NONVIOLENTNONVIOLENT CCHHAANNGGEE Journal of the Research/Action Team on Nonviolent Large Systems Change, an interorganizational project of the Organization Development Institute Vol. XXIV, No.1 Compiled August 17, 2009, Fall 2009

Nonviolent Change 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. TABLE OF CONTENTS Editor's Comments p...2 Nonviolent Change on the Web p...2 Upcoming Events p...2 Ongoing Activities p...5 World Developments p.13 Dialoguing: Organizations World Wide, “on Avoiding Catastrophe in the Korean Peninsula – Maintaining Momentum to Nuclear Zero” p.63 Foreign Policy in Focus, "What's At Stake in Honduras," p.64 Kelly Kuschel, "Observations from Honduras," p.65 David Makovsky, "Mideast Peace Can Start with a Land Swap" p.65 Israel Policy Forum, "Letter to President Obama" p.67 Canon Dr. Trond Bakkevig, "A sustainable peace" p.68 Kobi Skolnick, "The Jewish mind in the age of Obama" p.69 Claude Salhani, "A new plan for the Middle East?" p.70 Uri Avneri, "Quarrel on the Titanic" p.71 Abdel-Monem Said, "Building momentum" p.73 Gershon Baskin, "Encountering peace: What Netanyahu's peace initiative must say" p.74 Alon Ben-Meir, "The Palestinians at a Pivotal Crossroad"' p.76 Sadie Goldman, "Fighting Over Settlements" p.78 Shay Ben Yosef, “Where do good intentions lead us? A civilian action plan for advancing peace” p.79 Daily Star Editorial, "Israel's punitive moves against criminals' families only fosters more animosity" p.80 Ori Nir, "Go to Hebron" p.81 Uri Avnery, "The Johnny Procedure" p.82 Elias Zananiri, "Why a private television channel in Palestine" p.84 Taylor Dewey, "A model for a real economic peace" p.85 Khalil Shikaki, "Vote Fateh (or Hamas)" p.87 Dr. Hagai Agmon-Snir, "Cross-border medical practices series: A call for cultural competency in Jerusalem's medical services" p.89 What We readers Are About p.89 Articles: Dr. Maha El-Taji Daghash and Shiri Barr, "Together in pain; together in hope" p.89 Alon Ben-Meir, "Obama's Peace Offensive" p.90 Alon Ben-Meir, "A Strategic Necessity" p.94 Ifat Ma‚oz, "The psychological-cognitive barriers to peace" p.95 Lucy Nusseibeh and Shelley Ostroff, "Fears of War and Fears of Peace in the Palestinian Israeli relationship" p.96 Simon Lawson, "What Lies Beneath the Fear" p.97 Chaim Landau, "Carter's Visit to Neve Daniel - a Lesson in the Importance of Dialogue" p.98 Rabbi David Rosen, "Religion as a language of communication and conflict resolution: Reflections on President Barack Obama's speech in Cairo" p.99 Moshe Ma'oz, "Solving the Palestinian refugee problem: Is the ball in Israel‚s court?" p.100 Ghassan Bannoura, "Bil’in's conference on non-violent resistance" p.102 Dr. Ben Mollov, "Why religion is part of the solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict" p.103 Gershon Baskin, "The Palestinian-Israeli Textbook War" p.104 1 Uri Avnery, “Whose Acre?” p.105 Mike Prashker, "Teacher Integration for Attitude Change" p.108 Reem al-Shareef, "The Culture of Peace in the Palestinian Curriculum" p.109 Omar Karmi, "Israelis are shown a glimpse of the Nakba" p.110 Uri Avnery, "Bananas" p.112 Alon Ben-Meir, "The Settlements: Obama's Demands and Netanyahu's Options" p.114 Stephen Zunes, "Serbia: 10 Years Later" p.116

Media Notes p.119 Announcements p.125

COEDITORS: Stephen Sachs, 1916 San Pedro, NE. Albuquerque, NM 87110 (505)265-9388, [email protected] Alon Ben-Meir, NYU (212)866-5998, [email protected] Ruby Quail, Web Master, 10205 Elmhurst, Albuquerque, NM, (505)400-0900, [email protected] Marilee Niehoff, 810 Four Seasons Rd #102, Bloomington, IL 61701 (309)661-7382, [email protected] Robert W. Hotes, American College of Counselors, 824 S. Park Ave., Springfield, IL 62704 (217)698-7668, [email protected]. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NONVIOLENT CHANGE JOURNAL (NCJ) ON THE WEB

Nonviolent Change is on the web at: http://www.nonviolentchangejournal.org, along with several years of back issues. To be notified by E-mail when new issues are posted, send a request to be added to the NCJ notification E-mail list to Steve Sachs at: [email protected]. Issues are usually posted: Fall, in late August or early September; Winter, in January or early February; Spring in mid-March to end of April. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

EDITORS COMMENTS

Wishing you a fine fall. The world continues to go through many shifts producing a great many developments in areas of our concern. WE WELCOME YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT ALL THAT IS IN PROGRESS. These pages serve as a networking and dialoguing vehicle. We strongly encourage you to contribute articles (up to 2500 words), news, announcements, comments, queries, responses and art work. It would be very fine if we could develop ongoing discussion from issue to issue. WE ESPECIALLY INVITE YOU TO SEND US A BRIEF NOTE ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE DOING, YOUR CONCERNS AND QUERIES, RELATING TO NONVIOLENT CHANGE, FOR OUR "WHAT WE READERS ARE ABOUT" COLUMN." Whenever possible, please make submissions on disk or via e-mail ([email protected]).

Please SEND WRITINGS AND ART WORK FOR NONVIOLENT CHANGE electronically to Steve Sachs (E- mail address top of p. 2). Steve puts together a draft of each issue, then undertakes e-mailing, printing, snail mailing, while Ruby Quail posts the issue on the web. (Unsigned writings are Steve's). We welcome additional editors and column writers to cover geographic or topic areas on an ongoing or one time basis. We would very muck like to have additional people share in the compiling of information in each issue.

COMMUNICATINGABOUT ANY OTHER RESEARCH/STUDY TEAM BUSINESS CAN BE DIRECTED TO ANY OF THE COCHAIRS (ADDRESS ON P. 1) or to OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COORDINATING COMMITTEE: DON COLE, ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE, 11234 Walnut Ridge Rd., Chesterland, OH 44026 (440)729-7419, [email protected], http://www.odinstitute.org/, who is coordinating networking among organizations. ***************************************************************** DEADLINE FOR NEXT ISSUE IS DECEMBER 8 ****************************************************

UPCOMING EVENTS

The 30th O.D. World Conference On Making Change Happen, "What is New in International Organization Development and HRD" is likely next summer. For more information, contact Organization Development Institute, 11234 Walnut Ridge Rd., Chesterland, OH 44026 (440)729-7419, [email protected], www.odinstitute.org.

2 The 40th Annual O.D. Information Exchange, “What is New in Organization Development and HRD,” will likely be in May. For more information, contact Organization Development Institute, 11234 Walnut Ridge Rd., Chesterland, OH 44026 (440)729-7419, [email protected], www.odinstitute.org. * * * *

“World Peace through Intercultural Understanding" 6th Biennial Conference is in Honolulu, Hawaii, August 15- 19, 2009. For more information visit: http://www.uhh.hawaii.edu/~iair/Conference_IAIR_2009.

Africa for the Culture of Peace Education Consortium - East Africa Network for Peace Builders is August 25-28, 2009, in the Republic of Rwanda at the National University of Rwanda in Butare. The consortium seeks to link up partnerships from all levels, national and international for the mutual enhanced support for the realization of the Culture of Peace. To support the culture of peace movement the consortium will examine peace education that Africa deserves includes Human Rights, Democracy, Good Governance, Conflict Prevention, Reconciliation, Disarmament, Demobilization, Healing, Social Justice and Rule of the law and Non-violence means of solving conflicts. For more information go to: http://www.eanep.org/.

Costa Rica will host the!2009 Summit of the Global Alliance for Ministries and Departments of Peace, September 13-22. Founded in 2005, the Global Alliance is a worldwide community of civil society organizations, committed citizens and government officials from 35 countries, working to establish governmental structures that support a culture of peace. For details go to: http://www.mfp-dop.org/.

Association for Conflict Resolution 9th Annual Conference: “Convening ‘Whole of Community’: Integrating Approaches and Practices to Address Conflicts in a Chaotic World” is Oct. 7-10, 2009 at the Hilton Atlanta Hotel, 255 Courtland Street NE, Atlanta, Georgia. For details go to: http://www.acrnet.org/.

Innovation and Change: Peace Research, Studies and Education in Asia-Pacific is in Taiwan, September 10- 12, 2009, sponsored by the Asia- Pacific Peace Research Association (APPRA). For information contact: [email protected].!

62nd Annual UN DPI/NGO Conference: “New Perspectives on Human Development and Disarmament” is to be held in Mexico City, September 9-11, 2009. For details go to: at www.un.org/dpi/ngosection.

“Latin America: In Search of a Path Towards a Sustainable Peace: Tools and Contributions" is September 17 -19, 2009 in!Lima, Peru. The Latin American Council for Peace Research (CLAIP) and the Department of International Relations of the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru (PUPC) with the support of Ciudad Saludable (Healthy City) call for applications for its First Regional Congress.!The aim of this conference is to gather researchers and activists who work for peace about or in Latin America to share and learn from their research and experience.!Please send your proposals and or questions by email to [email protected].

The International Day of Peace is September 21. The Day was established by the UN General Assembly as a “day of global ceasefire and non-violence" for "commemorating and strengthening the ideals of peace within and among all nations and people”. The 2009 campaign, under the slogan "WMD - We Must Disarm," is focusing on Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's drive to persuade world leaders to work harder for a world free of nuclear weapons, making it safer for you, your children and grandchildren. The Secretary-General’s 100-day countdown message of June 13, asking for everyone to participate, is available on Twitter: www.twitter.com/wemustdisarm, Facebook http://apps.facebook.com/causes/298538/61588950?m=6949f328, and MySpace www.myspace.com/wemustdisarm.

The International Association for Public Participation's annual conference is in San Diego, CA, September 21-23.! NCDD is an official "Partner" of the conference, To learn more, go to www.iap2.org.

Exploring the Power of Nonviolence: Annual conference of the Peace and Justice Studies Association is October 8-10, 2009 at Marquette University in Milwaukee, WI. For information go to: http://www.peacejusticestudies.org/conference/.

“Human Rights in the USA" is at the University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, October 22-24, 2009. For more information contact: 860-486-8739, [email protected], http://web2.uconn.edu/hri/conferences/2009.php.

Annual Alberta Peace Education Conference: “Bringing Peace to our Schools” is in October, 2009 (specific dates to be announced) in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.!The desired outcome is the enhancement of a vision and action (initiated

3 in 2002) to advance peace education in Alberta. For more information and/or to participate in the planning, contact Bob Stewart at [email protected].

The Canadian Community for Dialogue & Deliberation, is holding its third national conference this fall. C2D2 2009 will take place October 22-25 in Toronto, Ontario. For details go to: http://www.ncdd.org/.

2009 Gandhi-King Conference on Peacemaking is Oct. 23-25, 2009. For information contact Gandhi-King Conference on Peacemaking, c/o the Mid South Peace and Justice Center, 1000 S. Cooper, Memphis, TN 38104 (901)725-4990 fax: (901)725-7858, [email protected], http://www.gandhikingconference.org/about.html

J Street's Conference: Driving Change, Securing Peace is in Washington, DC October 25 - 28. For details go to: http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=rXVzTMwir73g0iCYcuOvAM0u0lNQ7mR0.

Toward a Peaceful World: Historical Approaches to Creating Cultures of Peace is at Winthrop University, Rock Hill, SC, October 29-30, 2009 For more information contact: conference co-chairs, E. Timothy Smith, [email protected]!), and Virginia S. Williams [email protected].

Conference - Remembering War, Genocide and other Human Rights Violations: Oral History, New Media and the Arts is at Quebec, Canada, November 5, 2009. For more information visit:! http://www.internationalpeaceandconflict.org/xn/detail/780588:Event:120077

8th Annual Peace Education Conference in Canada: “Loving Teachers, Living Schools: Sharing our Paths to Peace,” with an emphasis on “bringing greater peace into our schools” including, within this context, exploring the role of “gender and sexuality” and “emotional, social and spiritual intelligence” in advancing our goals towards a universal culture of peace, is November 9 - 15, 2009, in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Fro details go to: http://www.peace-education.ca/pec-2009.

The 4th Annual International Conference on "ENGAGING THE OTHER:" The Power of Compassion, is November 12-15, 2009 in San Francisco (San Mateo), CA. This is a multi-cultural, multi-disciplinary conference examining concepts of "The OTHER" from a universal, cross-cultural perspective to promote wider public dialogue about concepts of "Us and Them,” Co-Sponsored by Common Bond Institute, National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation, International Humanistic Psychology Association; and Supported by the Institute for Imaginal Studies; and Endorsed by a growing international list of over 100 organizations and universities, For Conference Details go to:!http://www.cbiworld.org/Pages/Conferences_ETO.htm>www.cbiworld.org/Pages/Conferences_ETO.htm.

21st Annual Peace Studies Conference - a project of the Central New York Peace Studies Consortium is November 14, 2009, in New York state. This conference hopes to provide a venue for discussion of the global problem of youth and gang violence and to share peacemaking tools and alternatives to violence. In this interdisciplinary conference we hope to promote a wide-ranging conversation including diverse fields and experiences. The deadline for proposals and abstracts is September 20, 2009. Please send proposals, abstracts, and biographies electronically to: Nancy Piscitell, Administrator, Peace and Global Studies Program: [email protected]. Moe information is available at: http://www.lemoyne.edu/CurrentStudents/tabid/500/Default.aspx.

“Bringing Peace to our Schools” is November 9-16, 2009, at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. The desired outcome is the enhancement of a vision and action (initiated in 2002) to advance peace education in Canada, to help build a world fit for children, in the framework of the UN International Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World. For more information and registration, visit: or contact !conference[at]peace-education.ca or Aly Ostrowski: [email protected].

4th Annual International Conference on "ENGAGING THE OTHER:" The Power of Compassion, An international, multi-cultural, multi-disciplinary conference examining concepts of "The OTHER" from a universal, cross-cultural perspective to promote wider public dialogue about concepts of "Us and Them", November 12-15, 2009, San Mateo Marriott Hotel, San Mateo, California, near San Francisco. Sponsored by!Common Bond Institute. Co-Sponsored by International Humanistic Psychology Association, Institute of Imaginal Studies and Institute of Noetic Sciences. Supported by a growing international list of over 90 organizations and universities. The Purpose of the conference is to: Raise the level, depth, and breadth of public dialogue and awareness on core issues. Explore dimensions and dynamics of "The OTHER" on both individual and group levels, and consider how enemy identity is formed, perpetuated, and manipulated, including fear-based belief systems, negative stereotypes, projection, prejudice, and scapegoating. Identify and compile fundamental questions, dilemmas, and implications for further deep inquiry and examination. Tap our shared wisdom and compassion as a community - from the local to the 4 global - in developing practical applications. For details contact:, Steve Olweean, Director, Common Bond Institute, Conference Coordinator, 12170 S. Pine Ayr Drive, Climax, MI 49034 Ph/Fax: (269)665-9393, [email protected], www.cbiworld.org.

Foro 2010 e Cultura de Paz is in Santiago de Compostela, Spain, Dec. 9-13, 2009. For more information visit: http://www.foro2010.org/.

Global Day of Action: International Demonstrations on Climate Change is December 12th 2009, around the world, to publicize and promote plans for demonstrations on climate change, to coincide with the annual United Nations Climate Talks, taking place this year (COP15/MOP5) in Copenhagen, Denmark on December 7th to 18th 2009. For information go to: http://www.globalclimatecampaign.org/.

The World Universities Forum 2010 will be held at the Congress Center Davos, Davos, Switzerland, January 9-11, 2010, examining the role and future of the University in a changing world. For more information go to: http://ontheuniversity.com/conference/#conf,

The Peace Education Special Interest Group of the American Educational Research Association warmly invites you to submit a proposal for the Annual General Meeting of the American Educational Research Association in Denver, Colorado, April 30- May 4, 2010. The theme of the conference is "Understanding Complex Ecologies in a Changing World." For information go to: http://www.aera.net/.

