed against them for centuries; he was their hope for a peaceful resolution as well as their all-too-strong tendency for cynicism and violence, revenge and terrorism; he was their longing to build a modern nation-state, but he was also their archaic patriarchal, nepotistic and petty tribalism; and he was their statelessness, their homelessness.

Yet, now that Arafat has been laid to rest, the Palestinians have a golden opportunity to cultivate their own better angels and conquer the demons within. The course of the Intifada can and must be changed, for no longer can the Palestinian people pin their hopes, as well as lay all their responsibility, upon one man. No, they must now truly internalize the principles of democracy: to debate and discuss the content of their dreams, and to decide who shall be their next leader. Ironically in this matter, with Marwan Barghouti in Israeli prison and Mustafa Barghouti, at least for now, Ralph-Nader'd into the margins of political discourse, they are faced with a very American and Israeli dilemma: to choose the candidate who'll accomplish the least for his citizenry and the most for elite interests. Let us be candid: the Palestinians are under intense but tacit pressure from all the world to choose Abu Mazen, an opportunist and handmaiden to the imperialist power-brokers of Washington, D.C. and Tel Aviv. This choice is essentially like the "choice" between Bush or Kerry, Sharon or Mitzna--same man, just different temperament--Republican or Democrat, Likud or Avoda, two sides of the same tarnished and worthless coin, a denari, shekel, dollar minted from the shoddy copper ore of populist politics, bourgeoisie apathy and rich special interests which has infected the bedrock of modern democracy. Simply, the Palestinians find themselves trapped in a non-choice. Nevertheless, there is hope even if Abu Mazen becomes president, for then the Palestinian people must cooperate with each other and stay active in deciding the kind of policies he shall have. A man such as Abu Mazen, a Palestinian Bill Clinton of non-policy, is malleable: whoever threatens him the most, either with international isolation or the infamy of cultural memory, shall sway him to their side.

But more important than the coming public election of figures is the coming hidden election of ideas : for not only must the Palestinians choose a leader and then pester and protest him onto the straight and moral path to a victorious and lasting peace, but they must also choose the tactical/ethical and political direction of the Intifada. Shall this rebellion remain a barracks revolt of dystopian militias or an unarmed mass movement like the First Intifada?--and shall the aim be for an independent Palestinian state, and if so, what of the refugees and the settlements?--or shall the aim be for a binational Palestinian-Israeli state (an unlikely scenario at the moment I must admit, given the sentiment in both the Israeli and Arab streets)?--and, ultimately, shall this be for the political and half-assed economic emancipation of but one oppressed nation, or the total, utter existential liberation of both nations, oppressor and oppressed alike?

Yes, Yassir Arafat was the ultimate 20th Century Palestinian, but he was not the potential 21st Century Palestinian. His death may now lead to a rebirth--indeed, a birth --and a resurrection of an ideal whose murder went unnoticed, obscured by the din of war and glory: the true shaheed, the martyr of Nonviolence.

It is clear to anyone who is properly acquainted with the Occupation that there must be an Intifada. Just as Zionism, whatever its faults, was the necessary response to the European governments' policy of assimilating and exterminating the Jews, so now is Intifada, "Shaking Off," the necessary response to the Israeli government's colonialist oppression of the Palestinians. However, it must be a moral rebellion, by which is meant two things: a fundamental redirection of the Intifada's strategy away from war, and a fundamental redirection of the Intifada's ideology away from the ideology of the nihilistic shaheed --the suicide-bomber--to another type of shaheed , one who understands himself as but one piece of twine in an elaborate cosmic tapestry of humanity, divinity, and most of all, life.

It is true, as the famous guerrilla Che Guevera believed, that an oppressed people's only resort is struggle, and he was correct that it must be armed, but he was wrong, dead wrong as it turned out for him, that those arms must be guns and grenades. Furthermore, the terroristic militias of Hamas and the Shuhada al-Aqsa are half-right and all wrong when they assert that the Palestinian's only weapon is his own body. Rather, the body is but a vessel for the most powerful weapons on the earth, more powerful than any gun or grenade: the God-given human mind and soul.

Gandhi called the use of these weapons, as well as those who wielded them, Satyagraha , "Truth Force."

Yes, the Muslim Palestinians must abandon their philosophy of violence and commit to the tactics and principles of civil disobedience and Nonviolent Noncooperative Resistance.

I remember very clearly what a young Palestinian man said to me recently: "You want us to be 'nonviolent'? What should we do, put flowers in the tank turrets?" But he was mistaken as to the nature of Nonviolence: putting flowers in tank turrets is not Nonviolence; a million unarmed men, women and children marching all the way to Tel Aviv, hand in hand, rank after rank, pushing through every checkpoint, not halting no matter how many bullets and bombs the IDF rains upon them, that's Nonviolence. Such a display of ethical determination to attain justice would shatter the misguided resolve of the Israeli public and rouse the citizenry of the earth, which would rise up and compel the world's governments to finally bring an end to the war.

It has been said, again and again, that Nonviolence is a sham, and that it is even immoral because it is "complacent," "passive," "the weapon of the weak," or as one West Bank acquaintance of mine said, "It'll only give the Israelis what they've wanted most: to kill us without a bother." The dominant belief throughout the world is that only violence can truly bring justice; indeed, that violent armed struggle is no mere violence, but moral violence. To these charges, I submit a proper definition of Nonviolence and two facts:

• Sezai Ozcelik, a Muslim Ph.D. candidate at George Mason University's Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, says eloquently in his paper Nonviolent Action and Third Party Role in the Islamic World , 2 "Nonviolence should never be confused with inaction or passivity. It is not inaction. It is action that is nonviolent. Nonviolence is action in the full sense of the word. It is a forceful action that does not use violence. It is a fact that nonviolent activism is more powerful and more effective than violent activism";

• in 1989, thirteen nations comprising 1,695,000 people experienced nonviolent revolutions that succeeded beyond anyone's wildest expectations: dismantling the Soviet Union and ending the Cold War;

• if we add all the countries touched by major nonviolent actions in our century (India, China, the United States, the USSR, South Africa, continental Europe, Indonesia, Burma, Palestine in the 1980s )-- excluding major nonviolent actions in the 19 th and 18 th centuries and further back in history--the figure reaches 3,337,400,000, a staggering 65% of all humanity! And if we include recent nonviolent actions in Serbian Yugoslavia, the Phillipines, Mozambique, Argentina, and the Ukraine, the figure approaches 4 billion people effected positively by Nonviolence. 3

• Meanwhile, what have the great armed struggles of our era accomplished? Take a moment to glance at Africa, and we see that it has been exploding with armed rebellions and revolutions for over fifty years. An entire continent is held hostage by the capriciousness of war and international intrigue, all in the name of violent "liberation" for one ethnic group or another. Now let us examine the Second World War, cited by, well, just about everybody, even supposed pacifists, as the best example of a "just war for liberation." If one calculates all the Jews, Gypsies and "undesirables" lost in the furnaces of the Nazi death camps: at least 10 million lost. Meanwhile, approximately 60 million lives were lost in actual combat, soldiers, partisans and civilians. Then consider the long-term results: the Korean War and the Cold War--which continue to haunt the continents of Africa and Asia, riven as they were by the half-century "great game" between the USA and USSR--and of course the expulsion of the Palestinians from their homeland, giving us a grand total of all the human species effected negatively by violence. And the greatest irony of the Second World War was that Japan claimed it had a divine right to free Asia from Western colonialism, whether Asia wanted Japanese "humanitarian intervention" or not; Adolf Hitler dubbed his genocide and conquests a crusade to liberate the German people from their destitution at the hands of the British and French; Josef Stalin proclaimed he was "freeing the working-class" as he sent 20 million working-class Russians and Central Asians to die by Nazi bullets; and Winston Churchill and Franklin Delano Roosevelt readily admitted that they were striving to maintain the pre-war status quo of bloodthirsty capitalist empires. So much for the notion of moral violence.

Why does Nonviolence have such a startling high rate of effectiveness? Because the Nonviolent approach to struggle represents a radical departure from conventional thinking about conflict, and yet appeals to a number of common-sense notions.

Among these is the idea that the power of rulers depends on the consent of the masses . Without a bureaucracy, an army, a police force and, most importantly, a tax-paying, law-abiding-- submissive --public to carry out his or her wishes, the ruler is powerless. Therefore, power depends on the cooperation of others, and Nonviolent action, especially when performed by large numbers of people, undermines the power of rulers through deliberate withdrawal of this cooperation. Hunger strikes, pickets, vigils, marches, petitions, sit-ins, public prayer sessions, "go-slows," tax refusal, boycotts, labor strikes, blockades, conscription refusal, the use of independent political institutions, establishing "parallel" organs of government to rival the current order (i.e., the Committees of Correspondence and Continental Congresses which prefigured the United States of America; the Indian Congress Party which prefigured the Republic of India; and perhaps the current Palestinian National Authority)--all these tactics and more are examples of that deliberate withdrawal of consent, and these tactics comprise the arsenal of Nonviolent Noncooperative Resistance . [See: Appendix I, "The Methods of Nonviolent Action."]

Also of primary significance is the belief that just means are the most likely to lead to just ends. Gandhi: "The means may be likened to the seed, the end to a tree." Simply, the actions we take in the present inevitably reshape the social order in form, and determine our future. Palestinians now know all too well the social order and future offered by the gun and suicide-bomb: today, for every suicide-bombing, Sharon wraps himself tighter in the Israeli flag and the tallith of righteousness and imprisons a hundred Palestinian men (the breadwinners in Palestine's traditionalist society), erects a new checkpoint (disrupting commerce and social relationships), bulldozes an entire neighborhood and erects another tenement for settlers, siphons another gallon of water from Palestinian aquifers, divides and perverts the earth with another 8-meter concrete block of his apartheid "Security Fence"--and he can get away with it easily, like a serial rapist striking in the night, because delusional America and the international community, a pig pen of half-assed empires, failed states and make-believe civil societies, is nevertheless populated by well-meaning but badly educated citizenries who, no matter how actually or potentially sympathetic they may be for the Palestinians' plight, are rightly repulsed by every Palestinian youth detonated for the sake of sensational vengeance.

It is widely believed among practitioners of Nonviolent resistance that when Jesus instructed his disciples to resist the vengeful impulse and "turn the other cheek" when injustice was inflicted upon them, he was describing a basic method for achieving just ends by just means, and more, for he may have been describing a basic psychological attitude for his disciples to adopt: "love thy enemy."

The Nonviolent resister has respect , even love, for his opponents . He believes that Truth and God are multifaceted and unable to be grasped in their entirety by any one individual. We all carry inside ourselves pieces of Truth, sparks of God, and we need the pieces of others' veracity and divinity in order to come closer to full knowledge, full wisdom. The only way to fulfill this need is through dialogue, that is to say, a sincere wish to understand our opponents, their motivativations. In order to do this, the Nonviolent resister must separate the deeds from the doers . As a result he recognizes that there is a system , social and economic and ideological in its rapacious mechanics, which compels the oppressors deeper and deeper into tyranny: the Israeli soldier himself is a victim, distorted from his true self, transformed into a murderer he should never have been, and the Nonviolent Palestinian uses all his might to subdue his own rage and hatred while striving to destroy that system which has crushed him and the soldier against each other in an attempt to mutate them into inhuman cogs of a murderous satanic machine. Respect or love for opponents and separating doer from deed is also profoundly pragmatic , for it allows the possibility of the doers, be they oppressor or oppressed, to change their ways and dismantle the ruinous matrix of control.

It is has also been said that Nonviolence is a Western/Hindu/Buddhist concept, not Islamic, nor can it ever be Islamic ("Find me an Islamic Gandhi," an acquaintance once growled at me), and Nonviolence only ever worked against "civilized" opponents. The example of Abdul Ghaffir Khan 4 completely obliterates both arguments.

Khan (1890-1988), later known as Badshah Khan, was a leader of Pashtun tribes in British India, a devout Muslim and friend of Gandhi. He pioneered modernity's first nonviolent jihad , which historians have identified as "the world's first nonviolent army."

He founded and led for a decade the Khudai Khidmatgars , the Servants of God, which challenged the entire array of imperial and traditional socioeconomic institutions which were sucking the lifeblood out from India: they emancipated Indian serfs, introduced women into political action, and fueled anti-colonial fervor and activity all across the subcontinent.

He once remarked, "[Nonviolence] was followed fourteen hundred years ago by the Prophet all the time he was in Mecca... But we had so far forgotten it that when Gandhi placed it before us, we thought he was sponsoring a novel creed." (Gandhi, for his part, declared that he was able to perceive the origin of the doctrines of Nonviolence not only in sacred Hindu and Buddhist writings, nor even just in the Bible, but also in the Quran.)

Both Gandhi and Badshah Khan faced a brutal empire which had conquered half the world by duplicity and malicious warfare, and by the 20 th Century had already put down inside India itself, by a policy of massacre , several rebellions and demonstrations which had erupted from the oppressed population, the most infamous incidents being the Sepoy Mutiny of the mid-19 th Century and the 1920 Amritsar Massacre.