The Annual International Meeting of Globalisation for the Common Good is June 6-10, 2010 at California Lutheran University in Thousand Oaks. For information go to: http://www.callutheran.edu/CLV/2010_GCG_conference.pdf, or http://www.globalisationforthecommongood.info/ (which includes papers and resolutions from past conferences).

The Third Global Studies Conference is in Busan, South Korea, June 21-23, 2010. The Global Studies Conference and Global Studies Journal are devoted to mapping and interpreting new trends and patterns in globalization. The Conference and Journal attempt to do this from many points of view, from many locations in the world, and in a wide-angle kaleidoscopic fashion. For more information go to: http://www.GlobalStudiesConference.com.

The 2010 International Peace Research association (IPRA) conference is July 2010 in Australia. For information go to: http://soc.kuleuven.be/iieb/ipraweb/index.php?action=page&cat=general&id=44.

Educators, Scientist and Contemplative Dialogue on Cultivating a Healthy Mind, Brain and Heart is October 8-9, 2010 in!Washington DC. The focus is, How can our educational system evolve to meet the challenges of the 21st century? How will we educate people to be compassionate, competent, ethical, and engaged citizens in an increasingly complex and interconnected world? With the Dalai Lama participating in each session, this dialogue will pool new ideas in educational theory and practice with the wisdom of world’s great contemplative traditions. For information go to: http://www.educatingworldcitizens.org/. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

ONGOING ACTIVITIES

Steve Sachs

Global Exchange is concerned that the rate of climate change has accelerated significantly since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its fourth Assessment Report, two years, detailing the world scientific community's consensus that without rapid action, the impact of global warming would be catastrophic. “We really can't put off effective action to prevent catastrophic climate change any longer. All of the world's major greenhouse gas emitting countries must be brought into an effective international climate change agreement. That makes action at the UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen this December quite literally a life or death proposition for millions, if not billions. Delegates from around the world met in Bonn during the first two weeks of June to work on preparations for Copenhagen. At the closing plenary of those meetings, Lim Li Lin of the Third World Network said: ‘...developed countries are in fact asking people in the developing world to allow them to continue their over consumption of the Earth's atmospheric space; and they are denying people in developing countries the space for their survival and development. ...the people in the developing world want to contribute to solving the climate crisis, for the benefit of the planet and all humanity. But this contribution must be fair and just. What is ‘politically acceptable’ in the rich, industrialized North is just not enough. It will mean climate chaos and destruction first and worst in the South, and also in the North. This is unacceptable. There is an impasse in the international 5 climate negotiations based on wealth. The countries of the global North are attempting to hold on to their advantage in power and wealth while the countries of the global South insist that they should not have to bear the burden for a problem created by the world's wealthy. We simply cannot expect the global South to accept the proposition that they must remain relatively poor because we developed the cheap and dirty way before they did. The only way we will get a global climate deal is to make it a fair deal, and a fair deal will require a significant transfer of wealth from North to South to repair the damage caused by climate change and to build a zero carbon development path.” Global Exchange is accelerating its climate change work with its Climate Equity campaign. For more information go to: http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=IfwXxsvnGEFmeaDANxBbqMHW%2FI5oe%2Frs. The organization also has a video available for on line viewing, Gr8 Climate Sale, about climate justice from Focus on the Global South, at: http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=STYWF18LWyJihVmGuOeK2MHW%2FI5oe%2Frs.

Avaaz is concerned that, "As the world heads to the final UN climate summit in Copenhagen this December, global talks to stop the climate crisis are stalling. The leaders of the biggest polluting countries are refusing to cut carbon emissions enough to avert catastrophe. One big reason: these leaders are besieged daily by lobbyists from the powerful oil and coal industries. To counter them, we urgently need to field our own relentless and spirited lobbying effort. We can't afford to hire corporate lobbyists, but we might do even better. Avaaz has recruited dozens of talented and experienced youth leaders to work day and night in key capitals to press leaders to avert the climate crisis - and they're already having a major global impact.” For more information go to: https://secure.avaaz.org/en/climate_action_factories.

Earth Justice has been working to support the April 28 meeting, in Tromsø, Norway, of the Arctic Council, with participating nations including the United States, in taking significant action to slow Arctic warming saying , “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is sending a team to represent the United States at Tromsø. As a senator, she co- sponsored a bill on black carbon and visited the Arctic to see the devastating effects of climate change first hand. Now, as her team prepares for the Arctic Council Ministerial, we must let her and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson know how important it is for the United States to lead the way.” For more information go to: http://action.earthjustice.org/campaign/blackcarbon_0409b/iwsik5g427n3txmn?.

Among its other projects, Oceana has been supporting legislation to reduce mercury pollution. “When released to the environment, mercury ends up in our oceans, contaminating seafood. Humans and other creatures exposed to high levels of mercury in fish can experience health effects, such as delayed neurological development in children. Americans are being exposed to excessive levels of mercury in their seafood. Both the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency have advised women of childbearing age and children not to eat certain types of fish due to high levels of mercury. The Mercury Pollution Reduction Act would stop the release of hundreds of pounds of mercury pollution from chlorine plants each year.” For more information go to: http://takeaction.oceana.org/questionnaire.jsp?questionnaire_KEY=632.

The Israeli peace movement was focusing considerably on restraining, and shutting down the settlements, in late June and early summer, proposing compensation to settlers to move back to Israel. On June 12, Gush Shalom purchased the following special ad in Haaratz, “Obama says: All building activity in the settlements must cease forthwith! Obama is right! There are no legal settlements! All the settlements sit on stolen land! There is no difference between “private” Arab land and the land reserves of the villages, which are called “government land”! All the settlements were set up with the money of the Israeli tax-payers! The “natural increase” of the settlements must settle in Israel! Fair compensation should be paid to settlers who are ready to return home voluntarily! Every settlement is a land mine on the road to peace! In July, Gush Shalom was concerned about the Israeli governments building policy in East Jerusalem, saying in a July 24, in Haaretz, “The Preparations for the evacuation of the West Bank “outposts” are an exercise to deceive the Americans. The building in the occupied territory of East Jerusalem – THAT is the reality.” Then on July 31, Gush Shalom placed the following ad in Haaratz, “MR. PRESIDENT, Official propaganda is telling the world that the Israeli public is united in opposition to President Obama. That is totally false. The majority of Israelis is waiting impatiently for Obama to “impose” on Netanyahu a peace solution. Mr. President, you have our support!” For more information contact Gush Shalom, P.O. Box 3322, Tel-Aviv 61033, 972-3-5221732, [email protected], http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rGnjNM25Y4.

Gush Shalom and other peace organizations have been concerned about the "Assault on the adherents of peace and democracy follows after Lieberman took over the police and state prosecution. Gush Shalom made the following Press Release, April 27. "The police assault on activists of 'New Profile' and 'The Center for the Defense of the Individual', the detention of activists, among them grandmothers, and confiscation of computers constitutes a severe attack on the Freedom of Speech in Israel" warns Uri Avnery of the Gush Shalom movement. "The activity of New Profile - an organization which opposes the militarism of Israeli society and gives counseling to Conscientious Objectors is considered by the police to be 'inciting to shirking' - a severe legal charge. Just a few weeks have passed since the Netanyahu-Lieberman 6 government took office (or should one say Lieberman-Netanyahu) - and already a brute offensive is launched against the adherents of peace and democracy. Indeed, the appointment of the new Minister of Police was from the ranks of the party headed by Lieberman." "Details from the New Profile press release: This morning police descended upon the homes of activists in New Profile, a feminist movement whose proclaimed aim is "civil-ization of society in Israel" and "opposition to the undue influence of the military on daily life". Five activists were detained and interrogated in the Ramat Hachiyal Police Station. Amongst those interrogated: Analeen Kish, aged 70, a ceramics artist, daughter of a family of the „Righteous among the Nations‰ who converted to Judaism after her marriage to Holocaust survivor Dr. Eldad Kish, active in organizations of Dutch Holocaust survivors in Israel. Additionally detained for interrogation were Amir Givol, a resident of Jerusalem, Sergei Sandler, a resident of Be'er Sheva, and Roni Barkan, a resident of Tel Aviv. The computers of all those interrogated were taken by the police, as were computers belonging to their partners and children ˆ in once case the computer of a fourth grade pupil, the daughter of one of those interrogated. The computers of family members were returned after the activists were released on bail. All five were interrogated station in the Yarkon Region of the police. At the conclusion of the interrogation they were released on bail and under "limiting conditions" ˆ in particular, a prohibition upon making contact with other members of the movement during the next 30 days, which implies a severe disruption and partial paralysis of its activities. Also raided were the offices of the 'The Center for the Defense of the Individual' in East Jerusalem ˆ an organization mainly involved in helping Palestinians who encounter difficulties with the military government's bureaucracy. The police tried to confiscate the Center's computers too. Center activists refused to hand them over, as much of the material in these computers was given to its lawyers as part of a lawyer-client relations, which police is not entitled to access. Attorney Smadar Ben Nathan, who is representing New Profile, said that the investigation of the police is focusing on the website of New Profile, which has links to other sites on the internet. Ben Nathan added that the New Profile Movement is a recognized non-profit association which acts openly and publicly, in accordance with the law, and the use of a criminal investigation in this context is invalid and exaggerated, and stands in opposition to freedom of expression. New Profile had stated that the police acts confirm what they had been contending for many years,. i.e. that the militarization Israeli society harms the sacred principles of democracy, freedom of expression and freedom of political association, and that those who believed that criminal charges are only trumped up „only‰ against Arab citizens of Israel saw this morning that none of us can be certain that s/he can freely express a dissident opinion. Other peace groups can only concur." For more information contact: Uri Avnery 0505-306440, Adam Keller, 03-5565804 or 0506-709603 - [email protected] - Dr. Diana Dolev: 052 872 8300; Attorney Smadar Ben Nathan, 052 358 9775, Ofra Leith: 050 552 4372; Eilat Maoz, Women‚s Coalition for Peace, 050 857 5729. From abroad: replace first 0 by +972. On May 1, Gush Shalom placed the following Ad in Haaretz,!"The Police have arrested and interrogated members of the “New Profile” movement who are assisting conscientious objectors. Not for nothing did Lieberman demand control of the police and justice ministries. This is the beginning of an attack on the activists for democracy and peace. This is how dark regimes have started." For more go to: http://www.newprofile.org/english/?cat=14. Palestinian nonviolent resistance in Bil`in and elsewhere is also reported to be under harsher assault by Israeli security forces, and this is being protested by the Israeli peace movement. For more go to: http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=34918.

Gush Shalom, in June, undertook a public protest, in Israel and abroad, against the credit card company Isracard for sending to its customers a gift coupon for 'a family outing' at the 'City of David National Park' which is run by extreme right settlers in East Jerusalem. The company responded with an angry fax to Gush Shalom Spokesperson Adam Keller, from Ayala Tidhar and Orit Hangali of the Isracard Marketing & Foreign Relations Section, including the complaint that "The activities of Gush Shalom is causing us great damage". Rani Rahav, the Isracard public relations director, phoned Keller and threatened to sue Gush Shalom. For more, contact Adam Keller at: +972-506-709603, [email protected].

Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb!of Shomer Shalom Network for Jewish Nonviolence!is promoting a boycott of AHAVA, an Israeli cosmetics company, for "violating the basic principles of international law and Jewish ethics by profiting from the occupation of Palestine. Using resources from the ancient waters of the Dead Sea, AHAVA manufactures beauty products in an illegal Israeli settlement in Occupied Palestine. AHAVA means love in Hebrew. But there's nothing loving about profiting from occupation. There's nothing loving about stealing resources from our neighbors." For more information go to: www.stolenbeauty.org.

Gush Shalom has sent a letter to European diplomatic missions noting that the tax exemptions EU governments provide for non-profit organizations constitute indirect funding, and suggests that these benefits be withdrawn for the large number of Christian Zionist organizations in the EU financially supporting West Bank settlement activities.!For details go to: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1105170.html

Israeli and international groups have continued to attempt to bring food, medicine, construction materials and other needed relief to still very seriously war torn and blockaded Gaza, many of which have been blocked by Israeli authorities, who have sometimes seized the relief supplies and detained the relief personnel. Israeli, 7 Palestinian, and international peace activists continue to protest the Israeli governments proceeding with the building the wall and the related taking of Palestinian land, as well as the seizing of Palestinian property by settlers for illegal expansion. Code Pink joined other organizations trying to change the Gaza situation, In mid-August “This week, when President Obama met with Egypt's President Mubarak to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and possible paths toward peace, the public was unaware of their duplicity: Both nations are aiding Israel's strangulation of the people of Gaza. Israel has sealed its border with Gaza, but so has Egypt--keeping 1.5 million people in a virtual prison. President Obama has done nothing about it, and Congress just handed Israel another $3 billion! Families are separated, commerce is destroyed, the sick lack medicines, and nothing has been rebuilt from the devastation of the 22-day Israeli invasion. Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter has said the people of Gaza are being treated ‘like animals.’ Where is the outrage? Where is the compassion? If the leaders won't take action, we will. CODEPINK is partnering with dozens of organizations inside Gaza and around the world to organize the Gaza Freedom March--a massive non-violent march to the Gaza/Israeli border on January 1, 2010. We will tell the Israelis, the Egyptians and the world's leaders: ‘Enough is Enough. Open the borders. End the Siege!’" For more information go to: http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=7ElsemcJvqVtkrodz13OwsUroLci%2BjeI.

"Frames of Reality", a joint initiative of the Peres Center for Peace and Local Testimony, an organization that runs a yearly photojournalism competition and exhibition, twice a month over six months brought 18 Israeli and Palestinian professional photojournalists together in meetings designed not only to foster professional development, but also to encourage dialogue between members of the Israeli and Palestinian media. The meetings were held in Beit Jalla, which - according to Project Manager from the Peres Center for Peace Ziv Stahl - was the only area both Israelis and Palestinians could enter without a permit. He said, "This gave [the project] a mutual quality, because it is a place that doesn't belong to anyone, no one has to go through a checkpoint to get there and everyone has to make an effort." The project's initial workshop focused mainly on professional aspects of photojournalism, but as social barriers fell away, the photographers the interchange moved a more personal level, discussing their families and experiences. Discussion of the photographers work often became heated when the pictures related to political issues. The dialogue broadened understandings and built friendships between Palestinian and Israeli participants. Israeli, Yuval Tebol, said he found the project a an opportunity to advance the peace process. "Peace begins with people sharing, helping each other and holding discussions," he said. "The experience was enriching and fulfilling from a professional and personal perspective: to see the points of view of colleague photographers from the other side, how they look and what they see." He noted that exposure broadened his outlook on the conflict and, therefore, the spectrum of his work. In another instance, an Israeli photographer, constrained by limited access to the war zone during the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict, found her friendship with a Palestinian colleague led her to unpublished photos from Gaza photographers, that gave her insight on how things really looked in the places she hadn't been able to go. The first year project ended with an exhibition of the participants works, first held in Jaffa in fall 2008, and then in New York. Stahl says the main point of taking the project to New York is "to show how life in this region looks, the good and bad. The photos show everyday life, the conflict and its results. The other [objective] is to show something that Israelis and Palestinians did together. It sends a message of hope" (Aimee Neistat, “A shot of reality,” Source: Jerusalem Post, 14 May 14, 2009, http://www.jpost.com).

Cricket For Change, organized 30 years ago, in the wake of the inner-city riots in London. worked with the poor, with gangs, and with the disabled. In recent years, it has taken its "street cricket" to countries around the world. In April, Cricket for Change made its first entry to Israel and Palestine, organizing teams of Palestinian and Jewish children to learn the sport, and then play games. For more go to: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8016943.stm.

Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), in late July, was asking the U.S. Congress to put support behind President Obama's views on the siege of Gaza and on the continued Israeli settlement construction, where the president had said, "... Gaza's border crossings should be open to allow the flow of aid and commerce." (January 22), 2009, and, "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop." (June 4, 2009). JVP asks, "What has Israel's response been? Forbidding humanitarian assistance from entering Gaza and insisting on additional settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Clearly Israel is not paying attention. We are asking Congress, why is Israel being rewarded with almost 3 billion dollars in aid when it ignores American policies and continues to use our money to build settlements and maintain the blockade of Gaza? Further, as Israeli soldiers report so many cases of indiscriminate and disproportionate targeting of civilians in Gaza-- reports that corroborate what Palestinians and human rights organizations have been saying for some time--we are reminding Congress that our tax dollars should come with strings attached; this means that Congress must investigate how our military aid has been used and whether it will be used legally and ethically. We've organized delegations to Congress people across the country carrying out our message, but these delegations are not enough. We need to show larger numbers of support among their constituents. We need to keep the pressure on all of our legislators to take a serious stance for human rights." On august 7, JVP reported, “Upset about the inclusion of a film about Rachel Corrie [A young American killed 8 by an Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) bulldozer while she was peacefully protesting the destroying of Palestinian homes by IDF] at the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival, Koret--one of California's largest Jewish foundations--issued a statement calling movie sponsors Jewish Voice for Peace and the American Friends Service Committee (yes, pacifist Quakers) ‘virulently anti-Israel, anti-Semitic groups.’ Jewish Voice for Peace is an organization that includes Israelis, Jewish educators, rabbis, Holocaust survivors and their children and grandchildren. We've written extensively about the issue of anti-Semitism, and our members are an essential part of a burgeoning Jewish cultural and spiritual renaissance. For years, we have defended principled critics of illegal and immoral Israeli actions. We are proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with so many who have braved false, and terribly painful charges of anti- Semitism, in order to speak to a higher moral truth. Heroes like President Jimmy Carter, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Professor Rashid Khalidi, and so many others. Like our Israeli counterparts, we're used to being viciously attacked for our work. But for years, we've co-sponsored films at the Jewish Film festival, and there was nary a peep. What changed? Why now? And how is the backlash here linked to the backlash against pro-democracy activists in Israel? We think it's because now, the world's attention is on settlements, and for the first time in recent memory, a US administration is creating pressure on Israel. That means that this is a historic opportunity” “With JVP-organized Congressional visits happening in key districts at this very moment, we are the United States' largest Jewish group calling on Congress to stop US military aid to Israel until Israel investigates war crimes committed in Gaza, and until Israel agrees to abide by U.S. and international law including withdrawing settlements. From Ezra Nawi in the south of Hebron, to New Profile, to the Shministim and more, we are the largest American group providing ongoing support to Israel's nonviolent resistance. We've challenged AIPAC at their annual meeting, and we continue to monitor the right-wing Israel Lobby's unethical tactics in silencing voices of dissent.” For more, go to: http://salsa.democracyinaction.org.

Search for Common Ground (SFCG), Spring 2009 Common Ground Newsletter, states that, "The current economic crisis is profoundly damaging and disruptive. Still, there is good news: Out of crisis comes opportunity. Our response at Search for Common Ground is to intensify our efforts to transform how the world deals with conflict - particularly violent conflict - away from adversarial, win-lose approaches to non-adversarial, win-win solutions. Wherever violence exists, human rights are abused, economic development is stifled, the environment is ravaged, hopes and dreams are shattered, and misery abounds. Indeed, we believe that violence is the key, underlying issue with which humanity must grapple." SFCG reports that the Sundance Institute and the Skoll Foundation have given a grant to film-maker Patrick Reed to make a feature-length documentary about the making of The Team, a TV series that SFCG is producing in ten countries, working with a local partner to produce an original, multi-part series about a fictional soccer team whose players are of different ethnicities and religions. The core metaphor is that if players don't cooperate, they won't score goals. Patrick's documentary portrays The Team in Kenya, where SFCG and Media Focus on Africa are producing a 26-episode series that premièred May 21 on Citizen TV, the country's most popular network. The Ivoirian Team, in the Ivory Coast, has finished a 19-episode series that aired on RTI national television this spring, and in mobile cinemas to show the series in rural areas, as part of solidarity days that feature facilitated dialogue around issues raised in the programs a clip of which can be seen at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3ab7Ljwp0M&feature=channel_page. A radio version of The Team has been completed in Ethiopia. One listener commented, "Normally, in our day-to-day life, people do not try to solve differences in a peaceful manner; nor do they try to compromise through an exchange of ideas and dialogue. From the radio drama, we see that no matter what differences exist, if the parties are willing to discuss them, there is a possibility of finding solutions that satisfy all the conflicting parties.”

In the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where colonialism, dictatorship, and war have led to millions of deaths, devastated the infrastructure, and had a hugely negative impact on the social fabric. SFCG uses radio and TV programming, training, and arts-based activities to defuse violence, with six offices and a staff of 60 Congolese working across the nation. Among the efforts of SFCG is a program to improve the behavior of soldiers and convince them to respect human rights, as given the Army's awful record of abusing civilians, trust must be restored between the military and civilian populations. Much of the work of developing a more peaceful culture is undertaken on the radio with soap opera and children's programming, but Participatory Theater with teams of actors and actresses is also employed, traveling village to village. They listen carefully to the audience and improvise drama based on local conflicts. Then, audience members come to the stage to act out better ways to deal with conflicts. Since 2006, SFCG has sponsored more than 1000 performances for over 1 million Congolese. A manual describing the methodology can be downloaded at: http://www.sfcg.org/programmes/drcongo/pdf/Participatory-Theatre-Manual-EN.pdf, and a short video can be seen at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaXR3PKXvoM. In addition, in remote parts of Eastern Congo, SFCG use mobile cinemas to raise awareness about preventing sexual violence, attended by more than 130,000 people since September 2008. The showings are followed by facilitated group discussions. Surveys show that over half those present in the audience know a rape victim and that the screenings result in a marked change in attitudes toward both victims and perpetrators. SFCG also publishes comics to influence attitudes and behaviors. The most current is Mopila, the story of a taxi driver who puts 9 democratic institutions to the test, as he overcomes seemingly insurmountable barriers in getting a road repaired. SFCG is distributing 100,000 copies in five languages.

To build a basis for Palestinian-Israeli negotiation, SFCG, in February, took on a nine-day, wilderness expedition in Big Bend, Texas, through the Outward Bound Center for Peacebuilding. "Instead of using workshops and classrooms to teach leadership skills, we used the natural challenges of living in the wilderness and navigating a raging river. There were tense moments in the form of canoes pinned to rocks, cuts, bruises, and dehydration. The primary goals were to empower a select group of emerging leaders, otherwise separated by walls and checkpoints and to develop lasting relationships among them. Participants made specific promises about how they could assist each other when they got home. The next phase will involve a six-month leadership development program that aims to establish the group as the core of a Palestinian-Israeli network working for positive social change." For more information go to: https://secure.groundspring.org/dn/index.php?aid=3923.

The U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project, co-sponsored by Search for Common Ground and the Consensus Building Institute, is a constructive dialogue called for in the project Report Changing Course: A New Direction for U.S. Relations with the Muslim World. The Report came out in September, 2008. and gave some very strong advice to the next President. The Report is available at: http://www.usmuslimengagement.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=21&Itemid=50. A short documentary about the project is available at http://www.usmuslimengagement.org. Search for Common Ground functions in Abidjan, Abuja, Beirut, Brussels, Bujumbura, Bukavu, Conakry, Freetown, Jakarta, Jerusalem, Kathmandu, Kiev, Kigali, Kinshasa, Luanda, Monrovia, Rabat, Skopje, and Washington, and can be reached via [email protected], http://www.sfcg.org.

In the U.S., in July, Common Cause took a Common Ground approach on Health Care Reform, saying “The system is broken. We need a public option. If we're clear-eyed about it, there's no denying that our country is in deep trouble -- from the economy to health care to climate change and beyond. There's only one way out – and it's the time-tested approach that has defined America's response to deep challenges for over 200 years. Ordinary people have to take control of decisions about our future. We have to fight back attempts to divide us and commit to finding common ground to move America forward. Here's a good place to start. Let's act together and declare that there is broad, undeniable support for a public insurance option that must be at the heart of genuine health care reform.” For more go to: http://www.kintera.org/TR.asp?a=apIMK1NAKdIIL3K&s=afIOKXMzEkLLIQNrFjG&m=dfLKJWNsEdJYG

Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, 114 rue de Lausanne, Geneva 1202, Switzerlandwww.hdcentre.org, Government, Humanitarian Agencies Unite Against Humanitarian Crisis in Pakistan," April 28, 2009, reports, "Representatives of the Government of Pakistan, politicians and non-governmental organizations from the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) met with senior officials of UN Agencies and the International Committee of the Red Cross in a humanitarian workshop hosted by the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, (HD Centre) the Geneva based mediation organization on 27 April 2009. At that workshop participants expressed their concerns at the seriousness of a humanitarian situation that has now reached a considerable magnitude. The latest official UN figures record in excess of 500,000 internally displaced people (IDPs) in NWFP. Unofficial estimates from Local Government officials today describe up-to one million people as being displaced, of which approximately 80 per cent are not in camps. The increasing security risks have reduced the ability of humanitarian agencies to respond effectively just as the need for support by the affected population has increased." The HD Centre was able to provide a helpful environment for participants to discuss the safe delivery of humanitarian assistance, and the security of humanitarian personnel, in which participants were able to reach a consensus that effective humanitarian delivery depends on a transparent and structured dialogue with militant actors by humanitarian agencies with the full knowledge, support and agreement of the Government. Dennis McNamara, the HD Centre's Humanitarian Advisor and organizer of the event stated, "It is clear that in situations such as this, when civilians are caught in conflict, there is a need for humanitarian dialogue with all the armed actors if safe humanitarian access and delivery is to be possible. We are now planning to discuss with participants a possible follow-up in the region ." Meanwhile, HD Centre has been organizing a series of humanitarian consultations with opposition movements in Darfur over the past year, supported by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). On July 29, Abdul Wahid Mohamed al Nur, Chairman of the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM), the first major opposition movement in Darfur, participated in consultations on some of the pressing humanitarian issues currently affecting the people of Darfur with senior representatives of UN humanitarian agencies including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the World Food Programme (WFP), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), as well as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). The meeting took place at the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue (HD Centre), in Geneva. Plans are underway to hold similar consultations with the Government and other movements in the region in the coming months. For more information go to: http://m1e.net/c?50573564-1EYjModQoR6UQ%404196702-XyMrB6gL13322, http://m1e.net/c?50573564- 10 vt0FSNmPxteps%404196698-l/xSB1te9Jrp%2e, www.hdcentre.org, or contact Andy Andrea on +41 22 908 1147, +41 79 257 997, [email protected]?subject=Pakistan Humanitarian Workshop, [email protected]

The National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD), in early May, submitted a new "Core Principles for Public Engagement" document to Obama’s open governance initiative. NCDD, IAP2 and the Co-Intelligence Institute have been leading a collaborative online process aimed at developing a set of Core Principles for Public Engagement that most people and organizations in this field can support. Many practitioners and leading organizations have contributed to the creation of the Core Principles. NCDD has received dozens of endorsements from leading groups such as the International Association of Facilitators, the Institute of Cultural Affairs, AmericaSpeaks, Everyday Democracy, Public Agenda, the League of Women Voters, ACR's Environment and Public Policy Section, among others, and was seeking additional endorsements. On May 21, the new administration officially launched the initiative!(http://www.whitehouse.gov/open)!and asked NCDD and other organizations in its field to encourage those in their networks to get involved in helping them generate new ideas for creating a more participatory, transparent, and collaborative government. This dialogue is the first stage of a three-stage process to provide input for the Open Government Directive to federal agencies. For more information go to: http://thataway.org/pep!or download the document at:!http://www.thataway.org/files/Core_Principles_of_Public_Engagement.pdf.

NCDD has available 6 public play lists linking to dozens of videos featuring dialogue and deliberation events, methods and conferences (including the last NCDD conference), at: www.youtube.com/profile?user=sheierbacher&view=playlists. NCDD continues to offer a variety of trainings in facilitation and public engagement, currently at discounted prices. For details go to: www.thataway.org/discounts for the details. Additional information on NCDD is available via [email protected] and www.thataway.org.

Search for Common Ground (SFCG) stated, May 19, that it was pleased President Obama's commencement address at the University of Notre Dame, calling for Common Ground on abortion echoes SFCG/s Network for Life and Choice, when he said both sides of the abortion debate must engage in a dialogue with “open hearts.”!“Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions. So let’s work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let’s reduce unintended pregnancies, let’s make adoption more available; let’s provide care and support for women who do carry their child to term. !Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health-care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but in clear ethics.” This is the approach Common Ground Network For Life And Choice took during 1993 to 2000. The Network worked to change the dynamic of the abortion conflict in the United States by changing the stance of the opposing parties, from disagreement and extreme polarization, to one in which the opposing sides (1) listen to understand each others' positions and beliefs; (2) look for overlapping values, goals, beliefs and interests (the common ground); and (3) consider ways to move forward toward shared goals. SFCG’s Network for Life and Choice identified parallel examples of common ground as outlined by President Obama: Prevent and reduce teen pregnancy; Make adoption more accessible and available as an option. Avoid/prevent outbreaks of violence while rebuilding community, post-violence; Increase options for women who chose to give birth; Reduce the conditions that lead to a high rate of abortion, such as conflict between work and family; And work together on legislative proposals, such as assistance for drug addicted women, sex education in schools, welfare reform to reduce hardship on working mothers. SFCG holds, “Searching for common ground means looking beyond stereotypes and assumes that even in a polarized conflict, the majority of people's views fall on a continuum.” The key is to “Understand the differences; act on the commonalities.” The President said “In short, we must find a way to live together as one human family,” and he called for a new, more respectful tone on this issue, marked by “Open hearts. Open minds. Fair- minded words.” For more go to: http://www.sfcg.org/programmes/us/us_life.html.

The Americas Program has Launched a new series of virtual webinars to connect with its readers and facilitate thought-provoking debates on important issues in the Americas. For more information go to: http://www.americaspolicy.org.

The Canadian Centres for Teaching Peace, Canadian Culture of Peace Program and the development of Peace Cafés have been focusing on developing its work on peace book summaries, particularly aimed at building peace at the individual level (which is foundational for building peace at the family, community and world levels), the School Peace Program initiative (http://www.schoolpeaceprogram.org), the Religions and A Culture of Peace initiative, Genders and A Culture of Peace initiative, and Helping People Find Peace initiative. "The Canadian Peace Initiative (“CPI”) is a process to simply provide the venues, support and guidance to ‘Open Space to Open Minds to Peace’. The CPI process is open, transparent, patient and committed, drawing people from all walks of life, freeing them from their stasis and mobilizing them. All members of the Culture of Peace movement have to be leaders in their own right, drawing on their own potential and inner strengths, galvanizing, inspiring and energizing the peace movement. Everyone is a peace leader and peace educator. Every 11 day we must take ownership of ourselves and our relationships: we can do anything we set our minds and hearts to; we do no harm, expect and demand no harm be done to us or others; no one is better than another; we are critical thinkers, finding our own truths; education is our best investment and information our most important resource. Building a healthy culture is about building healthy relationships – we can do that. As we take ownership of peace others will follow – because it will be uplifting and empowering, it will be infectious, and lead to sudden, massive, cultural change. (As in all things peaceful, this enlightening statement is the result of many contributors and supporters. The CPI process has led to the Canadian Culture of Peace Program: http://www.cultureofpeace.ca)." "The Culture of Peace Initiative (formerly the "'We The Peoples' Initiative) is a United Nations-designated 'Peace Messenger Initiative' - with participants in all the world's regions. Since 1983, CPI (formerly WPI) has served as a vehicle for bringing forward the previously unseen and unheard voices working towards Peace. It also serves to unite the strengths of existing individuals and organizations building Cultures of Peace for succeeding generations. In the spirit of the original vision that brought forth the Charter of the United Nations, the Initiative was granted UN Peace Messenger Initiative status in 1989. The purpose of this global/local Initiative is to build a Culture of Peace in the 21st century, uniting the strengths of organizations, projects and peoples in order to make Peace a practical reality for the children of this and future generations. For more information go to: http://www.cultureofpeaceinitiative.org.