The truth is that the myth of the "civilized" British, and let us not forget to include the myths of the "civilized" White Americans, Afrikaaners and other branches of the Western European family tree, has been largely promulgated by elites as a way to hide the bloodthirsty imperialism underlying much of their cultures. Using the world's educational systems and mass-media to spread this myth, they are successfully preventing the possibility of future Nonviolent revolutions overthrowing their present reconfigured matrices of control. Why would elites prefer armed struggle over Nonviolent action? Because in the end those who resort to armed violence are succumbing to baser instincts, relinquishing their higher spiritual, mental and emotional functions, which makes them as vulnerable as a newborn puppy to the special interests' Pavlovian training. Don't believe me? Take a look at the Congo. Or for that matter, gaze into Palestine itself: for every terrorist attack, Sharon rains destruction upon Palestinian neighborhoods, which in turn inspires more terrorism, and Sharon gets to excuse his "Security Fence" and even more destruction of Palestinian life and property in the name of defense--all according to the plan of Washington, D.C., Paris, Moscow and Riyadh, for whom the conflict is not only great business but also terrific for propagandizing and controlling their own citizenries. 5

If one needs more evidence of homegrown Islamic/Middle Eastern Nonviolence, Ozcelik has made this list: Egypt (1919-1922), Peshawar Pashtun resistance (1930), the Palestine General Strike (1936), the Iraq Uprising (1948), Pattani resistance in Thailand (1975), the Islamist revolution in Iran (1978-1979), defense of al-Aqsa (1978-1979), Golan Druze resistance (1981-1982), the first Intifada (1987-1989), and the Albanian national movement in Kosovo (1989-1994). Ozcelik forgets to mention the nationalist revolution in Iran during 1955 or the ongoing student and reformist movements in that country today, as well as the Republican Brothers movement in the Sudan during the 1960s and 70s, the Revolutionary Afghan Women's Association (RAWA) which struggled against the Taleban regime in Afghanistan during the 1990s, and recent pro-democracy demonstrations in Saudi Arabia which are beginning to coalesce into a semi-underground reform movement. Finally, the prophet Muhammad himself used Nonviolence, both in the early days of Islam as well as in the Hudaibiya Agreement. 6

In sum, while the Quran does not prescribe an explicit ethic of Nonviolence and peace, neither does it give higher value to actions of violence. In the Quran, there are no consistent or unequivocal general concepts for determining war, peace and Nonviolence. Each Quranic verse is related to some specific historical events. Thus, there are Quranic verses that call for Nonviolence, while others call for war. This is not a contradiction, but a reflection of specific historical situations. ...If we take into consideration the time-space dimension and gradual changes in Islamic tradition, it becomes clear that Islam tends to give moral precedence to Nonviolence. One can even conclude that the pursuit of religiously oriented or informal struggle ( jihad ) in the modern world by the methods of Nonviolent action is fully consistent with Islamic scripture and tradition.

Regarding Ozcelik's notion of "the time-space dimension," famous Sudanese Muslim reformist Mahmoud Mohamed Taha (1909/1911-1986), who was executed by the Islamist government of the Sudan because of his vision of Islam, wrote in his groundbreaking work The Second Message of Islam , 7

Civilization is different from material progress, but it is a difference in degree and not in kind. Civilization is the peak of human development, while material progress is its base. Civilization may be defined as the ability to distinguish values and to observe these values in daily conduct. A civilized man does not confuse ends with means, and he does not sacrifice ends for the sake of means. He is a man of principles and of moral values, one who has achieved a complete intellectual and emotional life. [Chapter 1]

Islam... is the religion of humanity which accommodates human illusion, inspired by the will to be free, until man is gradually enlightened through realistic wisdom to eventually achieve intelligent Islam. Islam, as the religion of humanity, developed with the evolution of the mind, and accompanied the maturing mind in its long evolution from a primitive beginning to its wise and refined end. [Chapter 3]

Islam, as revealed in the Quran, is not one message but two: one at the beginning closer to Judaism, and the other at the end closer to Christianity. The Prophet delivered both messages, by delivering the Quran and living his exemplary life. While dealing and elaborating the first message in the Shari'a, he left the second message unelaborated... [Chapter 4]

The First Message of Islam has been elaborated through specific legislation. It is the message of al-mu'minin [mere believers] from al-muslimin [submitters]... It was not ultimate Islam that [has thus far] succeeded... but rather Islam at the level of al-iman [belief]. The Quran itself is divided into two parts: one of al-iman and the other of al-islam . [Chapter 5]

God says: "Today I have perfected your religion for you, completed My grace upon you, and sanctioned Islam as your religion." Many people consider [this] phrase as implying that Islam itself has been fully achieved by mankind on earth on that day. The verse: "And We have revealed to you the Reminder [the Quran] so that you may explain to mankind that which has been sent down to them," was also taken to mean the Quran has been finally and conclusively explained... "Explanation" of the Quran has been only in terms of expedient legislation... The Quran can never be finally and conclusively explained. Islam, too, can never be concluded. Progress in it is eternal: "Surely the true religion with God is Islam." "With God" is eternal, beyond time and space. [Chapter 6]

With these words in mind, I am now about to make my most radical argument: if Muslim Palestinians fail to transform their struggle into a Nonviolent Intifada they shall fail their destiny, for theirs has never been an ordinary struggle for national independence. Why? Because they are situated in the Holy Land, in the very navel of the world. They must come to understand their part to play in the progress of human history.

To understand what I mean, we must dive deeper into the heart of Islam: the Quran.

The Quran draws our attention to the fact that Jesus' famous maxims Turn the Other Cheek and Love Thy Enemy were in no way original to him. Rather, his maxims are among the most ancient, primitive, primordial of truths etched in the mysterious tapestry of the human psyche. In the fifth chapter of the Quran, The Table , the 27 th through 31 st verses, God reminds us of a prehistoric incident which occurred in the second generation of the species, between Qabeel and Habeel (Cain and Abel):

Recite to them the story of the two sons of Adam. Behold! They each presented a sacrifice to God. It was accepted from one, but not from the other. Said the latter, "Be sure I will slay thee." "Surely," said the former, "God doth accept of the sacrifice of those who are righteous. If thou dost stretch thy hand against me, to slay me, it is not for me to stretch my hand against thee to slay thee, for I do fear God [or: I am in awe of God], the cherisher of the worlds. For me, I intend to let thee draw on thyself my sin as well as thine, for thou wilt be among the companions of the Fire, and that is the reward of those who do wrong." The selfish soul of the other led him to the murder of his brother: he murdered him, and became himself one of the lost ones. Then God sent a raven, who scratched the ground, to show him how to hide the shame of his brother. "Woe is me!" said he, "Was I not even able to be as this raven, and to hide the shame of my brother?" Then he became full of regrets.

The Quranic record of this event explains Abel's reasoning, and as Ozcelik notes, "[Abel's] stance announces that human beings are capable of resisting violence by Nonviolence, and of transforming a violent person into a remorseful one." The Biblical record, in Genesis 4.1-16--upon which the Quranic record is elaborating--explores other facets of the consequences of Cain's violence:

And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, "I have gotten a man from the Lord." And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. And Abel, he also brought of the fisrtlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering. But onto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. And the Lord said unto Cain, "Why art thou wroth? And why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him." And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. And the Lord said unto Cain, "Where is Abel thy brother?" And he said, "I know not; am I my brother's keeper?" And he said, "What hast thou done? The voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground. And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand. When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yeild unto thee her strength. A fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth." And Cain said unto the Lord, "My punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold, though hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass that everyone that findeth me shall slay me." And the Lord said unto him, "Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold." And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him. And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the Land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

Cain's fallacy was that he believed he had no responsibility to Abel, but in truth, we are our brother's keeper . Thenceforth, the very earth has been corrupted, and violence geometrically multiplied: Cain killed one man, which invited upon himself violation by others, and from him there was a sevenfold expansion of violence. This epidemic of violence persists to today, in many forms: neo-imperialism, apartheid, First World neglect. Even God seems susceptible according to the Biblical record, so intent upon curing this malignant cancer that several times the Almighty nearly exterminates the life of Its beloved patient: first, the Great Flood, then the Israelite wars of conquest, then the rise of the great empires, the back-and-forth of sin and repercussion, crime and punishment, a hydra of death and suffering, slithering in all directions across the world. Metaphorically, all of the intelligent universe has wandered into the nightmarish wasteland of Nod with Cain, away from our true selves, Abel.

With all the violent destruction in our species' history, we often find ourselves wondering, 'Why does anything exist? What's the point?' In the 40 th chapter of the Quran, The Forgiver , the 67 th and 68 th verses, it is said:

It is He Who has created you from dust then from a sperm-drop, then from a leech-like clot; then does He get you out into the light as a child: then lets you grow and reach your age of full strength; then lets you become old--though of you there are some who die before--and lets you reach a term appointed; in order that ye may learn wisdom. It is He Who gives Life and Death; and when He decides upon an affair, He says to it, "Be," and it is.

Existence was born out of love, need, desire--erotic, inventive and desperate desire ... Perhaps you ask, 'Can God need anything, desire anything?' Two verses from Exodus in the Bible: the First Commandment, "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them [idols], nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God"-- then in the 33 rd chapter, the 11 th verse, " And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend "--and many more passages, many many more. Surely these sentiments could not be possible if God had no emotions! Emotions! Is this mad talk? In Genesis: "And God said, Let us make Man in our image, after our likeness." The question is, who's mirroring who? Yes, who mirrors who, Mankind or God? In their hopes, their dreams, their bravery... in their despondency, their nightmares, their cowardice and crimes and genocides... The Bible and Quran tell us about a lonely God and His even lonelier creations, humanity, who slaughtered and slaughter the Abels, all the metaphoric Abels of history, in the name of prosperity and security and glory , but who strove and are striving, even now, for redemption, to unite in solidarity, to repair the rift which split our family when Cain cleaved the flesh of his brother.

Simply, what God and humanity are striving for is peace, equality and justice, in the full knowledge that if these cannot be achieved, there shall be nothing at all. There must either be Liberty... or Oblivion. The task of our times is to establish existential democracy, a new temporal and metaphysical order of egalitarianism and solidarity, a Great Society which truly tries its best to house and feed all of its citizens, to establish a just prosperity of fair and free trade in goods, services and ideas, and to cultivate each individual's independence and capacities.

This Great Society can only be achieved by a kind of revolution, God's Revolution, which has been and is occurring in every nook and cranny of the world at least since the ministries of Jesus and Muhammad, waged via many warriors, millions , billions of people struggling to better their lives and the lives of their loved ones. Some of these warriors are famous and forever whispered in the annals of history--the prophets, the Buddha, Gandhi, King; most are forgotten by humanity, though not by God. And while all the earth is Her target--and were we to expand to the stars, wherever we go there also shall She be, ar-Rabb al'Alimin , Sovereign of the Worlds--there are certain geographic locations that, due to their location upon the intersections of the frontiers of commerce and ideology, have left deep imprints in the x-, y- and z-axes of history, symbolism and metaphysics. Among these leyline junctions are India and the Holy Land.

India is the heartland of the Eastern religions, Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism. What Gandhi achieved there, a democratic republic born by Nonviolence, caused a metacosmic shift, budging human history toward the evolution into a Great Society. Israel-Palestine is no different than India for it is the heartland of the Western religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The avowed project of the Israelis and Palestinians has been to bring democracy to the Holy Land, but they have not truly realized the immense metaphoric importance of their endeavor. The Holy Land has been the dominion, both socioeconomically and dimensionally, of tyranny after tyranny after tyranny: Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Persia, Rome, the Crusaders, Turkey, Britain, feudalism, imperialism, fascism, militarism, colonialism, terrorism. The establishment of true democracy here--not Israel's sham of electoral ethnic tribalism or Palestine's terroristic and nepotistic Bantustan--will shake the very foundations of the globalized evil plaguing our species. But true democracy, existential democracy , can only be achieved by Nonviolence, for only proper means can lead to the best ends.

Compare Zionism and the kind of Intifadism advocated for in this essay. The difference between these ideologies is nationalism: the former saw the Jewish people as of supreme importance, and other nations, in particular the Palestinians, as expendable; the other intends to "shake off" all the restraints of the past and to evolve toward a new kind of human being--and the shaheed , that man or woman who puts aside their self-centeredness for the greater good, is the link between the shaking-off and the evolution. The Palestinians must put aside their narrow self-concern and commit, through Nonviolent Noncooperative Resistance, to God's Revolution, as Abel and Jesus and Muhammad did, accepting whatever monumental costs may be required of them by destiny rather than trying to force destiny to bend to their whim, as the suicide-bomber strives to do.

Just as Jesus, a Jew, and Muhammad, an Arab,and Gandhi, an Indian, understood that they were no longer reforming the societies of their respective peoples but revolutionizing history, the Palestinians must realize that theirs is no ordinary struggle for national self-determination. No, it is a struggle, a jihad ackbar for redemption, indeed for many redemptions : to free their own nation of the shackles which bind it, to uplift themselves; but also to free the Israelis of the ever-present phantoms of annihilation and Hitler, and the psychically decaying effects of colonial absolute power; and by setting an example to all the Arab and Muslim peoples, providing a cutting-edge model for undoing the complex matrix of First World-Third World ideological parasitism and socioeconomic sado-masochism, and by doing so, finally exorcise civilization of the specters of empire, poverty and terror. Yes, the Palestinians are faced with the most daunting of choices: save the world or assist in the murder of our species' future.