Care2 is concerned that, “No child should be afraid to attend school because of the threat of sexual abuse, corporal punishment or bullying. But every year 350 million children face violence in schools -- and with devastating effects.” Care2 has been organizing a petition campaign to have the United Nations “support the right of every child to attend school without the fear of violence and encourage every country to: Work with non-governmental organizations and governments to establish data-collection systems so we can better understand the severity of violence in schools; Work with teachers and education authorities to develop and implement plans of action for achieving violence-free schools; and Establish a procedure for children to report violent incidents. For details go to: http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/AFOpW/zJLc/JroH.

The Canadian School of Peacebuilding (CSOP) has been launched by Canadian Mennonite University and Menno Simons College (Canada), from a dream of creating an energizing place where practitioners, students, and scholars from around the world and from diverse religious and cultural backgrounds can respectfully gather together to deepen their practices of peacebuilding. By offering intensive one-week courses on a wide variety of peace topics geared for peace, justice and development practitioners, the CSOP seeks to gather differently located peace workers for common training and learn national and international practitioners and students of peacebuilding – understood broadly. For more information go to: http://www.cmu.ca/csop/index.html.

Peace education is being Introduced in Schools in Indonesia. The Ambon conflict between 1999 and 2002 led various circles to support a peace education program which has already been tested in some schools through the Maluku Brotherhood Education Curriculum.!In 2001 a group of peace education activists in Maluku obtained sponsorship from the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and set up a team to design a local curriculum aimed at changing the way students think about conflict and peace in former conflict areas. Information is available at: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/03/30/peace-education-introduced-schools.html.

The International NGO History Forum in South Korea has been recently formed to activate discussions on wide-ranging issues such as war, territorial disputes, human rights, gender equality and history in order to help shake off narrow-minded nationalism and promote reconciliation through peace education. For more information go to: http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2009/04/137_42438.html.

The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF) is developing its nascent Peace Leadership program including on the internet and on college campuses in order to leverage the growth of the nuclear abolition movement. For more information go to " http://www.wagingpeace.org.

Global Exchange and CODEPINK are running delegations to the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and Israel proper, including: Global Exchange delegation to the West Bank and Israel: December 5-December 15 ; Global Exchange "Fair Olive Harvest" delegation to the West Bank: October 30-November 9. For these and other Global Exchange delegations go to: http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=AYxWucNZ2%2Fz1mv3icR6QuhW1gR9KliBW.

The Boston Research Center changed its name to the Ikeda Center for Peace, Learning, and Dialogue, on July 3. For more information go to: www.ikedacenter.org. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

WORLD DEVELOPMENTS Steve Sachs 12 Environmental Developments

Care 2 reported in April that the combination of climate change induced drought, over use of water, and pollution is expanding a world wide crisis in the availability of usable water. This was particularly brought home in by the “terrible news out of the state of Chattisgarh in India -- over 1,500 farmers have committed suicide as a result of lack of water for their crops. The crop failures are causing farmers to fall into ever deepening levels of debt until there's no escape except via death.” For more information go to http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/AFLp8/zj3F/JroH.

A report from the Global Humanitarian Foundation, at the end of May, finds that climate change is currently causing an additional 300,00 deaths and $125 billion in economic loses a year, world wide, mostly from increased droughts, flooding and storm damage (Andrew C. Revkin, “Forum Says Climate Shift Brings Death,” The New York Times, May 29, 2009).

John M Broader, “Climate Change Seen as Threat to U.S. Security,” The New York Times, August 8, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/science/earth/09climate.html?ref=world, reports that U.S. military and intelligence analysts have stated that in the coming decades the changing global climate will pose profound strategic challenges to the United States, raising the prospect of military intervention to deal with the effects of violent storms, drought, mass migration and pandemics. There is concern that climate change related crises could overturn governments, enhance terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions. “Recent war games and intelligence studies conclude that over the next 20 to 30 years, vulnerable regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South and Southeast Asia, will face the prospect of food shortages, water crises and catastrophic flooding driven by climate change that could demand an American humanitarian relief or military response.” “A growing number of policy makers say that the world’s rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address.” Moreover, numerous major U.S. military institutions in many parts of the world would be subject to serious damage or destruction from rising oceans and the increase in severe storms.

A study by the National Institute of Atmospheric Research, made public in late May, found that ocean rise takes place twice as much along the Atlantic Coast of Canada and the Northeastern U.S. than for the world as a whole. Currently, the Greenland Ice Cap melting has been increasing by about 7% a year. If that rate continues (along with a similar rate increases elsewhere) the Northeast coast of North America would receive a two foot rise by 2100 (Cornelia Dean, “Sea’s Rise May Prove The Greater in Northeast,” The New York Times, May 28, 2009). However, current science indicates that if warming continues there are likely to be sudden jumps in ice falling into the sea, causing considerably larger ocean rises, with 20 to 40 feet, or conceivably more, possible by 2100. If all the ice caps and glaciers melt, a 200 foot rise would occur.

A study prepared by the United States Global Change Research Program, a joint study of 13 U.S. federal agencies and the White House. available at: www.globalchange.gov/usimpacts, confirms and integrates previous reports on the impacts of climate change, already in progress, including more powerful storms, increased erosion of ocean coast lines, increase of heat waves and drought in the Southwest and Northeast, reduced mountain snow pack and earlier melting reducing stream volumes in the West (impacting agriculture and residential living, and habitats for wild life while reducing hydroelectric power production), among other current impacts. Estimates of future impacts are in the report, showing varying possible effects depending on as yet unknown variables and variations (John h., Broder, “Government Study Warns of Climate Change Effects,” The New York Times, June 16, 2009). A preliminary study by Sara Pryor and Eugene Takle, in Geophysical Research, August, 2009, shows a possible over all reduction of wind in the U.S., especially in the Midwest and the East, since 1973, with 10% drop in average wind speed and more windless or low wind days in some locations in the Midwest. The report is preliminary, and the results tentative. But if there is less wind, there would be less potential for electric generation from wind (Seth Borenstein, “Global warming could be slowing winds, study shows,” San Francisco Chronicle, June 11, 2009).

Gina Marie Cheeseman, “Energy Efficiency Could Cut Emissions In Half,” Care2: “Stop Global Warming,” August 7, 2009, http://www.care2.com/causes/global-warming/blog/energy-efficiency-helps-the-environment-and-economy/, informs that a!report !by McKinsey & Company, “Unlocking Energy Efficiency in the U.S. Economy” states that investing in energy 13 efficiency could reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 1.1 gigatons a year, while bringing about a 23% drop in energy use by 2020,!saving the U.S. economy $1.2 trillion. To achieve this would require a $520 billion investment. Among the recommendations in the report are: Formulate and launch at both national and regional levels an integrated portfolio of proven, piloted, and emerging approaches to unlock the full potential of energy efficiency; Identify methods to provide the significant upfront funding required by any plan to capture energy efficiency; Forge greater alignment between utilities, regulators, government agencies, manufacturers, and energy consumers; Foster innovation in the development and deployment of next generation energy efficiency technologies to ensure ongoing productivity gains. A report by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), authored by Skip Laitner came to similar conclusions, saying that investing in energy efficiency could lead to one-half of the needed GHG emissions reductions by 2050, resulting in “substantial net energy bill savings” for both consumers and businesses. The report estimates that the savings could total $2 trillion by 2050 in 2007 constant dollars. The report found that investing in energy efficiency will not take away jobs, but provide a “small but net positive gain in the economy.” Shifting away from producing and consuming conventional energy resources to “more productive investments in energy-efficient technologies” can help the economy and create jobs. “The evidence shows that productive investments in energy-efficient technologies can enable the U.S. economy to save money and to substantially reduce its greenhouse gas emissions - both immediately and by mid-century,” according to Laitner, director of ACEEE's Economic and Social Analysis Program.!

Kate Ravilious, “Arctic Ocean May Be Polluted Soup By 2070,” Environmental News Network (ENN), http://www.enn.com/pollution/article/40320, reports that without drastic cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions, global warming could stop the Transpolar Drift, one of the Arctic's most powerful currents and a key disperser of pollutants, within 60 years, causing the Arctic Ocean to become a stagnant, polluted soup.

Defenders of Wildlife communicated, August 7, that Penguins are in serious decline, and moving to become endangered, as “global warming is wreaking havoc with their Antarctic habitat -- and pushing these birds to the brink.” For more information see Yva Momatiuk and John Eastcott, "Penguins at the Edge." Defenders Magazine, http://action.defenders.org/site/R?i=yTSh5D9_HppA_kRgOBIczA.

While a U.S. program to subsidize U.S. owners of gas guzzling cars to trade them in for more fuel efficient vehicles, so popular that Congress has had to refund it, appears to be leading to the scrapping of thousands of the high gas mileage vehicles, in Germany, a similar program, which has led to the replacement of thousands of fuel guzzlers with more efficient vehicles, has failed to scrap up to 50,000 of the out dated vehicles, which have been sold in developing nations (Carter Dougherty, “Driving Out of Germany, to Pollute Another Day,” The New York Times, August 7, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/08/world/europe/08germany.html?ref=world, and “Mathew Wald, “Doing the ‘Clunker’ Calculus,” The New York Times, August 7, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/08/business/08clunker.html?ref=us). The cash for clunkers program in the U.S. is having an Impact, partly causing an increase in fuel efficiency in cars and light trucks sold in the U.S. in July, with the average mileage for new vehicles rising from 21.4 miles per gallon in June to 22.1 mpg in July, according to a University of Michigan study that predicts a bigger increase in August. The July MPG rate is the highest mileage, and the largest one month jump, researchers at the University of Michigan have seen since the Environmental Protection Agency reconfigured mileage estimates in October 2007 (“July Sees Big Jump in Fuel Efficiency of New Cars,” The New York Times, August 11, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/08/11/us/AP-US-Clunkers-MPG.html). In China, where the average motor vehicle mileage rate for fuel consumption is already greater than in the U.S., new rules are expected to require Chinese cars to have yet higher gas mileage, and Chinese auto companies are planning to further increase overall gas mileage rates by selling more smaller cars (Keith Gradsherm “China’s Mileage Mandates: Proposed Rules Said to Be Even Stricter Than in the U.S.,” The New York Times, May, 28, 2009. In May, the U.S. Department of Energy stopped its research project into developing hydrogen fuel cells to power motor vehicles, on the finding that succeeding with such development was too far into the future (Mathew L. Wald, “U.S. Drops Research Into Fuel cell Cars,” The New York Times, May 8, 2009).

N. Gregory Mankiw, “A Missed Opportunity on Climate Change,” The New York Times, August 8, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/business/economy/09view.html?ref=us, comments, “During the presidential campaign of 2008, Barack Obama distinguished himself on the economics of climate change, speaking far more sensibly about the issue than most of his rivals. Unfortunately, now that he is president, Mr. Obama may sign a climate bill that falls far short of his aspirations. Indeed, the legislation making its way to his desk could well be worse than nothing at all.“ “What Mr. Obama proposed was a cap-and-trade system for carbon, with all the allowances sold at auction. In short, the system would put a ceiling on the amount of carbon released, and companies would bid on the right to emit 14 carbon into the atmosphere.” “The problem occurred as this sensible idea made the trip from the campaign trail through the legislative process. Rather than auctioning the carbon allowances, the bill that recently passed the House would give most of them away to powerful special interests. The numbers involved are not trivial. From Congressional Budget Office estimates, one can calculate that if all the allowances were auctioned, the government could raise $989 billion in proceeds over 10 years. But in the bill as written, the auction proceeds are only $276 billion.“ “I believe that, depending on how it is designed, a carbon tax accomplishes much of the same thing that a cap-and-trade program accomplishes. The danger in a cap-and-trade system is that the permits to emit greenhouse gases are given away for free as opposed to priced at auction. One of the mistakes the Europeans made in setting up a cap- and-trade system was to give too many of those permits away. Congress is now in the process of sending President Obama a bill that makes exactly this mistake.” “If most of those allowances are handed out rather than auctioned, the government won’t have the resources to cut other taxes and offset that price increase. The result is an increase in the effective tax rates facing most Americans, leading to lower real take-home wages, reduced work incentives and depressed economic activity.” What Minkiw does not discuss is the key question of whether so many carbon permits are issued that there is not an adequate reduction in carbon emissions. This has been a critical problem with the European cap and trade system, previously discussed in these pages.

China’s envoy to the global climate change negotiations said, in early August, that major gains were being made toward a new treaty on limiting climate change, and that China’s recent actions were contributing to reducing the increase in green house gas production (see the report of China’s green energy development below – but also note its incinerator development). However, he said that China still opposed the setting of an emissions ceiling (Michael Wines, “China Sees Progress on Climate Accord, but resists an Emissions Ceiling,” The New York Times, August 6, 2009). India also continues to object to setting specific goals for reducing green house gas pollution, favored by President Obama an others. Both India and China agree with other G18 Nations on a goal of preventing the earth’s temperature from rising more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, but refuse to require methods to achieve that objective (Peter Baker, “Poorer Nations Reject a Target on Emissions Cut,” The New York Times, July 7, 2009). Note also, that as elsewhere, the economic crisis has pushed back moves toward Green development in China, as maintaining economic growth – or minimizing its falling off – has become a priority (Jonathan Ansfield, Slump Tilts Priorities Of Industry in China,” The New York Times, April 19, 2009).

Maritime nations from around the world, at the International Maritime Organization of the United Nations meeting, in Hong Kong, in mid-May, signed an agreement to require, in two years, tougher environmental standards in the recycling of ships taken out of service (Hong Kong: Recycling Pact signed, The New York Times, May 16, 2009).

The Obama Administration announced, in early May, that it would retain a Bush administration wild life rule for applying the Endangered Species Act to polar bears, saying that the act could not be used to limit greenhouse gas emissions as those are created too widely well outside the polar bear’s habitat, even though the global warming they cause is the reason for the melting of Arctic ice, which is the major threat to the bears (Andrew C. Revkin, “U.S. curbs Use of Species Act in Protecting Polar Bear,” The New York Times, May 9, 2009). For many in the United States, this has been a milder summer then average in the last few years (as expected with a return of El Nino in the Pacific), but there have still been examples of the more severe weather that goes with global warming. Two severe typhoons struck the Philippines, Japan Taiwan, and China early in August. Nine were reported killed in Japan (with nine missing), while in Taiwan, where 37 people were known dead, elsewhere, a rural village was buried in a mudslide, with the initially unknown casualties, but some 600 initially missing, as a record 83 inches of rain (in some places) swamped the island. Earlier, 21 people were killed by the same storm (Morakot) in the Philippines, which the government reported had impacted more than 83,000 residents by floodwaters and landslides, and 22,000 had been evacuated. Morakot is also known to have killed three in mainland China. There, in Wenzhou, a city of nearly 1.4 million people in Zhejiang Province, officials said Morakot had leveled nearly 1,500 homes. In the face of the typhoon, China’s state- controlled Xinhua news service said in northern Fujian Province more than 490,000 people had been moved to safety in Fujian, and 48,000 boats summoned back to harbor, while in Zhejiang Province 505,000 others were evacuated and 35,000 boats called in (Michael Wines, “Death Toll Rises as Typhoons Soak Asia,” The New York Times, August 10, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/11/world/asia/11china.html?_r=1&hp).

Meanwhile, three years of drought in California brought conditions to the point where Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger asked the federal government to declare Fresno County a disaster area, June 19, as the hard hit agriculture industry of the central valley is now a major source of unemployment, which hit 11.5% in May, the highest since world War II (Solomon J. Moore, "Disaster Request for a Drought-Hit California County,” The New York Times, June 20, 2009). Meanwhile two impacts of climate change are combining to increase forest fires in Western North America. Drier hotter climate is creating dry conditions causing more forest fires, and by directly killing some trees and other plants, providing more fuel for them. At 15 the same time, the bark beetle has a longer season to reproduce, bringing a huge increase in their population killing millions of trees, and providing still more fuel making it easier for fires to start, spread, and burn more intensely (Kirk Johnson, “Beetles Add New Dynamic to Forest Fire Control Efforts,” The New York Times, June 28, 2009).