The 20 th Century Palestinian fled from death only to secretly yearn for it, even embrace it, arms open wide, finger pressed upon the red detonator button.

The 21 st Century Palestinian, however, stares death in the face and says, "No more. No more shall I be a pawn and a freak. I shall have my humanity, and I shall not rest until all tyranny is converted into liberty. I offer myself to Truth and to God and to my neighbor and to my loved ones. There shall be hope. There shall be resurrection!"

"My method is conversion, not coercion, it is self-suffering, not the suffering of the tyrant. I know that method to be infallible." "My nationalism is not so narrow that I should not feel for [Englishmen's] distress or gloat over it. I do not want my country's happiness at the sacrifice of another country's happiness." "India's greatest glory will consist not in regarding Englishmen as her implacable enemies fit only to be turned out of India at the first available opportunity, but in turning them into friends and partners in a new commonwealth of nations in the place of an Empire based upon exploitation of the weaker or undeveloped nations and races of the earth and, therefore, finally [based] upon force."

Appendix: (Below is from Gene Sharp, The Methods of Nonviolent Action , Boston 1973)

FORMAL STATEMENTS: 1. Public speeches; 2. Letters of opposition or support; 3. Declarations by organizations and institutions; 4. Signed public declarations; 5. Declarations of indictment and intention; 6. Group or mass petitions.

COMMUNICATIONS WITH A WIDER AUDIENCE: 7. Slogans, caricatures, and symbols; 8. Banners, posters, and displayed communications; 9. Leaflets, pamphlets, and books; 10. Newspapers and journals; 11. Records, radio, and television; 12. Skywriting and earthwriting.

GROUP REPRESENTATIONS: 13. Deputations; 14. Mock awards;15. Group lobbying; 16. Picketing; 17. Mock elections.

SYMBOLIC PUBLIC ACTS: 18. Displays of flags and symbolic colors; 19. Wearing of symbols; 20. Prayer and worship; 21. Delivering symbolic objects; 22. Protest disrobings; 23. Destruction of own property; 24. Symbolic lights; 25. Displays of portraits; 26. Paint as protest; 27. New signs and names; 28. Symbolic sounds; 29. Symbolic reclamations; 30. Rude gestures.

PRESSURES ON INDIVIDUALS: 31. "Haunting" officials; 32. Taunting officials; 33. Fraternization; 34. Vigils.

DRAMA AND MUSIC: 35. Humorous skits and pranks; 36. Performances of plays and music; 37. Singing.

PROCESSIONS: 38. Marches; 39. Parades; 40. Religious processions; 41. Pilgrimages; 42. Motorcades.

HONOURING THE DEAD: 43. Political mourning; 44. Mock funerals; 45. Demonstrative funerals; 46. Homage at burial places.

PUBLIC ASSEMBLIES: 47. Assemblies of protest or support; 48. Protest meetings; 49. Camouflaged meetings of protest;50. Teach-ins.

WITHDRAWAL AND RENUNCIATION: 51. Walk-outs; 52. Silence; 53. Renouncing honors; 54. Turning one's back.

OSTRACISM OF PERSONS: 55. Social boycott; 56. Selective social boycott; 57. Lysistratic nonaction; 58. Excommunication; 59. Interdict.

NONCOOPERATION WITH SOCIAL EVENTS, CUSTOMS, AND INSTITUTIONS: 60. Suspension of social and sports activities; 61. Boycott of social affairs; 62. Student strike; 63. Social disobedience; 64. Withdrawal from social institutions.

WITHDRAWAL FROM THE SOCIAL SYSTEM: 65. Stay-at-home; 66. Total personal noncooperation; 67. "Flight" of workers; 68. Sanctuary; 69. Collective disappearance; 70. Protest emigration (hijrat).

ACTION BY CONSUMERS: 71. Consumers' boycott; 72. Nonconsumption of boycotted goods; 73. Policy of austerity; 74. Rent withholding; 75. Refusal to rent; 76. National consumers' boycott; 77. International consumers' boycott.

ACTION BY WORKERS AND PRODUCERS: 78. Workers' boycott; 79. Producers' boycott.

ACTION BY OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT: 81. Traders' boycott; 82. Refusal to let or sell property; 83. Lockout: 84. Refusal of industrial assistance; 85. Merchants' "general strike."

ACTION BY HOLDERS OF FINANCIAL RESOURCES: 86. Withdrawal of bank deposits; 87. Refusal to pay fees, dues, and assessments; 88. Refusal to pay debts or interest; 89. Severance of funds and credit; 90. Revenue refusal; 91. Refusal of a government's money.

ACTION BY GOVERNMENTS: 92. Domestic embargo: 93. Blacklisting of traders; 94. International sellers' embargo; 95. International buyers' embargo; 96. International trade embargo.

SYMBOLIC STRIKES: 97. Protest strike; 98. Quickie walkout (lightning strike).

STRIKES BY SPECIAL GROUPS: 101. Refusal of impressed labor; 102. Prisoners' strike; 103. Craft strike; 104. Professional strike.

ORDINARY INDUSTRIAL STRIKES: 105. Establishment strike; 106. Industry strike; 107. Sympathy strike.

RESTRICTED STRIKES: 108. Detailed strike; 109. Bumper strike; 110. Slowdown strike; 111. Working-to-rule strike; 112. Reporting "sick" (sick-in); 113. Strike by resignation; 114. Limited strike; 115. Selective strike.

COMBINATION OF STRIKES AND ECONOMIC CLOSURES: 118. Hartal; 119. Economic shutdown.

REJECTION OF AUTHORITY: 120. Withholding or withdrawal of allegiance; 121. Refusal of public support; 122. Literature and speeches advocating resistance.

CITIZENS' NONCOOPERATION WITH GOVERNMENT: 123. Boycott of legislative bodies; 124. Boycott of elections; 125. Boycott of government employment and positions; 126. Boycott of government departments, agencies, and other bodies; 127. Withdrawal from governmental educational institutions; 128. Boycott of government-supported institutions;

129. Refusal of assistance to enforcement agents; 130. Removal of own signs and placemarks; 131. Refusal to accept appointed officials; 132. Refusal to dissolve existing institutions.

CITIZENS' ALTERNATIVES TO OBEDIENCE: 133. Reluctant and slow compliance; 134. Nonobedience in absence of direct supervision; 135. Popular nonobedience; 136. Disguised disobedience; 137. Refusal of an assemblage or meeting to disperse; 138. Sitdown; 139. Noncooperation with conscription and deportation; 140. Hiding, escape, and false identities; 141. Civil disobedience of "illegitimate" laws.

ACTION BY GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL: 142. Selective refusal of assistance by government aides; 143. Blocking of lines of command and information; 144. Stalling and obstruction; 145. General administrative noncooperation; 146. Judicial noncooperation; 147. Deliberate inefficiency and selective noncooperation by enforcement agents; 148. Mutiny.

DOMESTIC GOVERNMENTAL ACTION: 149. Quasi-legal evasions and delays; 150. Noncooperation by constituent governmental units.

INTERNATIONAL GOVERNMENTAL ACTION: 151. Changes in diplomatic and other representation; 152. Delay and cancellation of diplomatic events; 153. Withholding of diplomatic recognition; 154. Severance of diplomatic relations; 155. Withdrawal from international organizations; 156. Refusal of membership in international bodies; 157. Expulsion from international organizations.

PSYCHOLOGICAL INTERVENTION: 158. Self-exposure to the elements; 159. The fast; a) Fast of moral pressure, b) Hunger strike, c) Satyagrahic fast; 160. Reverse trial; 161. Nonviolent harassment.

SOCIAL INTERVENTION: 174. Establishing new social patterns; 175. Overloading of facilities; 176. Stall-in; 177. Speak-in; 178. Guerrilla theatre; 179. Alternative social institutions; 180. Alternative communication system.

ECONOMIC INTERVENTION: 181. Reverse strike; 182. Stay-in strike; 183. Nonviolent land seizure; 184. Defiance of blockades; 185. Politically motivated counterfeiting; 186. Preclusive purchasing; 187. Seizure of assets; 188. Dumping; 189. Selective patronage; 190. Alternative markets; 191. Alternative transportation systems; 192. Alternative economic institutions.

POLITICAL INTERVENTION: 193. Overloading of administrative systems; 194. Disclosing identities of secret agents; 195. Seeking imprisonment; 196. Civil disobedience of "neutral" laws; 197. Work-on without collaboration; 198. Dual sovereignty and parallel government.

1. See also: An American Storm in the Holy Land , The Curtain is Beginning to Close and on http://www.paarmann.info/blog Return to Ramallah, Au Revoir Arafat .

This essay was written during the first few weeks after the burial of Yasser Arafat.

3. From Walter Wink, Professor of Biblical Interpretation at Auburn Theological Seminary in New York City, as quoted by Susan Ives in a 2001 talk. See: http://www.walterwink.com

4. See: Eknath Easwaran's Nonviolent Soldier of Islam: Badshah Khan, A Man to Match His Mountains (Nilgiri Press, 1999)

5. Nonviolence scholar Gene Sharp, in his book The Politics of Nonviolent Action , suggests that the conspicuous abscence of nonviolence from mainstream historical study may be due to the fact that elite interests are not served by the dissemination of techniques for social struggle that rely on the collective power of a mobilized citizenry rather than access to wealth or weaponry.

6. Since I first read Karen Armstrong almost three years ago, I have been profoundly moved by her work. My, shall we say, flexible interpretation of Muhammad--that he was flawed and passionate, that he had to rely upon poetic interpretation to translate the Quranic revelation into human language, and that he preferred Nonviolence--arises from her book, Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet (HarperSanFrancisco, 1993). Many of my other ideas also have some links to or inspiration from her work, especially Islam: A Short History (Modern Library, 2000) and A History of God: the 4000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam (Ballantine Books, 1994).

7. Taha, Mahmoud Mohamed. The Second Message of Islam. 4th ed., trans. Abdullahi Ahmed an-Na'im (Syracuse University Press, 1987).

The Palestinian non-violent movement is as old as the Palestinian liberation movement itself. As far back as the 1930s, Palestinians engaged in non-violent protests and demonstrations against the British Mandate authorities. This form of protest peaked with the breakout of the 1987 intifada. That uprising, which was for the most part non-violent in nature, brought immediate international recognition to the Palestinian people, forced Israeli society to recognize Palestinians as a "people" and to recognize their legitimate leadership, and finally led to a peace process. The failure of that peace process, known as the Oslo peace process was not due to the means that led to the negotiating table, on the contrary; it was largely due to the lack of continued mobilization and support by the Palestinian leadership of the popular Palestinian non-violent resistance movement. Non-violent resistance should have continued as a means to balance the imbalance at the negotiating table, viewed by the Palestinian leadership as the only way of attaining the legitimate rights of the Palestinians.

The failure of the peace process led to the breakout of the second intifada in 2000. Again, Palestinians initially engaged in non-violent forms of resistance, but the Israeli military response to these protests was more brutal and forceful than at any time before during the occupation. This convinced some groups within the Palestinian community that only the use of arms and suicide attacks to balance out the pain being heaped upon Palestinians would be effective in making the occupation as costly as possible to the Israeli public. This, however, combined with the lack of a clear strategy and a clear vision to mobilize the Palestinian population in non-violent forms of resistance, emboldened the Israeli government to take full advantage of the change in the rules of engagement after September 11, 2001 and attempt to de-legitimize the entire Palestinian liberation movement, linking its goals with the means used to achieve them. The Palestinian armed resistance, labeled as "terrorism" by Israel, was portrayed as the goal of the Palestinian liberation movement rather than a means, justified or otherwise.

The legitimacy of the goals of freedom and independence should not be viewed through the lens of the "means" used to achieve these goals. The struggle to end the occupation and establish an independent Palestinian state does not gain or lose legitimacy if non-violent means are preferred over violent means and vice versa. Even with the changes in international politics and a steadily growing voice within the Palestinian community criticizing and condemning the armed resistance, particularly those actions that target Israeli civilians, the legitimacy of the Palestinian struggle is embedded in international law, international conventions on human rights and numerous United Nations resolutions, up until and including the most recent decision by the International Court of Justice regarding the separation wall.

A more important question deals with the issue of efficacy. Are the means used effective in achieving the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people?

When discussing armed resistance, Palestinians must recognize both the internal and international implications of continuing the armed resistance. The gross imbalance of power, the unrestrained and brutal actions of the Israeli military, and the change in the direction of world politics have left Palestinians defenseless and isolated in the face of daily aggressions. The armed resistance, even armed defense, has been effective only in creating excuses for greater Israeli aggression.

But to say that one is ineffective is not to show that the other isn't. When it comes to non-violent resistance, the question most people ask is how do you non-violently resist your prison guard when you are in prison? How do you resist the occupation when you are surrounded by walls and fences? Examples of non-violent resistance from across the world highlight one important factor: direct confrontation and contact with the enemy is vital to expose that enemy's brutality and unjust policies. In Palestine today, however, Palestinians are trapped in a prison. Going on hunger strike means absolutely nothing, while protesting and marching means walking around in circles.

So what non-violent tactics can be used effectively to expose the occupation and affect its end?

The answer is threefold. First, a strong leadership committed to the principles of non-violent resistance and community building must be established. The initial focus will be on the need to unify Palestinian communities and re-establish trust between the leadership and the people. This should be followed by the development of a long-term internal strategy to build a non-violent resistance movement on a massive scale. Secondly, the Palestinian population inside and outside of Palestine must be mobilized in mass campaigns beginning with a boycott of Israeli products campaign and moving on to more dangerous protests at check points, on settler roads, and near international border crossings. Finally and simultaneously, the Arab, Muslim, international streets as well as the Israeli peace camp must also be mobilized to support this non-violent Palestinian movement. Sustained and significant popular protests against Israel will eventually pressure the Israeli government to take the necessary steps towards peace.

Non-violent resistance is never easy. It takes tremendous dedication, discipline and sacrifice. And while no means are guaranteed effective, the non-violent approach attempts to neutralize the power of the enemy and to target the collective consciousness of the populace rather than empowering enemy extremists by handing them the blind and unconditional support of a people fearful of annihilation.

The international community has declared that the death of the late President Yasser Arafat is an opportunity to revive the Palestinian-Israeli peace process. The Palestinian community needs to see the death of their president as an opportunity to reinforce the commitment to the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people and to achieve these aspirations by engaging in effective non-violent means of resistance and community building.

Sami Awad is the executive director of the Holy Land Trust, a grassroots organization based in Bethlehem involved in community building and non-violent resistance.

This would appear to be an appropriate time to discuss the potential for Palestinian non-violence and its ramifications for Israel. First, because there is a growing number of people and groups in Palestine that believe in non-violent struggle against Israel. Secondly, because in a few instances in the central West Bank in recent months non-violent demonstrations proved effective in drawing the attention of the media and the courts to the injustices of Israel's security fence as originally located at the local, village level.

Thirdly, the emergence of Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) as leader of the PLO and leading candidate for the Palestinian Authority presidency points to the relevancy of non-violent tactics of resistance. Abu Mazen unequivocally denounces Palestinian violence as a counterproductive approach; by default, the only appropriate form of resistance in his eyes would be non-violence (coupled with a diplomatic campaign for a peace process congenial to Palestinian terms). Indeed, if Abu Mazen's current efforts bear fruit and Palestinians agree to a comprehensive ceasefire, the non-violent approach may come to the fore as a means of protest or resistance.

The most famous, and successful, non-violent campaign in modern history was led by Mahatma Gandhi in India against the British, and culminated in Indian independence in 1947. It is generally understood that the campaign succeeded because, at the end of the day, the British were a civilized occupier that could not for long stomach shooting at point blank range at masses of non-violent Indian demonstrators, and because Gandhi employed effective forms of economic boycott, and got global publicity.

Are we Israelis a "civilized" occupier? Despite all the casualties we have inflicted in four years on Palestinian civilians and their property--yes. We are no worse than any other occupier. But the difference between Israel in the West Bank and Gaza and the British in India is that even those of us who oppose the settlements and seek to end the occupation, strongly believe that we are defending our homes and our families, which have been under intense and brutal attack, rather than some distant "jewel in the crown" of an empire.

A veteran Israeli general once related to me how, in 1949, leaders of the Palestinian refugee population, freshly arrived in Gaza, threatened to launch a "green march" north up the Mediterranean coast to homes they had abandoned in Ashdod and Jaffa. The general's response was to threaten to open fire on the marchers, and the march was cancelled. Today the response would feature tear gas and rubber bullets, but the principle would be the same: if the purpose of Palestinian non-violent tactics were to endanger Israel and Israelis and rekindle a conflict, it would undoubtedly be opposed by all available non-lethal means.

On the other hand, it is possible to perceive a non-violent strategy that could potentially be successful for Palestinians. Its point of departure would be the premise that, as the weaker actor, the Palestinians need to find a more effective tactic of mass resistance than force. The purpose would be to draw Israeli and international attention to Israeli injustices, such as the settlements and bypass roads and the roadblocks they engender. The protest would be confined to the territories, and no Israeli lives or property would be threatened. The backdrop would be a total absence of violent attacks against Israelis by organized Palestinian groups like Hamas and the Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, as well as of stone throwing and Molotov cocktail attacks, which are potentially lethal. And the media would have to be heavily involved in covering the protest.

If all these conditions were met, a Palestinian non-violent campaign could be effective, particularly if Abu Mazen gets a popular mandate for his rule. Yet this does not appear to be an easy option for Palestinian society under current social and political conditions.

Yossi Alpher is coeditor of bitterlemons.org and bitterlemons-international.org. He is a former director of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University and a former senior adviser to PM Ehud Barak.

Source: Miftah , http://www.miftah.org December 17, 2004
Distributed by the Common Ground News Service with permission to republish.

The Palestinian uprising or intifada entered its 4th year on September the 29th 2004. This intifada was sparked by a controversial visit by the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to the Haram al-Shareef in Jerusalem's old city. Unlike its predecessor this intifada has been considerably different. Frequent suicide bombings and unprecedented Israeli violations have given this intifada the violent character it so embodies.

Undoubtedly the death of President Arafat has affected the course of this Palestinian uprising, in addition to recent developments in the area such as the visit by Mahatma Ghandi's grand son Arun Ghandi as well as the recent calls by the Palestinian presidential candidate and former Prime Minister Abu Mazen for both the demilitarization of this intifada, as well as, the pursuit of non-violent resistance as a means to achieving independence and freedom from occupation.

A week ago, the PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas made some very sensitive statements concerning the Palestinian uprising, that have been greeted with positive feedback by many Palestinians including the US and Israel, however, have been rejected publicly by many Palestinian factions. In his tour of Middle-Eastern states to rally support for the newly emerging leadership in the post Arafat era, Abbas called for the demilitarization of this intifada by saying, "Using weapons has been harmful to our cause and has got to stop." However, Abu Mazen reiterated that the Palestinian people have the inalienable right to resist, but should keep arms out of the uprising, "keep the use of arms out of the uprising, because the uprising is a legitimate right of the people to express their rejection of the occupation by popular and social means."

There is almost universal consensus that this uprising has not born the fruits as its predecessor did. The results of the first intifada in comparison to this one were remarkable yet very humble at the same time. Many factors contributed to the fact that the first intifada was universally recognized as a legitimate form of resistance. The first intifada was characterized mainly by two attributes that made it irrefutable. Firstly it constituted an uprising involving a 'levee en masse' popular uprising. It was a show of national discontent with the occupation involving most of Palestinian society. Secondly the main characteristic that stuck in everybody's mind, were the children and elderly people throwing stones at the occupier which constitutes an unarmed yet violent resistance, as stipulated in the fourth Geneva Conventions. Bearing in mind that under the chapter of The rights and duties of the occupied population, Palestinians are granted the right to armed resistance.

Abu Mazen went on to say that, "We, at this stage, are against the militarization of the Intifada (uprising) because we want to negotiate. And because we want to negotiate, the atmosphere should be calm in preparation for political action." Such moves by the PLO Chairman with his willingness to upset the Palestinian groups, has won him praise from Israel and its key ally the United States. However, praise is not enough. At a time like this deeds are important as well as tangible results for Palestinians. This time around the US must pressure Israel to become a constructive partner in upcoming peace negotiations and more importantly it is up to Israel this time round to honour any upcoming truce.

However, seen as this intifada has had more negative than positive results, it should be worth pondering for Palestinians to pursue a unified and concentrated strategy of non violent resistance with all that it includes. Maybe at a time like this, with all the developments that have taken place, a strategy of non-violent but highly concentrated resistance, could prove to be a miracle recipe for ending this unjust and prolonged occupation.

What Prime Minister Ariel Sharon played down in his Rosh Hashanah interviews was clearly exposed by his former bureau chief, Dov Weisglass, in an interview in Haaretz Magazine (October 8). The goal of the disengagement plan is to perpetuate Israeli control in most of the West Bank, and to repel any internal or external pressure for a different political solution.

Sharon is consistently trying to realize his vision: Israeli control over the eastern and western slopes of the West Bank, and maintaining traffic corridors along its length and breadth. The Palestinians will be left with seven enclaves connected by special highways for their use. The disengagement plan will facilitate the realization of this vision, at a bargain price from his point of view: He is giving up the Gaza Strip, where 37 percent of the Palestinians live, but whose area is only 1.25 percent of the Land of Israel.

Anyone touring the West Bank will have no doubts regarding the hidden agenda of the disengagement plan. Building in the settlements, including the illegal ones, is proceeding at full speed. About 4,000 housing units are now under construction. When they are populated, the number of settlers in the West Bank will grow by approximately 10 percent.

Most of the Israeli public supports the Sharon plan. It naively believes that its realization will bring about the end of the war and a significant economic improvement. The international community also supports the plan. It is tired of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and is no longer investing any real input in attempts to solve it.

Even after Weisglass? damning confession in Haaretz , the peace camp will continue to support the Sharon plan. More than anything, this uncritical support expresses weakness and lack of confidence. Many of this camp?s leaders no longer believe in their ability to lead a daring political move, which includes a clash with the extreme right, and to convince most of the public that they are right.

Anyone who supports a unilateral step and prefers it to a serious attempt at rapprochement is accepting Sharon?s basic assumption that "there is no partner" - an assumption that he has made every effort to ensure: Anyone who was likely to be a partner received nothing from him, with the exception of harmful compliments. It?s true that there is no Palestinian partner to the seven-enclave plan, nor will there be.

Many good people seriously hope that the exit from the Gaza Strip and the evacuation of the settlements will begin a dynamic that cannot be stopped. Such a dynamic would make the continuation of the process in the West Bank unavoidable. This possibility is what is influencing the extreme right to react with violent opposition, which has not yet reached its peak.

However, such a scenario will occur only if Gaza is handed over to a responsible Palestinian government, through close coordination with Israel, and with active and generous support from the international community and the wealthy Arab states. A Gaza that is not a source of terrorism or a place where terrorism reigns, which is rehabilitated economically, and which is run by a Palestinian government, is likely to be a positive model for the future.

I am not certain that this is the model Sharon has in mind. An opposite, negative development seems more likely at the moment: Gaza in chaos, supported by international welfare organizations, and controlled by armed gangs - that is the model that will prevent any Israeli from even considering a continuation of the process in the West Bank. Continuation of the war after the Israeli exit from Gaza will cause the Israeli public to lose any desire to reach an agreement. In such a public atmosphere, our death grip on 2.5 million Palestinians in seven enclaves in the West Bank will turn into a perpetual one.

If general elections are held [in Israel] before the disengagement plan is carried out, they will of necessity focus on support for or opposition to the Sharon plan. Without any other plan before it, the public will support Sharon and his plan, and thus will indirectly prepare the ground for the continuation of lawless settlement in the West Bank. When it turns out that the conflict has not been solved, that the war with the Palestinians is continuing, that the Israel Defense Forces are busy protecting the settlers and that the country?s political isolation is increasing, Israelis will be left for four more years with a government that in effect doesn't want anything else.

Weisglass openly told Haaretz : "The disengagement supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so that there will not be a political process with the Palestinians." Formaldehyde, it should be remembered, is the liquid in which dead bodies are preserved.

The parties that want a political process - Labor, Shinui and Yahad must present an alternative. The real choice is between an end to the war and a continuation of the settlements. There will be no agreement with the Palestinians when 250,000 Israelis live in 230 settlements and outposts in the West Bank. Unless about half of them return to the borders of the State of Israel and a new map is drawn separating Israel and the Palestinian state, there will be no end to war in the land.

On the new map, about 80 percent of Mandatory Eretz Israel will be within the borders of the state. Such a division, achieved through agreement, means a historic victory for Zionism. The choice between the settlements and the end of the war should be the focus of the next elections. The majority, which is tired of being dragged into an endless war by an extremist minority, will then have its say.

Ephraim Sneh is a member of the Knesset from the Labor Party and the chair of the Knesset Subcommittee on Defense Planning and Policy.

Source: CGNews, http://www.sfcg.org/cgnews/middle-east.cfm, October 15, 2004. Distributed by the Common Ground News Service with permission to publish.

Zaki Salhiyeh, the seventy-five-year-old owner of a restaurant in the Kalandia refugee camp, south of Ramallah, raises his arms toward heaven, wishing time would go back four years, to before the Intifada began, "when we were a million times better [off] than now." What Salhiyeh, a refugee from a town near al-Ludd (Lod), says is common. Most Palestinians believe the political, social, and economic situation has deteriorated drastically during the past four years, without any sign of deliverance on the horizon.

The Intifada began as a popular act of protest against the perceived disparagement of Palestinian rights in negotiations between the Labor government headed by Ehud Barak and the Palestinian leadership, especially as the negotiations reached their peak at the Camp David summit in July 2000. However, the Intifada soon escalated into a confrontation of military skirmishes, in which Palestinian society would pay an exorbitant price.