Elisabeth Rosenthal, “An Amazon Culture Withers as Food Dries Up,” The New York Times, July 24, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/science/earth/25tribe.html?scp=1&sq=As%20Food%20Dries%20Up,%20an%20Ama zon%20Culture%20Withers%20and%20Faces%20Extinction&st=cse, reports that in the area of Xingu National Park along the Amazon in Brazil, members of the Kamayurá tribe are struggling to adopt to change and continue their existence as global climate change is making the Amazon region drier and hotter, decimating fish stocks in jungle lakes and rivers that have been a staple of their Kamayurá diet, and primary source of protein for many centuries. Tribal Chief Kotok said that men can now fish all night without a bite in streams where fish used to be abundant, and they safely swim in lakes previously teeming with piranhas. Tribal members have been eating ants on flatbed, and small monkeys, as a replacement for the lack of fish, but their numbers are shrinking also. Kamayurá agriculture is shrinking as well, as it has become almost impossible to raise even minimal crops of cassava and corn in the high temperature drought. Medicinal plants and grasses used to construct huts are also becoming rare, while a new threat has arisen, for the very first time, in 2007, there was a forest fire – which destroyed thousands of acres -, which is now a continual threat as the rainforest is sifting toward becoming a dry treeless land. “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that up to 30% of animals and plants face an increased risk of extinction if global temperatures rise 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) in coming decades. But anthropologists also fear a wave of cultural extinction for dozens of small indigenous groups — the loss of their traditions, their arts, their languages. ‘In some places, people will have to move to preserve their culture,’ said Gonzalo Oviedo, a senior adviser on social policy at the International Union for Conservation of Nature in Gland, Switzerland. ‘But some of those that are small and marginal will assimilate and disappear.’ Cultures threatened by climate change span the globe. They include rainforest residents like the Kamayurá who face dwindling food supplies; remote Arctic communities where the only roads were frozen rivers that are now flowing most of the year; and residents of low-lying islands whose land is threatened by rising seas.” “Eskimo settlements like Kivalina and Shishmaref in Alaska are ‘literally being washed away,’ said Thomas Thornton, an anthropologist who studies the region, because the sea ice that long protected their shores is melting and the seas around are rising. Without that hard ice, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to hunt for seals, a mainstay of the traditional diet. Some Eskimo groups are suing polluters and developed nations, demanding compensation and help with adapting.” In Iraq, a two year drought combined with the water policies of Turkey and Syria, is drying up the Euphrates River. Former farmers along the river’s banks are dried up and abandoned, and fisherman can no longer make a catch, while pipes to water treatment plants hang high and dry (Campbell Robertson, “Iraq, a Land Between Two Rivers, Suffers as One of them Dwindles,” The New York Times, July 14, 2009).

The international beekeeping body, Apimonida, warned, in late April, that the European beekeeping industry could be disseminated in a decade as bees die from disease, pesticides and intensive farming (“Group Sounds Alarm on European Bee Industry,” The New York Times, April 28, 2009). A report in the June issue of Nature Geoscience stated that attempts to halt erosion of the Louisiana coast by breaking though Mississippi River levies to allow muddy waters flow into and replenish the delta – following its historical pattern of renewal – will be inadequate, because up river dams trap too much of the needed silt (Cornellia Dean, “Dams Are Thwarting Louisiana Marsh Restoration, Study Shows,” The New York Times, June 29, 2009).

Trash from expanding production and consumption in China – which has surpassed the U.S. as the world’s largest trash producer - has become a global environmental problem. Much of it is burned in little if any filtered incinerators, being built as landfill spaces reach capacity, not only adding significantly to climate change causing carbon emissions, but putting into the air and environment many toxic chemicals, including heavy metals and dioxin. Left over from the burning is toxic ash, for which there is rarely proper landfill space, so it is often dumped. The airborne pollution joins that from Chinese coal plants bringing smog and toxic fallout to North America, and perhaps further. Locally, the problem is even worse. In Shenszen, a “sprawling metropolis in southeastern China stand two hulking brown buildings erected by a private company, the Longgang trash incinerators. They can be smelled a mile away and pour out so much dark smoke and hazardous chemicals that hundreds of local residents recently staged an all-day sit-in, demanding that the incinerators be cleaner and that a planned third incinerator not be built nearby.” But not all of China’s incinerators are so polluting. Some do filter out much of the toxic pollution, and if China must burn, those improvements need to be made across the country (Keith Bradsher, “China’s Incinerators Loom as a Global Hazard.” The New York Times, August 11, 2009).

16 American and Chinese researchers reported in the Journal of Geophysical Research, August 14, air pollution in eastern China is altering rainfall patterns there, resulting in 25% fewer days of light rain in Northeast China and 21% less days of light rain in Southeast from 1960 to 2005, while overall rainfall remained the same. (Cornellia Dean, “China: Air Pollution Changes Rainfall Patterns,” The New York Times, August 14, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/15/world/asia/15web-briefs-China.html?ref=world). Having rain spread out over longer periods of time, as light rain, is usually more beneficial than heavy rain (which can also be damaging), as more of the light rain is likely to be absorbed by the ground and plants, than heavy rain which usually has a higher amount of run off. Meanwhile China is planning to build 20 new hydro electric dams on the Yangtze River by 2020, That is positive for creating energy with no carbon or other pollution from burning, but does cause other environmental damage (“China: 20 New Yangtze Dams Planned,” The New York Times,” April 20, 2009.

A study by the Health Effects Institute, released in early June, reported that the risk of premature death for people with a condition that is a precursor to deadly heart attacks from breathing air with significant levels of soot particles is 24%, rather than the previously accepted 12%, higher than if they are in locations with clean air (Felicity Barringer, “Analysis Elevates Danger From Soot in the Air,” The New York Times, June 3, 2009).

With the implementation of new drilling techniques, a great deal more natural gas is now obtainable in the U.S., raising the estimates of natural gas reserves by 35%. Natural gas can now be used in place of other fossil fuels that are more polluting, including in carbon emissions causing global warming (Jad Moruawad, Estimate Places Natural Gas Reserves 35% higher,” The New York Times, June 18, 2009).

In a political deal, the new Governor of Kansas, Democrat Mark Parkinson, agreed that the utility, Sun Flower Electric, could construct one of the two coal power plants it sought to build in Western Kansas, in return for Republican support in the legislature for a bill on developing wind power and other renewable energy (“Kansas: Deal on Coal Plant, The New York Times, May 16, 2009).

Judge, Henry H. Kennedy Jr. of the Federal District Court in the District of Columbia, August 12, upheld a Bush administration rule that makes it easier for companies involved in mountaintop coal mining to dump debris near streams. The Obama administration had asked the court to void the rule until it could be redrawn with stiffer water-quality protections. Judge Kennedy said taking such a step would bypass federal procedures for overturning regulations. The Department of the Interior is proceeding to develop a new stricter rule. (Cornelia Dean, “Bush Mining Rule to Stand,” The New York Times, August 12, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/us/13brfs- BUSHMININGRU_BRF.html?ref=todayspape).

A press release. “Wastewater produces electricity and desalinates water” (also announced on line in Environmental Science and Technology) by researchers at Penn State University, cooperating with others at King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Saudi Arabia and Ministry of Science and Technology, China, August 6, announced having developed a process that cleans wastewater and generates electricity that can also remove 90 percent of salt from brackish water or seawater. According to an international team of researchers from China and the U.S. “Clean water for drinking, washing and industrial uses is a scarce resource in some parts of the world. Its availability in the future will be even more problematic. Many locations already desalinate water using either a reverse osmosis process -- one that pushes water under high pressure through membranes that allow water to pass but not salt -- or an electro dialysis process that uses electricity to draw salt ions out of water through a membrane. Both methods require large amounts of energy”. The researchers determined, "Water desalination can be accomplished without electrical energy input or high water pressure by using a source of organic matter as the fuel to desalinate water" by working with a modified a microbial fuel cell, using naturally occurring. "Our main intent was to show that using bacteria we can produce sufficient current to do this. However, it took 200 milliliters of an artificial wastewater -- acetic acid in water -- to desalinate 3 milliliters of salty water. This is not a practical system yet as it is not optimized, but it is proof of concept." So further research is ongoing to attempt to make the process practical. For more information contact: A'ndrea Elyse Messer, [email protected], 814-865-9481, http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-08/ps-wpe080609.php.

China is making billions of dollars in investments in developing renewable energy, mostly wind power, on a very large scale, while issuing regulations discouraging carbon burning power development. Coal will continue to be the primary source of energy generation in China for the foreseeable future, but the country’s major push for green energy will restrict the growth of carbon emissions and other pollutants (Keith Bradsher, “Green Power Takes Root in China,” The New York Times, July 3, 2009). A new plan for stationing large windmills on floating platforms offshore to generate electricity for costal cities is currently under experimental development (David E. Baxter, “Windmills in the ocean hold energy promise, ”San Francisco Chronicle, 17 August 3, 2009). A French company, Voltalis has developed a Bluepod box that it is giving free to French consumers. The device provides distributive load sharing that the company says can reduce users electric use by up to 10%. However, the French Regulatory commission ruled, in July, that Voltalis must pay the power producers for the cost of the saved electricity! (David Jolly, “Effort to Ease Electric Loads Hits Barrier,” The New York Times, July 22, 2009. In California, a project by AltaRock Energy to fracture bedrock deep underground to extract its energy was stopped by federal regulators to study whether the project might set off dangerous earthquakes, after reports that a similar project by the company in Switzerland had been halted when earthquakes occurred, that seemed to be a result of the project (James Glanz, “Quake Fears Stall Energy Extraction Project,” The New York Times, July 14, 2009. The Sears Tower in Chicago is being fitted with wind turbines to generate most of the building’s power (Susan Saulny, “Sears Tower to Be Revamped to Produce Most of Its Own Power,” The New York Times, June 25, 2009). Buckingham Palace in London, England has switched to providing ceiling lighting with LED lights that on average last more than 22 year, reduce energy consumption, and hence carbon dioxide emissions (Elisabeth Rosenthal and Falicity Baringer, “Green Promise seen in Switch to LED Lighting,” The New York Times, May 30, 2009). Finland has been building a new generation large output atomic electric generating station at Olkiluoto, but thousands of defects and deficiencies in the construction have caused the price to at least double to $4.2 billion. The plant was scheduled to be finished this summer, but the French company building it and the Finish utility that ordered it say they cannot now predict when it will be finished [which means the construction price may rise still further] (James Kanter, “Not So fast, Nukes: Cost Overruns Plague a New Breed of Reactor,” The New York Times, May 29, 2009).

Construction of a very large water desalination plant is about to be started near San Diego to see if such a large scale plant can protect the environment while providing large amounts of water at a reasonable price (Felicity Barringer, “In California Desalination of Seawater As a Test Case,” The New York Times, May 15, 2009). In recent years many U.S. golf courses have devised ways to conserve water use while keeping their greens and fairways in good shape. Increasingly, state governments have been consulting the greener courses to develop rules and regulations on water conservation (Leslie Kaufman, “Thirsty Golf Courses as Model for Water Thrift,” The New York Times, August 8, 2009. An experiment on 15 farms in Vermont has early results showing that by giving cows a more natural diet – for example, alfalfa and flax seed, rather than corn and soy – they produce 18% less of the green house gas methane, then on the more common animal feeds now in use, that are not natural for cows to eat (Leslie Kaufman, “Greening The Herds: A New Diet To Cap Gas,” The New York Times, June 5, 2009).

The Tennessee Valley Authority is preparing to convert its coal waste and gypsum operations within eight years to dry storage at its 26 ash and gypsum impoundments at seven coal-fired power plants in the wake of the huge ash spill from a retention pond last year at its Kingston Fossil Plant, in Tennessee, where 5.4 million cubic yards of toxic ash breached an earthen dike on Dec. 22 and swept into the Emory River and a lakeside community. TVA is responding to increased Congressional scrutiny and expected tougher regulation of coal ash because of the spill (“Tennessee: Changes for Coal Waste,” The New York Times, August 10, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/11/us/11brfs-CHANGESFORCO_BRF.html?ref=us).

An experiment is going on in the Waters off Massachusetts to try to save endangered sea turtles that often die when caught in fishing nets. Turtles can survive if trapped under water for about 90 minutes. So a timing device is being put on nets to signal that they should be brought up in time to free any turtles, before going down again after fish (“Device on Nets May Protect Sea Turtles”), The New York Times, June 22, 2009. Meanwhile, New England fisherman are pushing for a group quota system, to replace the regulation of individual fisherman, which they claim can allow them to make a living, while better protecting over fished fish (Ariana Green, “In New England, Plans Could Redefine Fishing, The New York Times, May 31, 2009).

World Overview

Surface signs in the United Sates, reflected, at the beginning of August, by its stock market returning to the levels of the beginning of the year, indicate that the serious world wide recession may be bottoming out and preparing to slowly reverse (For example see David Leonhardt, “As Economy Turns, Washington Looks Better.” And Louis Uchitelle and Jack Healy, “Job Losses Slow, Signaling Momentum for a Recovery,” The New York Times, August 8, 3009). Similarly, data reported by the Russian government in early August also indicate that the recession in Russia, the deepest of any major economy, seems to have leveled off (Andrew E. Kramer, “In Russia, Data Signals a Leveling Off of the Decline,” The New York Times, August 11, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/business/economy/12ruble.html?ref=world). Similar signs of bottoming out have 18 been reported elsewhere, as in Japan, but particularly in China, India and Brazil, among the developing economies, that some economists see as being on the verge of leading a global economic recovery (where a few months ago, the developing economies were seen as likely to suffer the most in the economic collapse) (Nelson D Schwartz and Mathew Saltmarsh, “Emerging Countries May Also Be Driving Global Economy,” The New York Times, June 25, 2009). At the same time, many progressive economists, such as Robby Batra, state that because U.S. policy has largely been helping large banks, who have money to lend, and has done little to raise wages, increase employment or otherwise build the base of the economy, which is at its bottom, the U.S. economy will plunge - again - into a deep depression, which will also seriously lower economies around the world. One of the problems cited is that U.S. regulation of banks has allowed banks to set their own values for assets they hold that have collapsed, thus allowing them to be greatly overvalued (so the bank can seem more profitable), and creating a new financial bubble, which is likely to burst. Another world economic drop off has the potential to intensify peace and wellbeing issues, and while providing both opportunities for, and pressures against, doing more to combat climate change and other major environmental issues. Batra, while pessimistic for the short term, believes that in the long run, a major world wide depression would bring about a change toward a more people oriented and environmental friendly economy and a U.S. politics less driven by money.

The economic group of Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) held its first meeting in Moscow in June, seeking more control over the global financial system (Clifford J. Levyk, “Seeking Greater Financial Clout, Emerging Counties Prepare to Meet in Russia,” The New York Times, June 16, 2009)

UN Food officials reported, June 19, that the global economic crisis has increased the number of the hungry, around the world, upward by 100 million people, in a year, to a record 1 billion persons, one in every six people (“Financial Crisis Means More Hunger,” The New York Times, June 20, 2009). UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon warned, June 24, that the impact of the global economic crisis could last for years, pushing millions of more families into poverty. He urged wealthy nations to mobilize funding to assist developing countries (“An Appeal on Behalf of the Poor,” The New York Times, June 25, 2009).

International Crisis Group (ICG)CrisisWatch, No. 72, August 1, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/library/documents/crisiswatch/cw_2009/cw72.pdf, found: “Four actual or potential conflict situations around the world deteriorated and one improved in July 2009.” “Violence in Nigeria's northern states again surged as the radical Islamist group Boko Haram launched a series of fierce attacks on security forces targets from 26 July, prompting a brutal crackdown by government troops and eliciting painful memories of November's deadly sectarian unrest. The attacks led to the death of at least 400 people, possibly many more, and left over 4,000 displaced before police apprehended group leader Yusuf Mohammed. He was shot dead hours later while trying to escape, according to the government. The attacks come as the government's amnesty and proposed DDR program for the South's restive Niger Delta looked increasingly fragile, as militant groups and regional governors threatened to withdraw their support over the government's failure to address economic grievances. In Afghanistan, violence increased significantly ahead of the 20 August presidential elections. A major U.S.-led operation was launched in southern Helmand province to secure the area ahead of the polls, and at least 71 ISAF troops were killed during the month, the highest monthly toll since the start of the 2001 invasion. The Taliban responded with a wave of attacks, including an ambush on vice presidential candidate Mohammad Qasim Fahim, which he survived. There is a substantial risk that violence will continue to rise as the polling date draws closer, with the Taliban towards the end of the month announcing that they will attempt to disrupt the elections. CrisisWatch identifies a Conflict Risk Alert for Afghanistan for August. In China, ethnic tensions erupted into bloody riots on 5 July in Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region as police confronted members of the Uighur population who took to the streets in the provincial capital Urumqi calling for government investigations into the deaths of several Uighur factory workers on 25 June. Chaos returned on 7 July when thousands of armed Han Chinese rioted through Urumqi. The situation also deteriorated in Chechnya, where the 15 July abduction and murder of activist Natalia Estemirova, investigating rights violations by Chechen security forces, prompted international outrage and renewed focus on the prevalence of serious human rights abuses in Chechnya. The month also saw continued flare-ups in fighting with Islamist rebels, and incidents including a suicide bombing in Grozny on 26 July killing 6 people. For July, CrisisWatch identifies Guinea-Bissau as an improved situation with the holding of timely and peaceful second-round presidential polls on 26 July, following the death of President Vieira in March this year. Whilst a step forward, the new president, Malam Bacai Sanha of the ruling PAIGC, faces massive reform challenges in addressing recent political unrest and widespread poverty. The situation remains deadlocked in Honduras following June's civil-military coup, as talks between the de facto government and ousted President Manuel Zelaya broke down repeatedly during the month. However, hopes of a resolution were raised towards the end of the month, as both the military and the de facto President Roberto Micheletti said they could be willing to accept the deal proposed by mediator Oscar Arias. The deal would see Zelaya return as president but with heavily curtailed powers.” For July, CrisisWatch found Deteriorated Situations in Afghanistan, 19 China (internal), Chechnya (Russia), and Nigeria; an Improved Situation in Guinea-Bissau, with Unchanged Situations in Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Basque Country (Spain), Belarus, Bolivia, Bosnia, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Cyprus, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Georgia, Guinea, Haiti, Honduras, India (non-Kashmir), Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territories, Kashmir, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Liberia, Macedonia, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Moldova, Morocco, Myanmar/Burma, Nagorno-Karabakh (Azerbaijan), Nepal, Niger, North Caucasus (non-Chechnya), Northern Ireland, North Korea, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Taiwan Strait, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Yemen, and Zimbabwe

Looking back over the months since the Spring 2009 issue of NCJ, International Crisis Group (ICG)CrisisWatch No. 69, May 1, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/library/documents/crisiswatch/cw_2009/cw69.pdf, reprted, "Seven actual or potential conflict situations around the world deteriorated and one improved in April 2009." "Heavy fighting between Sri Lankan forces and the separatist LTTE rebels continued to produce an ever worsening humanitarian tragedy, as conditions deteriorated for tens of thousands of civilians trapped in a shrinking patch of land between warring parties. Government shelling into the self-declared 'no-fire zone' surged on 21 April, triggering the chaotic exodus of 100,000 men, women and children into government-controlled areas with little access to urgently-needed food, water and medical relief. Available reports suggest 6,500 have died since late January; risks for 50,000 still caught in the war zone mount daily. With both the government forces and Tamil Tigers abdicating their responsibility to protect civilians from mass atrocity crimes, a decisive and united international response is needed to ensure the safety of the civilians. Urgent pressure is required to push parties towards a solution that avoids further bloodshed. Divisions within Kenya‚s fragile coalition government rose to new levels in April, as the collapse of crisis talks on 4 April set the stage for series of blistering verbal attacks between President Kibaki and Prime Minister Odinga. Developments raised fears of a new political crisis just a year on from the brutal election violence that fractured the country between late 2007 and early 2008. The month also saw dozens killed in attacks related to the feared Mungiki sect. The situation also deteriorated in Thailand, where demonstrations by supporters of ousted PM Thaksin quickly turned to violent clashes with police, leaving two dead and 120 injured. In Nepal, efforts by the Maoist authorities to sack the head of the army signalled a serious escalation in tensions between the government and Nepali army, while increasing mistrust between political parties over implementation of the country‚s peace process resulted in two weeks of parliamentary paralysis. CrisisWatch also identifies North Korea and Moldova as deteriorated situations in April. The month brought an important step forward in talks between Armenia and Turkey following an agreement brokered under Swiss mediation on a “roadmap” towards the normalisation of relations and opening of their joint border. The agreement came despite strains related to Armenia‚s longstanding conflict with Turkey ally Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh.... a conflict resolution opportunity in Niger, after a joint peace declaration agreed between the government and main Tuareg rebel group raised prospects for an imminent peace deal to address the long-running conflict in the north." In April Crisis Watch identified: Deteriorated Situations in Fiji, Kenya, Moldova, Nepal, North Korea, Sri Lanka, and Thailand; an Improved Situation in Armenia/Turkey; and Unchanged Situations in Afghanistan, Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Basque Country (Spain), Belarus, Bolivia, Bosnia,!Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Chechnya, Colombia, Côte d‚Ivoire, Cyprus, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Georgia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, India (non-Kashmir), Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territories, Kashmir, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Macedonia, Madagascar, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar/Burma, Nagorno-Karabakh (Azerbaijan), Nigeria, North Caucasus (non-Chechnya), Northern Ireland, Pakistan, Philippines, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Taiwan Strait, Tajikistan, Togo, Turkey, Turkmenista n, Uganda, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Western Sahara, Yemen, and Zimbabwe, with a Conflict Resolution Opportunity in Niger.

CrisisWatch N°70, June 1, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/library/documents/crisiswatch/cw_2009/cw70.pdf, identified “Nine actual or potential conflict situations around the world deteriorated and none improved in May 2009.” Somalia’s capital was rocked by intense fighting as an alliance of anti-government Islamist factions led by influential Islamist cleric Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys launched a large-scale offensive in and around Mogadishu. Close to 200 civilians were killed, hundreds wounded and over 46,000 displaced by heavy shelling into residential areas. The effects of severe drought have compounded fears for a further deterioration in security and humanitarian conditions in June.! Conditions for civilians in Pakistan also deteriorated considerably over May, as the army offensive against the Taliban continued in the north west. The total number of displaced has reportedly reached over 2.4 million since the operation’s launch in late April, prompting UN calls for ‘urgent and massive’ humanitarian assistance on the ground. Tensions between Chad and neighbouring Sudan escalated sharply, as an early month agreement to cease hostilities quickly unravelled following a fresh assault in Chad’s 20 volatile east by Chadian rebels operating from bases across the border in Darfur. Retaliatory air strikes by Chadian forces on Sudanese soil have since prompted vehement accusations of military aggression between capitals and threats of further action. The situation in Nigeria also deteriorated, as the government launched a major ground, air and naval offensive against militia groups in the restive Niger Delta. Dozens of civilians have reportedly been killed and thousands displaced since mid-May, amid reports of government efforts to restrict humanitarian access. In North Korea, Pyongyang’s 25 May announcement of the completion of an underground nuclear test prompted widespread condemnation over its brazen contravention of UN Security Council Resolution 1718 and fears for the further escalation of regional tensions. The situations in Guatemala, Myanmar/Burma and Niger also saw significant deteriorations in May.” Deteriorated Situations were Chad, Guatemala, Myanmar/Burma, North Korea, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Somalia, and Sudan; no situations improved; and Unchanged were Afghanistan, Algeria, Armenia/Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Basque Country (Spain), Belarus, Bolivia, Bosnia,!Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chechnya, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Cyprus, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Georgia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, India (non-Kashmir), Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territories, Kashmir, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Macedonia, Madagascar, Mauritania, Morocco, Nagorno-Karabakh (Azerbaijan), Nigeria, North Caucasus (non-Chechnya), Northern Ireland, Philippines, Rwanda, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Syria, Taiwan Strait, Tajikistan, Togo, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Yemen, and Zimbabwe. There was a Conflict Risk Alert in Somalia.

CrisisWatch N°71, July 1, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/library/documents/crisiswatch/cw_2009/cw71.pdf, identified “Nine actual or potential conflict situations around the world deteriorated and none improved in June 2009. “Widespread unrest broke out in Iran after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s landslide victory in the 12 June presidential election was widely denounced as fraudulent, sparking the largest mass protests in the country since 1979. Nationwide street rallies were met with an increasingly harsh security crackdown resulting in several deaths, and sporadic unrest continued throughout the month. Amid open splits in the ruling elite over endorsement of the results and the future of the Islamic republic, leading activists and opposition figures were arrested and defeated candidates placed under heavy surveillance. In Thailand, inter-communal tensions and violence flared in the largely Malay Muslim South, with attacks and killings on an almost daily basis. Prime Minister Abhisit has promised to tackle the escalating insurgency through development rather than security measures and said the government is prepared to consider some form of special administrative structure in the South to better address the concerns of Malay Muslims as long as it is consistent with the core principle of a unitary Thai state. The situation also deteriorated in Somalia, where fighting between a resurgent Islamist!alliance and government forces left scores dead in clashes across south and central regions. At least 122,000 civilians have been displaced in Mogadishu alone since fighting escalated in early May. Somalia’s increasingly fragile government has since declared a state of emergency, and issued calls for external assistance to stem attacks. In Honduras President Zelaya was ousted by a military coup sparked by his attempts to remove presidential term limits through a referendum. Fears for stability also increased in Niger, as President Tandja continued his damaging bid to extend his tenure by assuming wide-ranging emergency powers and dissolving the constitutional court.!In Guinea-Bissau, several leading politicians were killed and arrested ahead of the 28 June presidential elections. The situation also deteriorated in North Caucasus, Georgia and Peru over June.” Deteriorated Situations were Georgia, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Iran, Niger,!North Caucasus (non-Chechnya), Peru, Somalia, and Thailand. No situations were found to be improved. Unchanged were Afghanistan, Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Basque Country (Spain), Belarus, Bolivia, Bosnia, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Chechnya (Russia), Colombia, Congo-Brazzaville, Côte d’Ivoire, Cyprus, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Guinea, Haiti, India (non-Kashmir), Indonesia, Iraq, Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territories, Kashmir, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Macedonia, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Moldova, Myanmar/Burma, Nagorno-Karabakh (Azerbaijan), Nepal, Nigeria, Northern Ireland, North Korea, Pakistan, Philippines, Rwanda, Serbia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Taiwan Strait, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Western Sahara, Yemen, and Zimbabwe.

A global survey by the Pew Global attitudes Project, published in late July, indicates that since the election of President Obama the perception of the United States around the world has greatly improved – to levels prior to the George W. Bush administration, though there is broad opposition to his sending more troops to Afghanistan, and confidence in the U.S. by Israelis has dropped, while anti-American feelings remain high among Palestinians, in Pakistan and Turkey. President Obama enjoys more confidence in France and Germany than do the Presidents of those countries (Brian Knowleton, “Obama Drives a Change In Global Views, Poll Finds,” The New York Times, July 24, 2009). 21 Pope Benedict XVI issued “Caritas in Veriate (Charity in Truth),” in July, calling for a radical rethinking of the global economy which is increasingly expanding the divide between rich and poor, and urging the establishment of a “true world political authority” to oversee the economy and work for “the common good”. He criticized the currnt world economy, “where the pernicious effects of sin are evident” and called for financeers to “rediscover the genuanly ethical foundation of their activity” (Rachel Donadido and Laurie Goodstein, “Pope Urges Forming New World Economic Order to Work for the ‘Common Good,’” The New York Times, July 9, 2009). In May, the Pope, who has made some statements that were seen as antithetical to Islam, but who has also made efforts to increase understanding between Christians and Muslims, visited Jordan, where he expressed ‘a deep repect’ for Muslims, and a desire for the Roman Catholic Church to play a major role in fostering Middle East Peace (Rachel donadido, “Pope Gives Muslims Message of ‘Deep Respect’ in Jordan,” The New York Times, May 9, 2009).

Johann Hari, "You Are Being Lied to About Pirates," February 4, 2009, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann- hari/you-are-being-lied-to-abo_b_155147.html, providing the background to the piracy situation off Somalia, said, "The people our governments are labeling as 'one of the great menace of our times' have an extraordinary story to tell -- and some justice on their side. Pirates have never been quite who we think they are. In the "golden age of piracy" - from 1650 to 1730 - the idea of the pirate as the senseless, savage thief that lingers today was created by the British government in a great propaganda-heave. Many ordinary people believed it was false: pirates were often rescued from the gallows by supportive crowds.... If you became a merchant or navy sailor then - plucked from the docks of London's East End, young and hungry - you ended up in a floating wooden Hell. You worked all hours on a cramped, half-starved ship, and if you slacked off for a second, the all-powerful captain would whip you with the Cat O' Nine Tails. If you slacked consistently, you could be thrown overboard. And at the end of months or years of this, you were often cheated of your wages. Pirates were the first people to rebel against this world. They mutinied against their tyrannical captains - and created a different way of working on the seas. Once they had a ship, the pirates elected their captains, and made all their decisions collectively. They shared their bounty out in what Rediker calls "one of the most egalitarian plans for the disposition of resources to be found anywhere in the eighteenth century." They even took in escaped African slaves and lived with them as equals. The pirates showed "quite clearly - and subversively - that ships did not have to be run in the brutal and oppressive ways of the merchant service and the Royal navy." This is why they were popular, despite being unproductive thieves." In the current situation, "In 1991, the government of Somalia - in the Horn of Africa - collapsed. Its nine million people have been teetering on starvation ever since - and many of the ugliest forces in the Western world have seen this as a great opportunity to steal the country's food supply and dump our nuclear waste in their seas.... As soon as the government was gone, mysterious European ships started appearing off the coast of Somalia, dumping vast barrels into the ocean. The coastal population began to sicken. At first they suffered strange rashes, nausea and malformed babies. Then, after the 2005 tsunami, hundreds of the dumped and leaking barrels washed up on shore. People began to suffer from radiation sickness, and more than 300 died. Ahmedou Ould- Abdallah, the UN envoy to Somalia, tells me: 'Somebody is dumping nuclear material here. There is also lead, and heavy metals such as cadmium and mercury - you name it.' Much of it can be traced back to European hospitals and factories, who seem to be passing it on to the Italian mafia to 'dispose' of cheaply. When I asked Ould-Abdallah what European governments were doing about it, he said with a sigh: 'Nothing. There has been no clean-up, no compensation, and no prevention.' At the same time, other European ships have been looting Somalia's seas of their greatest resource: seafood."More than $300m worth of tuna, shrimp, lobster and other sea-life is being stolen every year by vast trawlers illegally sailing into Somalia's unprotected seas." "This is the You Are Being Lied to About Pirates - and it's not hard to see why." "No, this doesn't make hostage-taking justifiable, and yes, some are clearly just gangsters - especially those who have held up World Food Programme supplies. But the "pirates" have the overwhelming support of the local population for a reason. The independent Somalian news-site WardherNews conducted the best research we have into what ordinary Somalis are thinking - and it found 70 percent "strongly supported the piracy as a form of national defence of the country's territorial waters."

The Independent Evaluation Group that reports to the Board of Directors of the World Bank released a report, at the beginning of May, finding that 70% of the World Bank’s anti AIDS projects of the last decade, totaling $17 billion in investment, have failed to perform satisfactorily because they are too complex for weak or inexperienced bureaucracies, especially at the center of the pandemic, in Africa (Celia W. Dugger, “Report Says Bank’s Aids Efforts Are Failing,” The New York Times, May 1, 2009).

Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan

Stephen Zunes, ”Iran's Stolen Election Has Sparked an Uprising -- What Should the U.S. Do?,” AlterNet. June 15, 2009. ttp://www.alternet.org/world/140639/iran%27s_stolen_election_has_sparked_an_uprising_-- _what_should_the_u.s._do/?page=entire, asks. “Can the United States speed the process for greater freedom 22 in Iran? Yes. By staying out of the way as much as possible.” Zunes notes, “What recent history has repeatedly shown is that the most effective means for democratic change comes from broadly based nonviolent movements, such as those that have toppled dictatorships in such diverse countries as the Philippines, Chile, Madagascar, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Indonesia, Serbia, Mali, Nepal, the Maldives, and elsewhere.” He states that that is very much the case in Iran, though, as of June, “the diverse opposition in Iran has the organizational and strategic wherewithal to mount a massive nonviolent action campaign that could overturn the stolen election and bring greater democracy to that country. This stolen election may hasten that day, however. Iran today is not unlike Eastern Europe in the 1970s. The people may not be ready to overthrow the system, but the ideological hegemony which had previously maintained that system and stifled freedom of thought has largely vanished.” As of Mid August, the government crackdown, led mostly by the Revolutionary Guards – now seen by many as the most important power in Iran – has prevented large long lasting demonstrations, but resistance continues in many forms, while a number of important groups and individuals in the elite have strongly criticized the election, and more recently the Supreme leader. It appears that a long term power struggle is in process in Iran.