"The first Intifada was better, because the people went out to demonstrate and protest while life went on, more or less normally. Today, they are destroying everything, every single thing," says Salhiyeh. Three of his sons were wounded by Israeli gunfire, and one was jailed for six years. "What is taking place here is not an Intifada; it is daily killing and destruction. There is blood spilled every day, people are being killed in the streets and nobody cares, people become destitute and lose their homes, farms, and livelihoods as if nothing is happening here. And worst of all, we live in one world, and the Authority lives in a totally different one," said Fardos Salhiyeh, the 26-year-old daughter of Zaki, who works in a small shop next to her father?s restaurant. Unlike in previous years, the anniversary of the Intifada passed this September without celebrations in most Palestinian population centers, an indication that the masses have lost their fervor for it.

Hani Al Masri, the outspoken commentator in the Al Ayyam Palestinian newspaper, said, "The Intifada has not been defeated yet, but it is closer to defeat than to victory." He added: "The Intifada has committed a number of fatal errors, foremost of which is resorting to war and arms, a field in which Israel excels."

Statistics show that the rate of Palestinian to Israeli casualties has risen from 3:1 in the first three years to 9:1 in the fourth year. This is related to Israel?s adapting to the Intifada and succeeding in assassinating and apprehending many leaders and members of military wings and groups, as well as building a major part of the separation wall, limiting the capability to cross into Israel to carry out operations.

Developments in the fourth year of the Intifada have created profound changes in the attitudes of Palestinians regarding the present wave of conflict. This includes an unprecedented increase in the number of those who support ending violence bilaterally, the emergence of a feeling of loss of personal security, and a preoccupation with future prospects in light of potential internal strife and the weakness of the Palestinian Authority in controlling the situation. In a survey carried out on the fourth anniversary of the Intifada, a large percentage (83%) of Palestinians expressed their desire for a bilateral end to violence. For the first time since the beginning of the Intifada, a large percentage (59%) supported taking measures to stop armed operations against Israel when an agreement is reached to stop bilateral violence. However, the same survey, carried out by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, showed wide-scale support for bombing operations (77% for the Beer Sheba operation).

Dr. Khalil Shikaki, director of the center, notes that two trends have developed in Palestinian public opinion: a rational one that largely supports ending violence, and an emotional one that supports bombing operations as a response to Israeli violence. Shikaki attributes this to "the fact that the public lacks a leadership that tells it where the right and wrong paths are." He added, "It is clear that the more people feel pain and suffering, the more they want to take revenge and inflict similar pain and suffering on the other party. This is an emotional response. On the other hand, there exists some sort of a rational dialogue on the Palestinian street, wondering over the feasibility of the operations and supporting a ceasefire."

Despite these new trends in the Palestinian street towards ending violence, observers do not expect a quick end to the conflict, which the Israeli right tries to exploit to eliminate the effects of the previous Labor government's initiatives and to impose its visions on the ground, even if unilaterally. Shikaki believes that the initiative will remain in Sharon?s hands on the Israeli side, and in the hands of Palestinian organizations and factions such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Al Aqsa Brigades on the Palestinian side, eliminating the chance that the current Palestinian leadership will assume the initiative to end the stalemate. He further stated that "Sharon will continue his present policy against the Palestinians because he knows our weak points and does not see us to have a leadership capable of leading its nation. In the mean time, he continues to achieve his goals. From our side, the Palestinian street, deeply immersed in crisis and therefore incapable of choosing which route to follow, does not see any leadership. The present leadership does not enjoy the confidence of the street because it does not carry out any reforms, fight corruption or hold elections."

Shikaki thinks the only way out for Palestinians is to hold elections that would bail the political system out of its state of failure and loss of legitimacy. Until then, Palestinians continue to receive savage blows from Israel, coupled with Sharon?s unilateral withdrawal, waiting for a suicide bomber to sneak into Israel and carry out an act of revenge, or for a rocket fired by Hamas from Gaza to hit one of the houses in the border town of Sderot. "How we wish that time stopped at the first Intifada," said Fardos Salhiyeh, Zaki?s daughter.

Israeli politicians periodically cite Palestinian textbooks as damning proof that the Palestinians are continuing to educate to hatred and not to peace. The last one to do so was Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who called for making the curriculum the acid test of the new Palestinian leadership. The Fatah movement's candidate, Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), picked up the gauntlet, but immediately threw one of his own at the Ministry of Education: You want to examine our education for peace? Help yourself, but based on the principle of reciprocity, we should also see what's happening on the Israeli side.

It isn't at all certain that on this test the Israeli education system would get a higher grade than its Palestinian neighbor. Although it is hard to find in Israeli textbooks incidences of blatant incitement, as is often found in Jordanian and Egyptian textbooks, Dr. Ruth Firer of Hebrew University, one of the pioneers of textbook research, argues that the indoctrination in the Israeli books is simply more sophisticated.

For this reason, she says, the messages penetrate all the more effectively. It is harder to detect a stereotype that is concealed by a seemingly innocent icon, she says, than one that is worded such that it "vulgarly pulls you by the nose."

Findings of a study she conducted together with Dr. Sami Adwan of Bethlehem University, who specializes in peace education and human rights, recently appeared in a book published by the Georg Eckert Institute for International Textbook Research in Germany, entitled "The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict in History and Civics Textbooks of Both Nations." The study encompassed 13 Israeli textbooks (2,682 pages) and nine Palestinian textbooks (1,207 pages), and revealed a sort of mirror image in which each side pins responsibility for the violence on the other.

What the Israeli books call "events," the Palestinian ones call "uprising"; the 1948 war in the Israeli textbooks is the "War of Independence," and in the Palestinian books, al Nakba (The Catastrophe). Israeli textbooks regard Palestinian nationalism as a political reaction to Zionist and British policy, whereas textbooks in the territories see Palestine as a nation existing of its own accord that is at the same time part of the Arab and Islamic world.

Even though they were published after the Oslo Accords, the Palestinian textbooks emulate those in Jordan and Egypt, which have avoided use of the term "State of Israel" in texts and maps.

"In Palestinian eyes, the core of the conflict is over the land; for the Israelis, it is over security," Firer and Adwan write. "The Palestinians claim to be the descendants of the Canaanites, and thus being indigenous to the land, while the Israelis regard the Palestinians as a new nation of the 20th century born in response to the Zionist repatriation and the British Mandate. According to the Israeli version, the Israelis have rights to the land because of their religious, historical and cultural legacy. The national self-image of the Israelis includes all the layers of the past, starting with the ancient Hebrews, to the suffering Jews in the Diaspora, the victims of the Holocaust and the revived modern Jew in the Zionist Renaissance."

Surprisingly, the two researchers found an almost absolute parallel between the books in three areas: Both sides ignore periods of relative calm and coexistence between the nations - for instance in 1921-1929 - or mention them as a misleading interval in a prolonged conflict, the two sides do not reveal any tendency to tell the pupil the story of the conflict from the enemy's point of view, both skip over details of the human suffering of the other side, and each side gives a reckoning of its victims alone.

Firer marks 1995 as the year in which a change for the good took place in peace education in Israel and quotes from a statement made by education minister Yossi Sarid in January 2000 that he had given instructions to purge from the textbooks any hint of anti-Arab stereotypes and to initiate a free discussion of less positive events in Israeli history.

The current period, since the outbreak of the Al-Aqsa Intifada and the Likud's return to power, is characterized, she says, by a retreat to the traditional educational values that emphasize love of the homeland, marginalize peace education and abandon any attempt to understand the Palestinian side.

The chairman of the Pedagogical Secretariat at the Ministry of Education, Professor Yaakov Katz, does not claim that the Israeli education system is trying to put the pupil in the shoes of the enemy-neighbor, nor is there any reason to expect this to happen. "As opposed to critics who wish to highlight the Arab-Palestinian narrative, the education system in Israel intentionally emphasizes the Jewish and democratic identity of the state."

Katz notes that this attitude does not rule out the narrative of the other or the civil rights granted to the other by virtue of the Declaration of Independence and Israeli law.

"It would be interesting to know if there is any other place in the world in which textbooks present the narrative of the other at a time that the violent struggle between two peoples has not yet ended," says Katz. "No one should expect the democratic Jewish state to suggest during a war that it relate to the enemy's narrative in egalitarian fashion. Even more so after the Oslo Accords, about which there is a consensus that they did not bring about the yearned-for peace between Israel and the Palestinians."

Middle East History lecturer Dr. Eli Podeh of Hebrew University, author of "The Arab-Israeli Conflict in Israeli History Textbooks, 1948-2000," expresses his reservations at the very comparison between the Israeli textbooks and those published by the Palestinian Authority.

Podeh says that while Israel is already situated in the third generation of textbooks, the Palestinians are still stuck in the first generation, which somewhat resembles the Israeli curriculum enlisted during the years of armed struggle and the initial years of statehood.

In his first study of textbooks, which was issued seven years ago, Podeh wrote, "Recognition of the important role that textbooks played in assimilating negative stands toward the Arabs has not yet been absorbed by Israeli society. This role constituted a primary factor in exacerbating the conflict in the past, and it serves as a factor that makes reconciliation difficult."

Podeh says that since then, a noticeable improvement has been made in the history books, so much so that many of them expressly note that Israel participated in deporting Arabs.

Podeh says that if the Palestinian textbooks were compelled to go through the lengthy and exhaustive process of demythologization that Israeli textbooks went through, "then the road to mutual reconciliation is, I regret to say, liable to be a long one."

Professor Daniel Bar-Tal of the Tel Aviv University School of Education, who analyzed the contents of all 124 textbooks - from grades one through 12, covering the subjects of literature, Hebrew, history, geography and citizenship, all of which were approved in 1994 for use in the Israeli education system - found that the presentation of Arabs in dehumanizing terms, which declined in the 1980s and 1990s, began to seep back into the education system after the outbreak of the intifada.

He terms this phenomenon "part of the ethos of the conflict that spreads in societies subject to a violent conflict."

Like Podeh, Bar-Tal also noticed a perceptible decrease in the measure of delegitimization of the nationalistic positions of the Palestinians, but that at the same time, there has been no change in use of negative stereotypes that present the Arabs as "primitives," "passive," "cruel" or "riffraff."

Dr. Nurit Peled-Elhanan of the Hebrew University School of Education recently completed an in-depth study of six Israeli textbooks published in the past few years. Some of them received official approval by the Ministry of Education's curricular division, while others were adopted by numerous teachers even without ministry approval.

One of the prominent findings in her study is the blurring of the Green Line. The book "Israel - Man and Expanse" published by the Center for Educational Technology features a map of Israel's institutions of higher learning, with colleges in Ariel, Elkana, Alon Shvut and Katzrin, along with colleges in Safed, Jezreel Valley and Ashkelon. No border is demarcated, nor is any mention made of a single Palestinian university. Nor do the book's maps show Nazareth or any other Arab city in Israel, although holy sites in the West Bank are presented as an integral part of the State of Israel.

A chapter on the ultra-Orthodox community states that they live in settlements that were established specifically for them: Kfar Chabad, Emmanuel, Elad and Beitar Illit. The message, says Peled-Elhanan, is that the settlements are an inseparable part of the State of Israel.

On most of the maps appearing in the books examined by Peled-Elhanan, Ariel and Katzrin are marked as part of the State of Israel. A map of the national parks shows no sign of a Green Line, but does show Ma'aleh Efraim. Peled-Elhanan contends that this is merely a sophisticated way of ensuring that the pupil will espouse certain basic political assumptions.

"When the Palestinians write `Palestine' on the maps in their textbooks, it is considered incitement," she says. "If that is the case, what should we call Israeli textbooks that call the West Bank `Judea and Samaria,' even on maps that describe the Mandatory borders, when the official name was `Palestine-Eretz Israel?'"

For instance, the jacket of the book "Geography of the Land of Israel" (by Talia Sagi and Yinon Aharoni, Lilach Books), a textbook that is especially popular with teachers, features a map of the Greater Land of Israel, without a trace of the territories that were already then under the control of the Palestinian Authority.

"This provides a hint to the pupil that these territories were `ours' from time immemorial, and reinforces the message that in the Six-Day War, we `liberated' or `redeemed' them from the Arab occupier," writes Peled-Elhanan in her study.

Another map, in which the West Bank is marked with a different color, states that "Following the Oslo Accords, the borders of Judea and Samaria are in a dynamic process of change." The accompanying text notes that the territories of the Palestinian Authority were not marked on the map, as there is not yet any border between states.

In the case of Syria, the existence of an inter-state border that Israel does not deny does not prevent the authors from keeping it a secret from the pupil. The pupil reads that Israel annexed the Golan Heights in 1981 and applied Israeli law to it, "with all that entails." How is this supposed to influence his position on the concession of territory that had been annexed to Israel in exchange for peace with Syria? Silhouettes of two soldiers are marked on the Golan Heights, the weapon of one of them is aimed at Syria.

Professor Yoram Bar-Gal, head of the Department of Geography and Environmental Studies at the University of Haifa, says that the universal principle regarding maps used in the education realm, which states that "My map is educational - your map is propaganda," applies here in full. He says that maps are given high credibility, and therefore constitute a superior tool for transmitting political messages.