In August, while more than 100 election protestors and reformers were being tried for attempting to topple the Iranian government, a senior judiciary official acknowledged that some detainees arrested after post-election protests had been tortured in Iranian prisons. The statement by the judiciary official, Iran’s prosecutor general, on torture revealed continued divisions within the government, and was likely to be incendiary in Iran, where allegations of torture by Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi became a central justification of the 1979 revolution that brought the hard-line clerics to power. (Robert F. Worth and Nazila Fathi, “Iranian Acknowledges Torture of Some Protesters,” The New York Times, August 8, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/world/middleeast/09iran.html?ref=world).

The International Crisis Group (ICG), “U.S.-Iranian Engagement: The View from Tehran,” Middle East Briefing N°28, June 2, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6131&l=1, suggests, “For perhaps the first time since Iran and the U.S. broke ties in 1980, there are real prospects for fundamental change. The new U.S. president, Barack Obama, stated willingness to talk unconditionally. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, implicitly blessed dialogue, and presidential candidates are vying to prove they would be the most effective interlocutor. Yet, while U.S. objectives and tactics are relatively familiar, little is known of Iran’s thinking, even as much is assumed. Western interaction with its opaque political system and decision-making has both shriveled and been narrowly focused on the nuclear file. Understanding Iran’s perspective is critical if engagement is to succeed.” “Mutual expressions of a desire for a new relationship aside, there are sound reasons for the two countries to turn the page. Among the Bush administration’s unintended legacies is Iran’s strengthened posture and demonstration of the shortcomings of a policy exclusively based on isolation. Washington has much to gain by Iranian cooperation in its two Middle Eastern battlefields, Iraq and Afghanistan – and as much to lose by Iranian hostility. Years of sanctions, international pressure and threats have not slowed Iran’s uranium enrichment. Other aspects of U.S policy have enhanced Tehran’s influence among regional public opinion and strengthened its ties to Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah. This policy did not merely fail; it roundly backfired. The Islamic Republic may feel vindicated, but its situation is far from rosy. There is no assurance its regional influence will continue to grow; it faces mounting resentment from Arab regimes; and sanctions, while wholly ineffective in producing policy shifts, have been quite effective in exacting a heavy economic price. Even its more conservative leaders likely see value in consolidating gains through some arrangement with the U.S. There is also an apparent convergence of interests on important regional questions – Iraq’s territorial integrity and stability; keeping the Taliban at bay in Afghanistan; stopping the flow of narcotics across the Afghan border. Although all this means dialogue is possible and potentially fruitful, none of it means it will be easy. The U.S. and Iran must overcome three decades of estrangement punctuated by seminal events that further deepened the chasm. During his campaign, President Obama openly embraced engagement with what formerly were known as rogue states, most notably Syria and Iran. Four months into his presidency, the broad outlines of his Iran policy are coming into focus: unconditional U.S. participation in multilateral nuclear talks; initiation at some point of wider-ranging bilateral dialogue; maintenance of sanctions as an instrument of leverage; and intensive regional as well as wider international diplomacy to increase pressure should engagement fail to produce demanded policy changes.” “during the course of several weeks of interviews in Tehran, Crisis Group found remarkable consistency of views regarding how the regime contemplates renewed dialogue,” “Tehran’s most oft- repeated demand also is its most abstract and thus the most readily (albeit misguidedly) dismissed: that the U.S. change the way it sees and treats Iran, its regional role and aspirations. It is central to the thinking of a leadership convinced that Washington has variously sought to topple, weaken or contain it. It has practical implications: insistence that the U.S. forsake any effort to change Iran’s regime; respect for its territorial integrity; and acknowledgment of the necessity and legitimacy of its regional role. Tehran will be highly suspicious of an approach imposing preliminary “tests” – progress on the nuclear file; 23 cooperation in Iraq and Afghanistan – rather than first seeking to redefine the relationship and its parameters as a whole. A policy predicated on marrying engagement with pressure – while understandable from a U.S. perspective – risks triggering a negative Iranian reaction. U.S. officials present diplomatic efforts to build an Arab-Israeli coalition against Iran or forge an international alliance willing to tighten sanctions as creating leverage needed for successful negotiations. Iranians perceive them as a disingenuous ploy to produce a broad consensus for toughened containment measures under the expectation negotiations will fail. Tehran will regard U.S. handling of the nuclear file as a litmus test. Its red line is the right to enrich on its soil; anything less will be viewed as unacceptable. Officials contemplate dialogue occurring against the backdrop of enduring regional rivalry, particularly regarding Israel. Iran at this point does not intend to stop backing Hamas or Hezbollah or opposing Israel. Its conception of a future U.S. relationship comprises three distinct levels: wide-ranging dialogue covering both bilateral and regional issues; targeted cooperation on specific regional files, especially Iraq and Afghanistan; and the persistent reality of deep-seated differences and an overall strategic competition.!Sanctions are taking their toll, and Iran faces a serious economic predicament. But this is highly unlikely to produce meaningful policy shifts. Iran’s decision-making on core strategic issues is only marginally affected by economic considerations. For all its benefits, normalization with Washington would entail serious political costs for the regime. Hostility toward the U.S. is one of its ideological pillars; economic adversity can be blamed on sanctions, while technological success – notably in the nuclear field – can be hailed as a powerful symbol of resistance against Western powers. The greater tensions are with Washington, the easier it is for the regime to rally supporters, suppress dissent and invoke national unity against a common enemy. Likewise, internal competition between various factions will complicate engagement. U.S. officials already express frustration at the difficulty of opening channels to Iran. It is a taste of things to come. This is not the first effort at improving ties, but it is the most promising. If it fails, all could pay a heavy price.”

A secret Israeli government report made public, in late May, alleges that Venezuela and Bolivia have been supplying Iran with Uranium for its nuclear programs (“Israel Ties 2 Nations to Iran’s Uranium,” The New York Times, May 26, 2009).

With the pulling out of cities in Iraq of U.S. forces, Iraqi forces have taken over most security, but while they are in control, there has been an increase in violence, including serious bombings (For example, see Sam Dagherm “Attacks on Shiites Kill Scores in Iraq,” The New York Times, August 7, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/08/world/middleeast/08iraq.html?ref=world). An important contributor to the violence, previously reported here, has been the government’s reduction of payments to, and providing of jobs for, Shiite Militia members who were paid by the U.S. not to fight the government or its allies. The government has also arrested a number of these militia leaders. If this situation is not ameliorated, it could fuel far greater strife. Countering this is restraint and patience on the part of many Shi’ia, and counseling by numerous of their clerics, that may help keep this aspect of Iraqi problems from getting out of hand. For example, “Let them kill us,” said Sheik Khudair al-Allawi, the imam of a mosque bombed recently. “It’s a waste of their time. The sectarian card is an old card and no one is going to play it anymore. We know what they want, and we’ll just be patient. But they will all go to hell.” (Rod Norland, “Shiites in Iraq Show Restraint as Sunnis Keep Attacking,” The New York Times, August 11, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/world/middleeast/12shiite.html?_r=1&emc=eta1). Meanwhile, widespread corruption has been steadily underming support for Iraq’s democratic institutions, while the country still has no comprehensive anti- corruption laws (Timothy Williams and Suadad al Slhy, “Laws Lag in Iraq, As Patience Wears Thin,” The New York Times, June 22, 2009).

John Feffer, Foreign Policy in Focus, World Beat, "Intelligence and Iraq," July 28, 2009, Vol. 4, No. 30, www.fpif.org, finds, that reports of an assassination squad run out of the Bush White House that first came to light in a presentation by veteran journalist Seymour Hersh in March, is an aspect of congressional oversight over the intelligence act, discussed by FPIF contributor John Prados "The Intelligence Oversight Mess," in Foreign Policy in Focus. Feffer goes on to say, "The security situation in Iraq, meanwhile, remains fragile. In "Iraq: Nightmare or New Democracy," FPIF senior analyst Adil Shamoo and FPIF contributor Bonnie Bricker argue that the "proper framework for stabilizing Iraq begins with a simple notion: Iraq is for all Iraqis. Armed militias, lack of safety, and deterioration of Iraqi society are artifacts of a vicious regime under Saddam Hussein, coupled with untenable laws written under America's occupation.!These laws have undermined the sense of fairness that we wish for all living in a democracy - the majority rules, but minorities' rights are also protected."

Relations between the Kurdish area of Iraq and the rest of the country remain uncertain, with several major issues still to be resolved. International Crisis Group (ICG), “Iraq and the Kurds: Trouble Along the Trigger Line,” Middle East 24 Report N°88, July 8, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6207&l=1, notes, “As sectarian violence in Iraq has ebbed over the past year, a new and potentially just as destructive political conflict has arisen between the federal government and the Kurdistan regional government in Erbil. This conflict has manifested itself in oratory, backroom negotiations and military maneuvers in disputed territories, raising tensions and setting off alarm bells in Washington just as the Obama administration is taking its first steps to pull back U.S. forces. A lasting solution can only be political – involving a grand bargain on how to divide or share power, resources and territory – but in the interim both sides should take urgent steps to improve communications and security cooperation, run joint military checkpoints and patrols in disputed territories and refrain from unilateral steps along the new, de facto dividing line, the so-called trigger line.” “The conflict is centred on disputed territories, especially Kirkuk, which not only hosts a mix of populations – Arabs, Kurds, Turkomans and smaller minorities (which in some districts are dominant) – but also contains untold reserves of oil and gas. In the security vacuum of post-invasion Iraq, Kurdish forces rushed across the Green Line, the de facto boundary separating the Kurdistan region from the rest of Iraq between 1991 and 2003, to assert their claim to areas they deem part of their historic patrimony. A range of local and national actors challenged this claim, with the government of Prime Minister Maliki starting to push back against Kurdish influence in these areas since August 2008. The result has been a steady rise in tensions along a new, undemarcated line that in military circles is referred to as the trigger line – a curve stretching from the Syrian to the Iranian border, where at multiple places the Iraqi army and Kurdish fighters known as peshmergas are arrayed in opposing formations. The deployment of the army’s 12th division in Kirkuk in late 2008, in particular, enraged the Kurds and emboldened their Arab and Turkoman rivals. Given growing tensions and the proximity of forces, as well as unilateral political moves by both sides in the form of contracts for oil and gas extraction, altercations have occurred along the trigger line on several occasions. Poor communication could cause such local events to escalate inadvertently into broader conflict that neither party might find easy to contain. The Obama administration responded to the 12th division’s arrival by sending an extra brigade into Kirkuk, which may have prevented a very tense situation from turning into open warfare. But U.S. influence inevitably is on the wane. Given President Obama’s repeated and unequivocal pledge to withdraw all U.S. forces by the end of 2011, with combat troops departing as early as August 2010, there is little time left for effective U.S. mediation: both the Kurdistan regional government and the federal government will be averse to compromise on fundamental issues ahead of legislative elections scheduled for January 2010; and some Iraqis, including Kurdish leaders, anticipating Iraq’s collapse, could seek outside protection, thus potentially regionalizing the conflict. If the U.S. administration wishes to leave Iraq without being forced either to maintain a significant military presence or, worse, to return after the country disintegrates, it should craft an exit strategy that both encourages and pressures Iraqis to reach a series of political bargains. These deals, as Crisis Group has consistently argued, concern a federal hydrocarbons law, a settlement over Kirkuk and other disputed territories and agreement over the division of powers that jointly would pave the way for consensus on amending the constitution. In the interim, it should take urgent steps to help Baghdad and Erbil improve their mutual communications and security cooperation in disputed territories and persuade them to engage in substantive negotiations on the status of these areas. At the same time, it cannot exclude finding itself, against U.S. military commanders’ better judgment, standing between the two sides to prevent armed escalation. Along with its own efforts, the U.S. should provide full support to the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI), whose report on disputed internal boundaries, issued in April 2009, could offer an important platform for negotiations on disputed territories and, in a grand bargain strategy, on the interlocking issues of power and resources as well. UNAMI is best placed to mediate the complex discussions that will be required but cannot succeed without U.S. muscle, if Iraqi stakeholders are to be pushed to reach a durable settlement.” “Without the glue that U.S. troops have provided, Iraq’s political actors are otherwise likely to fight all along the trigger line following a withdrawal, emboldened by a sense they can prevail, if necessary with outside help. The Obama administration should make sure that the peace it leaves behind is sustainable, lest Bush’s war of choice turn into its own war of necessity. The president’s late June decision to appoint Vice President Joseph Biden as his informal special envoy for Iraq, Biden’s focus on helping Iraqis reach political deals and support for UNAMI, as well as his subsequent visit to Iraq all point in the right direction. The test is whether there will be sufficient determination, persistence and follow-through. RECOMMENDATIONS: To the Government of Iraq and the Kurdistan Regional Government: 1. Restart negotiations over issues of key concern, including: a) unfreeze the five leadership committees in Baghdad and resume discussions on the questions under their remit concerning disputed territories, power sharing and constitutional reform, security and peshmergas, foreign policy and economics and oil/gas; b) hold discussions on disputed territories as part of the task force established under UN auspices and institute confidence-building steps in individual districts, as per UNAMI’s recommendations in its April 2009 report on disputed internal boundaries; and c) support political actors in Kirkuk in negotiations, mediated by UNAMI, in furtherance of the objectives of Article 23 of the September 2008 provincial elections law concerning power sharing, voter rolls and property issues in Kirúkuk, with a view to holding elections in Kirkuk governorate at the earliest opportunity. 2. Agree to take no further 25 unilateral steps in disputed territories, such as issuing new oil and gas contracts, and give clear instructions to military forces on the ground to remain in designated separate areas, except in those cases when both sides agree to joint operations against violent groups outside the political process. 3. Refrain from inflammatory rhetoric concerning mutual relations, the status of disputed territories and the issuance of oil and gas contracts in these areas, especially in the run-up to elections in the Kurdistan region on 25 July 2009 and in all of Iraq on 30 January 2010. 4. Agree to open channels of communication and coordinated action, including: a) a channel for frequent communication between Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Kurdistan region President Masoud Barzani or their designated senior representatives; b) the appointment of a non-voting official from each side to, respectively, the Iraqi cabinet and the KRG’s council of ministers to promote early flagging of disputes. c) a joint military coordination centre for non-urban areas in Kirkuk governorate for early warning and fact-based communications along the trigger line (to work in co-operation with the already existing joint police coordination centre in Kirúkuk city); and d) joint army-peshmerga checkpoints and patrols in all disputed territories, based on the Diyala experiment, guided by a joint security committee in each governorate and coordinated by a joint committee that includes political representatives of the KRG and federal government. To the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq: 5. Support negotiations between Iraqi stakeholders on disputed internal boundaries by providing technical expertise and political advice at all levels where such negotiations are taking place (see above). 6.! Move Iraqi stakeholders through these negotiations, and especially should they threaten to reach a dead end on their individual tracks, toward a grand bargain combining the issues of power, resources and territories, as proposed in the UN’s report on disputed internal boundaries. To the U.S. Government: 7. Exercise strong pressure on Iraqi parties and deploy political, diplomatic, military and financial resources to ensure a responsible troop withdrawal from Iraq that leaves behind a sustainable state, including through a peaceful and durable accommodation of its Arab and Kurdish populations. 8.! Provide, in particular, full backing to UNAMI in mediating between Iraqi stakeholders on these key issues. 9. Continue to apply pressure on Iraqi army and peshúmerga units not to take unilateral steps in disputed territories, and strengthen mechanisms aimed at improving communications and security cooperation to reduce chances of violent conflict.”

The unresolved difficulties on the edge of Kurdish Iraq have begun to manifest. Rod Nordland, “More Troops Are Sought for Iraq’s Restive North,” The New York Times, August 17, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/world/middleeast/18iraq.html?em, reports, “The commanding general of American forces in Iraq said Monday that he had proposed putting United States troops in disputed parts of northern Iraq along with Kurdish and Iraqi forces. Tensions between the Iraqi Army and the Kurdish militia, known as pesh merga, have kept them from working together, and as a result Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia has been able to launch devastating attacks on small villages not controlled by either side, the commander, Gen. Ray Odierno, said,” August 17. A series of bombings of villages in Nineveh Province killed more than 150 people in the previous week and a half.