"The Zionist movement and the State of Israel, like other states and movements, have always exploited these characteristics of maps for their own needs," he says. Bar-Gal nevertheless comments that political change expressed in maps does not necessarily create change in the consciousness of teachers or pupils. "Erasure of the Green Line from the maps," he says, "did not necessarily make them disappear from the consciousness of the public at large."

Like the Green Line, the term "Palestinians" is alien to most textbooks. Until the chapter that discusses the Oslo Accords, even important historians like Professor Eli Barnavi and Dr. Eyal Naveh usually prefer the term "Israeli Arabs."

In his book "The 20th Century," Barnavi writes in reference to the Palestinian refugees: "The longing they felt and the subhuman conditions of their diaspora" imparted "an image of the Land of Israel as lost paradise."

Peled-Elhanan points out the significant difference in his attitude toward refugees in photographs: Palestinian refugees are represented by an aerial photograph of a nameless refugee camp, devoid of any human face. This compares with a photo of Jewish refugees from Europe sitting on a suitcase in Yehud. "The Palestinian problem," the book states, "is the end result of inactivity and frustration, which were the heritage of the refugees."

Peled-Elhanan cites a series of illustrations appearing in "Geography of the Land of Israel," which implants a camouflage message of the Arabs' primitive nature: The man in sharwal pants and a kaffiyeh on his head, the woman in traditional dress, usually sitting on the floor, and faceless children peeking from behind her back. The text explains, "The Arab resident insists on living in single-story homes, the cost of which is high. There is an expectation that all of the public needs will be provided for by the repository of land in the state's possession."

The factors delaying development of the Arab village in Israel, says the book, are that "most of the villages are situated in regions far from the center, and access to them is difficult. These villages have been left outside the process of development and change both because they are hardly exposed to modern life in the city, and because of the difficulties in linking them to the electricity and water network."

These factors do not exist when the discussion revolves to Jewish settlers who choose to settle in settlement outposts on hills that are "distant from the center, and to which access is difficult."

Naturally, Jerusalem receives special treatment in the Israeli textbooks. The book "Lands of the Mediterranean" (by Drora Va'adya, published by Ma'alot), which has Ministry of Education approval, states that "in addition to Jews," Christians and Muslims from all over the world come to Jerusalem to visit sites that are holy to each of their religions.

Peled-Elhanan comments that although the Jews are the smallest group numerically, the Christians and Muslims are annexed to them. A picture of a synagogue appears first, and it is nearly equal in size to the pictures of a mosque and a church put together. The map appended to this chapter shows Israel, including the territories, as an isolated island of Jews in a Muslim and Christian ocean, devoid of political boundaries.

In "Settlements in the Expanse," an approved book, Peled-Elhanan found that only two lines were devoted to the history of Jerusalem from the days of King David to the modern era, whereas the yearning of the Jews for Zion was described in 40 lines. The word "Arabs" does not appear at all in texts or on maps of Jerusalem: no Muslim Quarter, no Palestinian university and no Palestinian hospitals.

Katz says that some of the criticism refers to textbooks that are not approved for use in the education system, but he is aware that certain schools do not uphold this directive. In contrast to them, the approved textbooks undergo a careful examination by experts in order to make sure that they are not contaminated by racial, ethnic, gender or religious discrimination, and are not fraught with stereotypes.

Among the experts examining the textbooks are scholars such as Ghassem Khamaisi, the historian Dr. Benny Morris, Dan Meridor, the professors Yossi Katz, Arnon Sofer, Amnon Rubinstein, Arieh Shahar, Yossi Shelhav and others, people who according to Katz cannot be suspected of wanting to perpetuate an imbalanced or one-sided approach.

As for maps, he says that the government's cartographic department does not mark the Green Line as an official border of the State of Israel, and that so long as the Palestinian Authority has not been recognized as a sovereign state, it should not be represented as a state on maps.

This last response is identical practically word for word with the Palestinian position, according to which marking the border will come with the permanent settlement of the border between Israel and Palestine.

Four-year-old Noah has recently completed her first year of kindergarten. Noah's parents, Olga, an immigrant from the former Soviet Republic, and David, fourth generation Israeli, send her to an Arab-Jewish kindergarten in Jerusalem, which is a part of the Hand in Hand bilingual school. David told me that he had been totally against the idea, as he felt that Noah was too young to be put in the "middle of the conflict", but at Olga's insistence he went to see the kindergarten. "Within half an hour of being in the kindergarten I was convinced that this was the place for my daughter. I saw the children playing, heard singing and talking in Hebrew and Arabic, heard the teachers telling stories in both languages and realized that there was no conflict here. This is the way it is supposed to be. What amazed me was how totally natural and normal it all was. So the next day we registered Noah for the kindergarten."

A year later both parents were in total agreement that it had been a wonderful year, "Noah now understands, sings, counts, and has an ever growing vocabulary in spoken Arabic. She has Jewish friends, Arab friends, has visited Arab homes, Jewish homes, celebrated Jewish holidays, Christian holidays, Moslem holidays and all this while from her point of view just experiencing a totally normal, stimulating and fun filled kindergarten." The parents added that for them personally it had been a very special, challenging and enlightening year, in which they had benefited tremendously from the constant contact and dialogue with the other parents and staff.

Over 500 children and their families in Hand in Hand?s three schools in Israel today share this extraordinary experience of Noah and her parents.

Hand in Hand, the centre for Jewish-Arab education was established in 1997 with the goal of initiating and fostering egalitarian, bilingual, multi-cultural education for Jewish and Arab children. In the midst of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and against all odds the two co-founders, Lee Gordon and Amin Khalef, set about looking for places in Israel that would be prepared to begin this revolutionary experiment. Positive answers came from two places, the city of Jerusalem and the Regional Council of Misgav who, together with the Arab town of Saknin and the village of Shaab, were prepared to form partnerships to open a school. Thus, in September 1998 Hand in Hand opened its first two schools, with twenty kindergarten age children in Jerusalem and twenty-five first graders in the Galilee.

In the six years since the opening Hand in Hand schools have grown and flourished. The school in Jerusalem has eleven classes, starting with pre-kindergarten and going up to sixth grade, while in the Galilee the first group of graduates completed primary school and started junior high.

In each school there are two principles, one Arab and one Jewish, in each class a Jewish and Arab teacher, fifty percent Arab and fifty percent Jewish children.

Together with a group of parents calling themselves "Gesher al Ha-Wadi, (Bridge over the valley)", Hand in Hand opened its third school on the 1st of September 2004. In a beautiful arched building in the Arab village of Kfar Kara, one hundred kindergarten to third grade children and their parents joined this exciting and special journey.

Hand-in-Hand has succeeded together with the children, their parents, the rest of the community, the Ministry of Education, and local authorities to build a cooperative framework that allows all involved to study and develop together, sustaining and strengthening each group?s language and cultural traditions while learning about the other group on the basis of equality and mutual respect. Magda, from Bet Safafa, is the mother of Azam, a ten-year-old who has been in the school for five years. Magda sums it up ?we are equal in this school. That is why I feel equal to the parents, an Arab teacher feels equal to a Jewish teacher, and my son feels equal to the Jewish child sitting next to him?

The two class teachers teach the children simultaneously in both languages, however nothing is translated, instead the teachers interact with each other, elaborating and elucidating each other?s sentences. Each teacher teaches in his or her native tongue, and the children are encouraged to answer in whichever language they feel comfortable in.

Our children like all the children in Israel are exposed to the constant violence surrounding the conflict. In Hand in Hand schools the children are encouraged to express their ideas and feelings, to question, to see and to deal with this complicated reality. A visitor to the school asked ten-year-old Zaher why he thinks there is a conflict. "The Arabs and Jews don?t agree how to share their land," he answered. To the question of what he thinks they should do about it, he replied, "They have to sit down together and discuss it, and if they asked me I would tell them that if they can?t agree it doesn't belong to anyone, but if they agree it could be for everybody."

Seven-year-old Adam, a Jewish child in second grade, was playing at a neighbor?s house when a bomb exploded on a bus in Jerusalem. The neighbor, angry at the news, shouted out "these Arabs just want to kill us all," to which Adam replied, "I don't think that's true, my teacher is Manal and I know that she loves me and doesn't want to kill me." Adam?s ability to differentiate between the individual and the group stereotype is the hope for the future, and it is to this end that Hand in Hand continues to strive.

"If we are to teach real peace in this world, and if we are to carry on a real war against war, we shall have to begin with the children." It seems to me that Mohandas Gandhi?s words were never more appropriate.

Josie Mendelson is an early childhood educator, who opened the first Jewish-Arab kindergarten at the Jerusalem YMCA. Prior to joining Hand in Hand she was director of early-childhood education for the City of Jerusalem

Scores of Palestinian children with serious medical conditions have long gone untreated because of lack of access to and lack of affordability of proper medical care. But thanks to a new partnership of Palestinian and Israeli pediatricians, under auspices of Israel's Peres Peace Centre, hundreds of Palestinian children have been seen for free by Israeli doctors in the last four months. With funding from Italy, nearly 200 of 580 children that were referred have already undergone major surgery at Israeli hospitals at no cost to the families. Another 350-400 children have undergone free diagnostic testing. Four Israeli hospitals have signed on to the 'Saving Children' program: Hadassah University Hospital in Jerusalem, Tel Hashomer Hospital in Tel Aviv, Ramban Hospital in Haifa and the Jerusalem orthopedic hospital Alyn. Many other Israeli hospitals were turned away, as the Peres Centre decided that only those that agree to subsidize medical costs will be allowed to receive patients through their network. This will insure that Israel, and not only Italy, will be contributing financially to the program. The four partnering hospitals are discounting treatments up to fifty percent, which helps maximize the number of patients that can be helped.

Several dozen Palestinian pediatricians and sub-specialists from West Bank and Gaza also signed-on to form a working committee to screen Palestinian infants and children and determine who will get referrals. Only Palestinians - from newborns to age 15 - that have serious conditions which can not under any circumstances be treated by Palestinian doctors are able to get through. Doctors from both sides work together to determine who will be treated and where.

Palestinians hospitals have never neared the standards of those in neighboring Israel and Jordan, where Palestinians often must turn for treatment. Children under 15, who make up some fifty percent of the Palestinian population, or 1.7 million, according to doctors, have been hardest hit by the economic and political turmoil and the inability of the Palestinian medical infrastructure to develop in such an environment. But even middle-class Palestinian families with two working parents would not be able to afford treatments for their children in foreign hospitals, doctors say. "This program is a program of hope -- a collaboration of Palestinian and Israeli doctors and others who still have humanistic views," Prof. Anwar Dudin, a pediatrician at al-Yamama hospital in Bethlehem, who is overseeing the Palestinian side of the project, told ISRAEL21c.

The idea for the medical partnership was set in motion when an Italian journalist reported on a child from Bethlehem with cancer. At the time the boy was left untreated as Palestinian facilities do not have the kind of care he needed and Israeli cancer treatments can be prohibitively expensive for those without health insurance. An overwhelming response from the Italian public led Italian officials to contact Israeli doctors. In July of 2003, several Italian public officials from the Tuscany region flew into Israel for two days of meetings with colleagues, to investigate the situation on the ground.

Israeli doctors were surprised to learn that Italy had in the past funded Palestinian children and their families for trips to Italy for medical treatment. "We told them it would make more sense and cost less to do the program here [in Israel]," Dr. Dan Shanit, medical director of the Peres Centre, who is overseeing the program from the Israeli side, told ISRAEL21c. "We have the same medical standards as Italy, if not more, and if we do it here there will be gains. It will contribute to reconciliation and it will be easier for [Palestinian] parents to come and visit their young children after surgery and for follow-up visits."

Initially the Italian officials considered subsidizing $150,000 a year to underwrite medical costs, but after the visit, they decided instead to offer $1.2 million over three years, as a gift from the region of Tuscany. But after the Palestinian referral service was up and running in November of 2003, and after patients started to be seen four months ago, other donors joined and the budget has been raised to $1.5 million. Another region of Italy, not yet named, may underwrite a program just for treating cancer patients. The high cost of such severe disorders as cancer is a major problem facing the program.

The most common condition among the patients is congenital heart disease. It is especially prevalent in Palestinian areas, doctors say, because women do not undergo sufficient prenatal screenings and abortion of fetuses with severe malformations are not performed. The most serious cause, explains Dudin, is the high rate of marriage between Palestinian relatives, including first cousins. There are also marriages between cousins in Israel, but at a significantly lower rate. Though five to six thousand Palestinians annually are born with a major cardiac deformity, there is cause for hope, Shanit said. "The wonderful thing is that you stand a very good chance that if you treat them early enough they'll have a very normal life." Other common conditions requiring surgery include severe burns, orthopaedic malformations, neurological problems, and occasional gunshot wounds to the skull or brain.

The team coordinates who gets operated on where and Peres tries to arrange travel permits. Some Palestinian children who may have been considered for treatment have not been able to travel, under Israeli security restrictions, especially those from Gaza. The participating doctors are also limited and frustrated by travel restrictions, says Dudin. But the cooperation between doctors and between doctors and patients themselves has been excellent, doctors on both sides report. "We have had an incredible response from families who say they 'never experienced Israelis to be like they are'," said Shanit. "Some had never seen an Israeli except a soldier at a checkpoint. It gives a different image of Israel."

Both Palestinian and Israeli doctors have also agreed not to involve governments. "It was suggested to be a cooperation of professionals rather than get the Palestinian Authority involved," said Shanit. "Normally the PA would be a partner, but we have not always had good experiences with such cooperation. We were worried that political involvement would affect the project." "We don't need the endorsement of the PA," agreed Dudin. "Parents who have sick children seek help from any side. This justifies the need."

For their work, Dudin and Shanit are scheduled to receive an international peace prize from the Italian association, il Centro Studi Guiseppe Donati. "This is not a collaboration of Palestinians and Israelis but of minorities on both sides," said Dudin. "Our objective is to save children and do our job as paediatricians. The Israelis who collaborate with us think the stupid situation can't continue like this. And they also do it for their own future." "What's in mind is human," he added. "We are a living cry against segregation and racism."

Source: BBC Online, http://www.bbc.co.uk/, September 7 2004. Distributed by the Common Ground News Service with permission to republish.

The solution to one of the thorniest problems in the Middle East may be taking shape on an anonymous-looking building site in south-west Israel. Private contractors are building what they call a "water factory". And they believe they may have found the Holy Grail, the Philosophers' Stone: an economical way to turn sea water into high quality drinking water.

It has become almost a cliché in the Middle East that the most divisive issue is not land, not oil, but water. In fact many experts believe water will be the cause of the next war in the region. So the prospect of limitless supplies of cheap drinking water has the engineers here very excited indeed. "Thinking about this concept of water factory, I think that the water problems, not only in the Middle East, but in the rest of the world can be solved, at comparatively competitive prices," enthused Gustavo Kronenberg, one of the engineers in charge of the project.

"There is no problem of water; the problem is to get out the salt. There is plenty of water in the sea." But the real problem until now has been the cost. Water desalination has been the technology of last resort, the Rolls-Royce solution for a rich desert kingdom like Saudi Arabia.

Now this plant at Ashkelon, on Israel's Mediterranean coast, promises to provide water at around $0.52 a cubic meter. That's only marginally more expensive than the existing water costs in Israel. At the moment the water company provides supplies at around US $0.45 a cubic meter. The water from the new plant will be higher quality, and costs are coming down all the time. In fact costs are going down so fast that the makers are even discussing building desalination plants in rainy old England. When it is finished next year the Ashkelon plant will produce 100 million cubic meters a year. That's roughly one seventh of the domestic water demand in Israel (excluding agriculture and industry).

The key to the success is a technology called "reverse osmosis". Essentially this involves water being pushed through a membrane or filter at a very high pressure. That high pressure means it uses a lot of energy. At the Ashkelon plant they have cut the costs by building their own power station as part of the unit. New technology recycles spare energy as part of the process. The membranes themselves are being continually upgraded to improve efficiency as well.

Already other countries in the area are looking at the technology with interest. Neighboring Jordan is gasping for water. It is tenth from the bottom of the world water league. Supplies are being maintained, but only by plundering ground water, the water stored deep beneath the earth. And sooner or later that will run out. It would take just three plants the size of Ashkelon to plug Jordan's current water deficit.

One idea being looked at is a massive pipeline up from the Red Sea to the Dead Sea. Part of the water would be used to replenish the Dead Sea, which is receding at the rate of a meter a year because the surrounding countries are using up the water that once fed into it. More of the water from the pipeline could be cleaned, using the technology being developed in Israel, then used to supply fresh water to Jordan, Israel and the Palestinians. A plan is now being put forward to the World Bank, with a view to launching a major feasibility study. But the ultimate cost could run into billions of dollars.

The challenge is to secure that kind of political investment in the region during the current political deadlock in the Middle East peace process. "From our experience, water is an element of peace-building and co-operation," argues Jordanian Water Minister Hazem al-Nasser. "All countries are ready to co-operate when it comes to water." That's a very optimistic analysis of what's been one of the most difficult questions in the politics of the Middle East.

At the Ashkelon water treatment plant, the engineer Gustavo Kronenberg has a slightly different perspective. "Unfortunately water is one of the reasons that create war. If you compare the cost of one F-16, it is more or less the cost of this desalination plant. "I believe at the end of the day it will be much cheaper to solve conflict based on this type of plant than through buying new F-16s."

Source: The Jordan Times , http://www.jordantimes.com/ September 22, 2004.
Distributed by the Common Ground News Service with permission to republish.

Syria and the United States are like two exhausted, ageing boxers who have little energy left in them and are preoccupied by dozens of other priorities, but they cannot resist a good punch-up when they see the ideological fire in each other's eye. This is partly history (this is essentially the last political frontier of the cold war) and partly ideology and personality, with frenzied neo-cons in Washington and true believer Arab Nationalist Ba?athists in Damascus biologically unable to pass up an eyeball-to-eyeball showdown.

The Syrian-American relationship is worth monitoring closely as it moves into dynamic mode, as it has this month. The American romantics in Washington pressure Syria to change as part of their desire to reform, modernize, democratize and save the Arab world, and Syria resists American pressure in order to wear the mantle of Middle Eastern defiance of the imperial West and defender of Arab dignity and rights. This is a terrain that lends itself to war - or, preferably, to a good old-fashioned deal.

So we should prick up our ears and scratch our heads in a serious attempt to figure out what is going on when the Syrian ambassador in Washington announces, as he did Monday, that Syrian troops in Lebanon this week will begin a redeployment and partial pullback towards the Syrian border. The Bush administration has eyed Syria suspiciously for years, accusing it of denying Lebanese sovereignty, assisting 'terrorist' groups like Hamas and Hizbollah, developing weapons of mass destruction and, most recently, allowing arms and militants to cross its border with Iraq. A U.S. congressional bill threatened and then imposed some mild sanctions on Syria earlier this year. The confrontation intensified earlier this month when Syria used its dominance of Lebanese politics to push through a three-year extension of Lebanese President Emile Lahoud's term, against the wishes of most Lebanese.

The U.S. and France replied by teaming up to sponsor and pass UN Security Council Resolution 1559 demanding that Syria respect Lebanon's sovereignty and withdraw its troops from Lebanon. An American official delegation that visited Syria last week made it clear that Damascus had to comply with the UN resolution or else face escalating U.S. and international pressure. The UN secretary general will report back to the Security Council next month on Syrian compliance with the resolution, thus formally placing the Syrian leadership in the crosshairs of international monitoring.

Even many Arab countries, including the powerful Gulf Cooperation Council oil producers, advised Syria to respect Lebanese sovereignty more diligently. An American technical team in Damascus this week is working with Syria on some of the issues the U.S. has raised, including alleged laundering of money through Syrian banks for 'terrorist' activities.

Why would Syria blatantly force an extension of the Lebanese presidential term, and bring upon itself the formal international censure and ongoing scrutiny of the UN Security Council, when it could have enjoyed a newly elected Lebanese president who was perfectly acceptable to it? Did Syria panic, act clumsily and misread Lebanese, Mideast and world opinion?

I suspect that Syria's recent actions and the global response they generated may have left the Syrian leadership in a stronger rather than a weaker position. In the past decade, since the end of the cold war and the effective end of the military dimension of the Arab-Israeli conflict, Syria has steadily lost much of the regional and international clout it enjoyed during the previous three decades. Its direct impact had gradually become restricted to its own soil, Lebanon and some lingering linkages with Palestinian resistance groups, Hizbollah and Iran.

At the same time, the dynamics among every major aspect of Syrian national life point to an urgent need for change and modernization. The economy, the demographics of a young population, technology, relations with Europe and the U.S., domestic politics, relations with neighbors Turkey and Iraq, the stalled peace process with Israel, and even hydrology and the environment, all demand significant, rapid change in present policies.

Syrian President Bashar Al Assad, like other young Arab leaders who assumed power in recent years, quickly grasped the urgency of change and modernization, but has acted only in some sectors. He initiated some sound changes in the economy and in key regional ties (especially with Turkey), expressed willingness to resume legitimate peace talks with Israel, but did little in terms of domestic political reform or relations with the U.S. and Europe.

Since the post-Sept. 11 American diplomatic and military onslaught against the Middle East, in the past two years, Damascus has faced the most brutal fate that could be inflicted upon such an ideological regime - quasi-isolation and marginalization. Recent events, though, have dramatically changed Syria's regional and global posture and its diplomatic positioning. American and European delegations visit Damascus regularly to talk and deal. The Syrian leadership is back in the position where it has always been most comfortable: it sits at the pivot of several simultaneous, interlinked and often tense diplomatic dynamics with multiple interlocutors that matter (the U.S., EU, Turkey) on issues such as Palestine, Israel, Lebanon, Hizbollah, Hamas, Iraq, the war on terror, economic and political reform, the UN Security Council's role and allegations of seeking weapons of mass destruction.

The road is open for Damascus to translate its more favorable new diplomatic positioning into policies that could generate real benefits for all concerned, starting with Syria and Lebanon, but extending to Iraq, the U.S., Israel, Palestine and the Europeans. Syria has always been a dynamic negotiator and deal-maker, not an intransigent or hesitant bluffer. It makes deals, though, based on win-win arrangements, in which typically it secures the strengthening and perpetuation of its domestic political system ~ one of the last Soviet-style centralized states in the world - for offering something meaningful and reasonable in return. In the past decade or so, Syria has had little to trade diplomatically, because it did not adjust quickly enough to the post-cold war era. Today, it sits in the middle of a veritable diplomatic bazaar, flush with commodities to give and take, and interested buyers and sellers with whom to deal honorably. This is an important opportunity for Syria, the entire region, and the U.S. to leave behind the rigid, reactionary, militant policies of the past and, instead, to forge into new terrain where legitimate diplomatic agreements could benefit all parties equally.

If the Damascus leadership gauges this opportunity correctly, and responds appropriately, it can launch a new era of democratic domestic change and growth, combined with regional peace and stability that would quickly see Syria regain its traditional historical role as a central economic actor, political player, and cultural pacesetter for the entire Middle East.

All those who deal with Damascus today should also grasp that many more mutual benefits emanate from an honorable win-win agreement made in a bazaar than from a unilateral war or regime change policy cooked up in the confused minds of faraway American ideologues who still do not understand the critical diplomatic concepts of honor, history or mutually beneficial transactional politics.

This article is the third in a series of views on "the relationship between the Islamic/Arabic world and the West" Distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews), http://www.sfcg.org/cgnews/middle-east.cfm October 15, 2004 with permission to publish.

After 9/11, Americans showed a renewed interest in Samuel Huntington?s 'Clash of Civilizations.' In it, Huntington argues that future wars will be fought not on ideological or even interest-based lines, but due to cultural and OEcivilizational? differences and affinities.

To look at the rhetoric of militant extremist groups like al-Qai?da is to wonder if Huntington and his supporters might be right. There are many examples of Muslim preachers who teach that there can be no reconciling between the OEworld of Islam? and the OEworld of unbelief. Muslim extremists do indeed take verses of the Quran and sayings of Muhammad to justify atrocities against non-Muslims.

There are also less well-known preachers of hate. For example, the United States has its share of ?holy men? who claim that Muslims are evil and that morality has no place in a war against an evil enemy. Christian preachers of hate claim they are in the midst of an apocalyptic and existential war between good and evil, and so violence against non-Christians is a Biblical imperative.

Over the centuries Christians and Muslims have indeed fought each other on numerous fronts. They have also cooperated and coexisted on countless others. We are not facing a clash of civilizations, where religious and ethnic identities determine the fault lines. We are facing a minority clash of fundamentalisms, whose followers exploit anxieties and frustration caused by genuine political conflicts to further their own ideological agendas.

Coexistence and cooperation among civilizations is not just possible, it is by far the historical norm. Historically, large Christian and Jewish communities prospered and were crucial actors in the economic and social life of places like Baghdad, Damascus and Istanbul; Muslims, Jews and Christians coexisted for centuries in Bosnia and Spain; Muslims, Christians, Buddhists and animists lived together peacefully in South East Asia, as they generally do now throughout the world; art forms, cuisine, language, music and institutions of one OEcivilization? frequently bear the direct influence of another civilization. The degree of modern international trade and commerce shows that, despite conflicts and differences, different people still build cooperative, mutually beneficial and peaceful relations.

Efforts at promoting the benefits that derive from a dialogue of civilizations have long gone beyond the needs of basic survival and material concerns. Prior to 9/11, the United Nations declared the year 2001 to be the year of dialogue among civilizations, and in May 2002, 1,350 representatives of over 1,000 civil society organizations from more than 100 countries gathered to build upon a common vision of coexistence.

Even with oft-publicized rants from preachers of hate, interfaith organizations and initiatives regularly bring different people together to discuss ways to help ease the suffering of the underprivileged, build peaceful societies and solve conflict. The World Conference of Religions for Peace, for example, regularly meets to pool the resources and develop the capacity of religious leaders to address these common humanitarian concerns.

Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, American Christians formed protective cordons around American mosques and some even wore headscarves in solidarity with conservative American Muslim women; Iraqi Muslims condemned extremists who recently attacked Iraqi Christian churches and vow to protect this unique and vital part of their community; and Jewish and Palestinian activists still work together to protect the human rights of all residents of the Holy Land.

Most Americans are aware of Christian and Jewish involvement in non-violent movements in America. Many, however, would be surprised to learn that Muslims have been active and crucial participants in pluralistic non-violent civil resistance movements with Buddhists in Thailand, Hindus in India, blacks in South Africa and other religions in Indonesia and sub-Saharan Africa.

There is indeed a growing divide in the world, but it is not a timeless, intractable or divinely inspired conflict. It is a conflict driven by xenophobes based on anxieties and existential fears generated in a rapidly changing world. Proponents of clash theories make sense of their basic alienation by making the OE? 'other' the focus of all that is wrong with the world. So while there are differences in values, perspective and opinion on many issues, that has not taken away from the existence of common human desires, needs and values of our shared humanity, nor does it mean that current political differences are beyond human capacity to solve.

Dialogue and communication for understanding are among the first steps towards peace and such dialogue efforts are crucial bridges between cultures. When conflict exists, it is easy to dismiss the Christian imperative to ?turn the other cheek,? the Muslim imperative to ?repel evil with good,? or the Jewish imperative to ?love thy neighbor as thyself.? Most people, however, continue to live by these rules and see the value of continuing the dialogue of civilizations.

Dialogue and cooperation occurs despite the differences between peoples and the tug of fear-induced xenophobia or fundamentalism. In this time of growing insecurity, however, we must redouble our efforts to listen to what the other side is in fact saying, to really understand what the other side means. We need to continue building the global civic-fabric of our world to increase opportunities for relationships of trust and dialogue of respect. We need to push new audiences to get to know the Other directly from the Other, to learn about each other?s differences and similarities on a firsthand basis.

Through increased dialogue and understanding we will strengthen and develop ties that allow for open communication. Such dialogue and communication can lessen the chances that our fears will take over and that these perceived differences will result in violence or conflict. This is a wellspring of peace and where our real security rests.

Jason Erb and Noha Bakr are International Affairs Representatives for Quaker Service-AFSC and are currently based in Amman, Jordan. Quaker Service-AFSC is an international peacebuilding and development organization that seeks to promote reconciliation, sustainable development and non-violence.

USING APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY TO FACILITATE POSITIVE CHANGE IN AMERICA'S MOST IMPOVERISHED BIG CITY: EXPLORING STRATEGIES FOR POSITIVE CHANGE IN AN URBAN SETTING

This article explores using Appreciative Inquiry (AI) as a methodology for fostering positive change in a large metropolitan area. The use of AI in problem identification and resolution is discussed in relation to suggestions for developing large systems change efforts in the Cleveland, Ohio, metropolitan area. An analysis of the applicability of AI to such an environment is offered.

A recent news report by US national media listed Cleveland, Ohio as America's poorest big city. The basis for the report was the high rate of unemployment, large number of residents with low incomes, and overall poor rate of economic opportunity in the community. Once the eighth largest city is the United States, Cleveland's population has dwindled to less than half its former size, at the expense of suburban growth. This article discusses the basis for the city's unenviable designation from an historical and social perspective. The article also offers suggestion for Organization Development (OD) interventions based on positive change through a large systems approach based upon Appreciative Inquiry (AI) techniques.

The assumptions upon which the suggestions made in this article are based are the following:

• A metropolitan area such as Cleveland, Ohio, consisting of a core city and suburbs, may be considered a system and therefore a suitable objects for large system change efforts.

• Organization Development technologies may be appropriately identified developed and applied to bring about non-violent change in a large system of that type.

• Cultural sensitivity as influenced by Appreciative Inquiry strategies may be hypothesized to have potential value in brining about non violent change in such large systems as Metropolitan Cleveland.

• Appreciative Inquiry may be suitable to for integration within a systems approach to positive change.

• For purposes of this article, AI is conceptualized as a process of structured questioning which focuses on positive contributions of individuals and organizational units, leading to potential positive outcomes.

In many respects, Cleveland is similar to many eastern and midwestern industrial cities in the United States. Formed through an amalgamation of several smaller communities on the shores of Lake Erie, the city experienced rapid growth in the period between the two world wars. As a port on Lake Erie, situated approximately mid-way along the chain of Great Lakes, the city is technically part of the Eastern United States. But in orientation and attitude, Cleveland has the socio-cultural atmosphere of a midwestern community.

The Cleveland area became one of the major centers of the steel and coal industries. Location was the prime advantage of the community, with the relative benefits attendant upon cost-efficient transport of heavy loads by lake freighter. The favorable location of Cleveland in relation to the markets of the mid west, approximately half way between New York and Chicago, gave rise to the promotional tag for the city as "the best location in the nation." But it was its location that also eventually proved to work to Cleveland's detriment. Formed from two communities, Ohio City and Cleveland, both on the shores of Lake Erie and the banks of the Cuyahoga river, Cleveland allowed itself to become choked by the growth of its suburbs. With the lake on the North preventing any expansion in that direction, suburban communities quickly formed on the East, West and South fringes of the central city.

The demand for production of steel during the wartime periods made Cleveland a center of industry, attracting large numbers of manual workers from the rural South, and subsequently from Eastern Europe. The heavy industry in he Cleveland area made it a logical place for settlement for workers from the South and from Ireland, and later for Eastern European Jewish and Christian immigrants. As the Italian, Irish and Jewish groups became economically successful, they abandoned the core city, leaving Czechs, Polish, Ukrainian, Russian and African American workers behind. During he post World War I years, Cleveland was a major center of employment in heavy industry and military technology

The Prohibition Era brought Cleveland into prominence as a secondary center for organized crime activity, with strong influences from both the New York and Chicago mobs. The location of the city and the density of the surrounding forests made it an ideal dropping off point for shipments of Canadian alcohol. It became profitable for bootleggers to cross the lake by boat and to transfer alcohol to cars waiting outside of the city limits.

Cleveland's growth increased during the Second World War, due to the demand for steel and other products vital to the military effort. At that time, the population of the incorporated City of Cleveland soared to almost one million persons, making it the seventh largest city in the nation during that period. Cleveland was, at that time, a densely populated, multi-ethnic community organized around factories, churches and schools. It boasted of a well-known Roman Catholic liberal arts university, a private liberal arts college specializing in teacher education, major private university specializing in engineering and medical education.

This period also saw the flourishing of the arts in Cleveland. The community developed a reputation as a center of culture, with a world-class museum of fine art and an internationally renowned symphony orchestra. While located in the heart of Cleveland, the financing for these endeavors came largely from industrial corporations whose executives and board members enjoyed suburban life far from the city center.

The city also became a major sports center, with major league franchises for baseball, football, and hockey. It boasted three daily newspapers, as well as three television stations and a number of radio outlets. Although its economic influence has declined along with its population, the central city, called by local residents "Cleveland proper, " as contrasted with the agglomeration of suburbs and exurbs which choke it. Although it is no longer a first-tier American city, and is no longer Ohio's largest city, it remains a center of culture and education, as it selection as the site for the recent vice-presidential debates illustrates.

In the 1950's immigration from the Appalachian region became significant, contributing to the complexity of the ethnic mix. Yet there was never a true melding of cultures into the classic model of the American dream. Affluent whites, and, after the 1960's, well to do African Americans might earn their livings from the industrial base in Cleveland But their homes and hearts were in the surrounding communities. Urban renewal projects launched in the i960's and 1970's focused on demolishing ethnic neighborhoods and replacing them with affordable but desolate housing projects where forced mixing of culture was attempted. What had once been touted, as "The Best Location in the Nation" became known to many of its suburban residents as "The Mistake on the Lake."

With the pollution and congestion of the heavy manufacturing core impacting the quality of life of Cleveland, residents who gained access to he middle class quickly moved to the semi-rural life style of the surrounding communities. County residents prided themselves on not living in Cleveland, and even the inhabitants of the city itself seemed to rejoice in its gradual decline.

Cleveland as a core city has never recovered from this disruption, because it has never developed a shared and communicated urban culture. Despite intermittent positive economic developments, such as the acquisition of sports teams, new facilities, and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, the Cleveland metropolitan area remains driven by two core realities:

• A lack of a unifying pride on the part of its citizens in their urban identity;

• A lack of cooperation and respect among ethnic groups within the city and in its surrounding suburbs.

Cleveland did not develop a sense of pride in its identity as a major city for a variety of reasons. First, its situation on Lake Erie's provided a natural limitation to growth. As with other coastal cities, expansion could only occur in three directions. Like Chicago, Cleveland became hemmed in by the lake on one side and by a strangling ring of suburbs on the other three sides. There was a preference for smallness and multiple jurisdictions, perhaps influenced by multiplicity of ethnic identities represented in the area.

Unlike the residents of Chicago or Pittsburgh, however, the citizens of Cleveland did not develop a sense of pride in their community. Residents of the diverse ethnic neighborhoods in Cleveland did not develop a sense of civic unity and community pride for a variety of reasons. A significant factor is that the economically affluent class abandoned the core city for the suburbs at a relatively early date in Cleveland's developmental history. The combination of these factors resulted in the gradual decline of the core city at the expense of its suburbs. This decline was manifest in declining population and economic position.

Attempts to bring about positive change in Cleveland and in similar urban environments have been consistently cast in a problem assessment, diagnosis and treatment modality. In fact, through Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland has been a major contributor to the development of the discipline of Organization Development.

Because of the demonstrated lack of results from such approaches, exploration of methodologies based upon Appreciative Inquiry is suggested.

Appreciative Inquiry and a Systems Approach to Positive Change: An Application to a Large Urban Community

Appreciative Inquiry (AI) is a set of strategies and tools that can be used to help organizations implement change efforts. AI has been applied in a variety of settings, including large corporate structures with international applications and governmental entities. According to Whitney et al. (2003), AI strategies and techniques are based on the following assumptions, which are useful in managing organizational change:

• Individually and collectively, people have unique gifts and values to bring to life within organizations

• Organizations focus their energies in terms of collective visions of the future

• Through community action, attention can be shifted away from problem analysis toward positive solutions for the future.

AI strategies are effective if they are designed or adapted to the types of organizations that are in need of change. Accordingly, a set of strategies for large systems change that are specifically suited to application in a complex urban environment would be necessary for an application of AI to the issues confronting Cleveland Ohio:

• Identification of key areas of discourse that might effect positive change within the complex urban environment. As discussed above, such areas of discourse might include ethnic diversity and lack of trust, lack of an integrating sense of community among the municipalities that make up the Cleveland metropolitan area, and the eroding economic base of the central city and its suburbs.

• Develop a protocol for framing questions to be used with stakeholder populations. These questions will be based upon an assessment of opportunities for AI. They will be related to the factors listed above and others as identified.

• Develop scripts for allowing team members to pose AI questions appropriately.

• Using responses to the questions developed, develop theories about appropriate targets for interventions. For example, if there are ethnic community or church groups that are potentially viable subjects for development as change agents within the various constituent communities, these might be identified. . Theories concerning strategies that would be most likely to be effective in motivating these groups would then be developed based on their demographic characteristics.

• Based upon the analysis above, intervention strategies specified for each of the target groups would be developed. The target outcomes for the interventions would be determined through use of OD technologies such as focus groups, influenced by the technology of appreciative inquiry. The strategies would be designed to be effective in assisting the subgroups within the geographical community in becoming effective change agents.

• Propose and develop metrics that would be plausible for measurement of change perhaps through the use of focus groups. Panels of commentators drawn from the identified segment of the community could be formed in order to assure buy in by the communities of interest. Techniques such as motivational interviewing, borrowed from clinical disciplines, might be tailored for the specified purposes. In the context of the Cleveland metropolitan area (popularly known as Greater Cleveland), metrics that would take into consideration a significant variety of economic and cultural factors would be required.

This article has discussed a concept for developing and applying organization development strategies and tactics to large systems change within a metropolitan environment. While the economic and social difficulties in the Cleveland, Ohio metropolitan area are unique to that urban center, they are nonetheless not unlike those experienced by many other large urban centers in America. What may be somewhat different in the case of Cleveland Ohio is its significant lack of historical cohesiveness and the deconstructive force of its ethnic diversity. Misunderstanding and mistrust have characterized the relationships among the diverse ethnic groups in the city. In addition, the community has for decades developed a negative self-image. This image has in part been stimulated by external criticisms, but has in fact been largely a product of the pessimism and self depreciation that has become a central facet of life in Northeastern Ohio.

Because of its promise as a technique to allow the identification of positive factors within a complex system, appreciative inquiry offers promising strategies that might be focused on large systems change efforts in Cleveland and other metropolitan centers. In particular, this article suggests that AI technologies would be especially suitable for application in an urban context where lack of community self esteem is a contributing factor in the large systems dysfunction.

Hotes-Ellison, Joellyn L. (1999), Politeness theory applied to public health. University of Illinois at Springfield, Springfield, Illinois

Whitney, Diana, Amanda Trosten-Bloom, and David Cooperrider (2003) The power of appreciative inquiry: A practical guide to positive change. San Francisco, Berrett - Koehler Publishers

Robert W. Hotes is a specialist in organizational psychology with more than 20 years experience in facilitating large systems change. He is a full time clinician fro a major hospital system and is an adjunct professor and faculty advisor for the Benedictine University MS-OB program, Springfield IL campus.