As the U.S. has increased its troop levels and begun an offensive to retake territory in Afghanistan, while carrying out a counterterrorism program aimed at winning support from Afghan civilians, U.S. and allied casualties have risen. 19 U.S. and NATO troops were killed the first week in August following at least 75 military deaths in July (“4 Soldiers Killed in 2 Afghan Attacks,” The New York Times, August 7, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/08/world/asia/08afghan.html?ref=world). In some areas this is not easy, as air strikes have caused resentment against the U.s., to the extent that some local residents have taken up arms against incoming Marines as they try to end Taliban control of some areas (Carotta Gall, “Marines Land in Caldron of Afghan Resentment,” The New York Times, July 3, 2009). One aspect of the new U.S.-NATO approach is a change in approaches to opium eradication. Now, instead of destroying opium crops, the U.S. – at leas tin some locations – is buying the drug plant harvest from farmers, while working to get them to grow something else. Meanwhile, troops are targeting drug dealers for arrest or assassination, and attempting to cut of the flow of drug money to the Taliban (James Risen, “U.S. to Hunt Down Afghan Drug Lords Tied to Taliban,” The New York Times, August 9, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/world/asia/10afghan.html?em). Over all, it appears that while the Obama administration has moved to an approach based on building support from Afghans, and not just militarily holding territory and killing enemies, the strategy is very much evolving in response to what develops on the ground.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai, in an attempt to retain office in upcoming elections, has been negotiating deals with Afghan ‘warlords’, which critics suspect will increase the corruption which is a serious weakness in his government (Richard A. Oppel, “Afghan Leader Courts the Warlord Vote,” The New York Times, August 7, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/08/world/asia/08warlords.html?ref=world). Meanwhile, insecurity and fears of fraud are raising concerns about the credibility of the coming presidential election (“A Precarious Election in Afghanistan,” The New York Times, August 3, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/08/03/world/20090903ELECTION_index.html?ref=world). A number of problems face the integrity, and hence legitimacy, of the upcoming Afghani elections, including not enough polling stations where women can vote – threatening to leave many women unrepresented – 26 insecurity in many areas, where intimidation by the Taliban might cause many people not to come to the Polls (Dexter Filkins, “Threats by Taliban May Sway Vote in Afghanistan,” The New York Times. August 16, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/world/asia/17taliban.html?_r=1). ICG, “Afghanistan's Election Challenges,” Asia Report N°171, June 24, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6176&l=1, proposed, “Afghanistan’s forthcoming elections, with presidential and provincial council polls on 20 August 2009, and National Assembly and district elections scheduled for 2010, present a formidable challenge if they are to produce widely accepted and credible results. The weakness of state institutions, the deteriorating security situation and the fractured political scene are all highlighted by – and will likely have a dramatic effect on – the electoral process. The years since the last poll saw the Afghan government and international community fail to embed a robust electoral framework and drive democratization at all levels. This has made holding truly meaningful elections much more difficult. Rather than once again running the polls merely as distinct events, the enormous resources and attention focused on the elections should be channeled into strengthening political and electoral institutions, as a key part of the state-building efforts required to produce a stable country.” “The first round of post-Taliban elections in 2004 and 2005 were joint United Nations-Afghan efforts. This time they will be conducted under the sole stewardship of the Afghan Independent Election Commission (IEC) with the UN acting only in support. Preparations face a series of intertwined challenges: Technical. The momentum of the last elections was lost in 2006-2007. The Afghan government, UN and donors failed to use the interim period to build the capacity and resources of the IEC; strengthen the legal framework including replacing the inappropriate Single Non-Transferable Vote (SNTV) system; and produce a sustainable voter registry. Further, failure and delays in wider institutional processes such as disarmament programs and judicial and police reform have increased popular disillusionment and thus reduced buy-in for the state-building agenda, including potentially election participation. Political. The presidential elections in particular expose a highly centralized political patronage system in which the head of state wields enormous powers, bringing personalities rather than policies to the fore. The poor relationship between the branches of the state sees the new legislature ignored or overruled and its effectiveness greatly reduced by the absence of a formal role for political parties. The lack of an accepted constitutional arbiter in case of dispute means that even simple technical electoral processes have become highly charged political contests. Security. The insurgency, centered in the south and east of the country, may affect the ability of people in such areas to freely exercise their franchise and makes scrutiny of the process much more difficult, increasing opportunities for fraud. This may have wider implications for overall legitimacy given that the violence is centered in areas dominated by one ethnic group, the Pashtuns. The failings of disarmament programs due to lack of political will also increases the chances of intimidation across the country. The continued low quality of police makes providing security for elections challenging.” “The large number of candidates – about 3,300 (10 per cent of them women) – for the provincial councils provides ample evidence of continued interest in the process. The challenge now is to ensure credible and widely accepted results that promote stability.” “The voter registration update, while adding some momentum to the process, failed to address striking flaws in the voter registry which could lay the groundwork for fraud and which the international community has not spoken up about. Much greater political will than in 2005 is needed in tackling powerful players who flout the rules. Ultimately what will matter in judging the success of the elections is the perception of the Afghan public.” “the focus must be on strengthening security provision and the impartiality, integrity and professionalism of electoral staff – the front line against fraud. The lessons learned must be used to ensure a much strengthened process in 2010. The expense of the current exercise is unsustainable and highlights the failure after the 2005 polls to build Afghan institutions and create a more realistic electoral framework. There must also be well-sequenced post-election planning including ongoing training and oversight and sufficient funds to retain the thousands of new police recruited to help secure the polls. More broadly there needs to be a focus on building consensus on how the Afghan political system can be made more functional and representative, ending the current over-reliance on a largely unaccountable executive that has encouraged an ever-growing culture of impunity. Weakness in institutional development has only fuelled wider instability through exclusion and a lack of government services. There must be broad agreement, even within the bounds of the current constitution, on a balance of power among the branches of the state and between the central and local government; on identifying which body is the ultimate constitutional arbiter; and ensuring a more appropriate role for political parties. Embedding democratic norms and building institutions will better ensure that the Afghan state is representative, sustainable and ultimately stable.” (The report contains an extensive list of specific recommendations).

George Kenny, “Unraveling Afghanistan,” In These Times, June 2009, argues that the two essential long term national security interests of the United States in south Asia are preventing a nuclear war between Pakistan and India, and preventing proliferation of Atomic weapons. To achieve these goals the U.S. needs to find innovative ways to help Pakistan maintain internal security. Kenny believes the current U.S. approach is wrong headed, “instead of acknowledging a nuclear threat, we’ve propped up an illegitimate and corrupt government in Kabul and picked a fight with the Pashtun people that 27 fundamentally destabilizes Pakistan…The longer we stay the course, the worse things will get.”

Mark Schneider, “A Strategy Needed for Pakistan and Afghanistan," GlobalSecurity.org, May 5, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6091&l=1, sates “What was once dubbed the new Obama Administration's "AfPak" strategy to stop the emboldened Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan is increasingly turning into a frantic effort to find a new "PakAf" strategy to counter a growing extremist threat to the civilian government in Islamabad. In April, Pakistani Taliban and other jihad forces drove deeper and deeper into the heart of Pakistan, methodically expanding their presence from the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) to Northwest Frontier Province's (NWFP) Swat district. Emboldened by successive "peace" deals with the military in FATA, their advance into NWFP's settled areas also followed a military devised peace deal, backed by NWFP's Awami National Party- led government in February and reluctantly ratified by President Asif Ali Zardari in mid-April.” “The Obama Administration has rightfully called for a concerted response against the extremists but there is also a disquietening return, at least in the public pronouncements of key U.S. military leaders, to a misplaced faith in the Pakistan military's ability, and will, to deliver the counter-terrorism/counter-insurgency goods. Instead, what is urgently needed is a surge in U.S. support for civilian law enforcement, including supplying police in the four provinces the equipment, training and intelligence that they need to protect these communities against the armed Taliban. There is a need both for a robust capability--gendarmerie like--elite police force in each of the provinces, with equipment, bullet proof jackets, heavy weapons and mobility, under civilian control. There also is a need for community policing. Civilian police forces know their community, can be trained to defend it and can do so as a core pillar of the law. Relying largely on the military to combat a religious extremist insurgency in a country where the military has a history of collaboration with jihadi extremists, and violation of constitutional norms and corruption, is doomed to fail. That new police force also needs to be part of an integrated rule of law approach--not just long-term but immediate. The new funding the Obama administration and the Congress are planning to funnel into the country should also go toward creating specialized forensic training programs, witness protection programs, and crime labs. Prosecutors and judges dealing with extremist groups and terrorist attackers should be provided the highest level of security protection.” “The FATA must be incorporated into the Northwest Frontier Province so the people of that region have the power of the constitution behind them. Instead of handing over the FATA, and NWFP's settled regions, to the Taliban militia forces and sharia law, it means defending the rights of the residents to basic protection and expanding police forces and the frontier constabulary's capacity there.” “Nothing is more critical in a nuclear-armed country with 60% of its 170 million people living in poverty, than showing rapid signs of a ‘democracy dividend.’ The best counter-insurgency response to Pakistan's Taliban threat coming out of the summit will not be the military aid package likely under discussion. Instead it will be newfound political will from the Pakistan government to reverse military-devised and military-led policies of appeasement in FATA and NWFP, a shared commitment to build a vigorous civilian police force, to protect those who stand up against the Taliban, and to have the Congress approve accelerated funding for Pakistan schools, health clinics and rural development.”

U.S. supply efforts to Afghanistan are receiving less pressure, as Kyrgyztan, in June, reversed its decision to close the key U.S Manas base, on completion of a new agreement under which the U.S. is paying substamntially more rent to Kyrgyztan for the base (Michael Schwirtz and Clifford J. Levy, “In Reversal, Kyrgyzstan Won’t Close A U.S. Base,” The New York Times, June 24, 2009).

“AfPak Blowback,” Foreign Policy in Focus, July 7, 2009, notes “Pakistan has one of the largest, most sophisticated militaries on the planet,” as large as the U.S. Army, and among the world’s top 25 largest military spenders, with the U.S. promising another $3 billion a year in military assistance over the next five years. “None of that seems to help Pakistan prevail in its fight against the various Taliban factions in the country… half a million Pakistani soldiers can't seem to counter the determined efforts of…at most 15,000 Taliban fighters.” “Writing recently in The New York Review of Books, Ahmed Rashid (http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=KFNjaBmR4gZmbueRa3roBfnOKf0HT2wr) points out that the Pakistani government didn't deal with the problem when it was manageable. The Taliban and associated religious militants were too useful for the Pakistani military in its larger fight against India. By the time the Pakistani government realized that the Taliban threatened the integrity of the country, the militants were well-entrenched.” “the Pakistani army's failure to suppress the Taliban goes to the heart of the country's identity. The Pakistani establishment has for decades been cynical in its use of political Islam as a tool of domestic and foreign policy," Shibil Siddiqi writes in “Pakistan’s Ideological Blowback” (http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=H6jrlQWxHq9dKd5Jo3%2BOO%2FnOKf0HT2wr). "’It has lionized the struggles for a theocratic state embodied by the Taliban and other Islamic holy warriors in Afghanistan, Kashmir, and beyond. Thus, for many the Taliban's proclamations of being 'jihadis' or 'mujahideen' garb them in the cloak of popular Islamic legitimacy. Such a perception of legitimacy has been (and continues to be) fostered by the state itself.’" “Now, with its 28 misguided AfPak strategy, the United States is upping the ante considerably. By sending more troops to Afghanistan and continuing its drone attacks in Pakistan, the United States is preparing the ground for future blowback. According to the most (http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=ViJU7RMMxZhfxOSYY1jY1vnOKf0HT2wr) recent poll, Pakistani public opinion has turned decisively against the Taliban. But over 80% of the public considers U.S. drone attacks inside Pakistan ‘unjustified.’ Afghans of any means, meanwhile, are doing whatever they can to get out of the country” (http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=kkzjECu7KU9KgnFu%2BRFIUPnOKf0HT2wr). “This conflict will absorb as much or more money as the Cold War, wreak as much havoc, and ultimately cause as much blowback.”

The International Crisis Group (ICG), “Pakistan’s IDP Crisis: Challenges and Opportunities,” Asia Briefing N°93, June 3, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6129&l=1, warned “In the wake of a conceptually flawed peace agreement, the Taliban takeover of large parts of Malakand division, subsequent military action in the area, almost three million internally displaced persons (IDPs) have fled to camps, homes, schools and other places of shelter across Northwest Frontier Province (NWFP). The challenge for the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP)-led government and international actors is to make relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction efforts responsive to needs and empower local communities in Malakand Division. Failure to do so will reverse any gains on the battlefield and boost radical Islamist groups.” “The military’s use of heavy force in the ongoing operations, failure to address the full cost to civilians and refusal to allow full civilian and humanitarian access to the conflict zones has already been counterproductive. The public, particularly those directly affected, is increasingly mistrustful of a military that has, in the past, swung between short-sighted appeasement deals with militants and the use of haphazard force. While there is still broad public and political support for moving against the Taliban, it could erode if civilian casualties are high and the response to IDPs’ needs is inadequate. Indeed, it will not be long before the IDPs demand greater accountability from those responsible for their displacement and assurances of a viable return.” “The Pakistan government should: devise a blueprint for reconstruction efforts, including revitalizing war-shattered agricultural and tourism sectors; develop mechanisms that will enable IDP communities to hold officials accountable for the distribution of assistance; prohibit jihadi groups banned under the Anti-Terrorism Law, including those operating under changed names, from participating in relief efforts; prioritize police training and other mechanisms to enhance the capacity of civilian law enforcement agencies to maintain security after the military operation ends and bring militant and local criminal networks and allied serving or retired district officials to justice; rescind immediately the Nizam-e-Adl Regulation 2009, reaffirm the jurisdiction of Malakand’s civil courts, the Peshawar High Court and the Supreme Court and abolish the Frontier Crimes Regulations and the Nizam-e-Adl 1999; and build on political and public support for confronting militancy in NWFP by implementing without delay long-term political and constitutional reforms in the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (PATA), of which Malakand is a part, as well as in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), so as to incorporate their districts and tribal agencies, respectively, into NWFP, with full provincial rights. The international community should: urge a humanitarian pause in fighting to allow much-needed assistance to non-combatants in conflict zones, to permit them to flee and to account for civilian casualties, with the timeframe dependent on assessment of needs and available logistical and other resources and material support, as determined by the provincial government and international and local humanitarian agencies; ensure that relief and reconstruction are civilian-led and empower displaced communities to determine their own needs and priorities; prioritize the relief and rehabilitation of IDPs, particularly those living outside government camps, through cash transfer programs that provide income support, payment of school tuition and paid vocational training; support Pakistan civilian-led plans for return of IDPs to their communities with reconstruction programs that incorporate support for the provincial government and help build the capacity of civilian police and advance justice reform with new training, equipment and mentors; and encourage long-term political and constitutional reforms in PATA and FATA through support for comprehensive governance, stabilization and rural development programs.”

On the one hand, the Taliban have been able to recruit effectively among many of Pakistanis poor (Jane Perlez and Pir Zuban Shah, “Taliban Enlist an Army of Pakistan’s Have Nots,” The New York Times, April 17, 2009), and on the other, Taliban repressiveness has stirred the anger of many Pakistanis, and increased government support for opposing them (Ssbrina Tavernise, “Taliban Stir Rising Anger of Pakistanis,” The New York Times, June 5, 2009).

A drone aircraft strike, in early August, jointly planned by U.S. and Pakistani intelligence has reportedly killed the number one Taliban fighter, and al Qeada collaborator, in Pakistan, who helped solidify the Taliban coalition. However, U.S. and Pakistani intelligence do not believe that his death will have much impact on the war against the Taliban (Carlotta Gall and Ismail Khan, “Pakistan’s No. 1 Enemy: Ex-Ally Bent by Al Qaeda,” The New York Times, August 8, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/08/world/asia/08mehsud.html?ref=world, and Pir Zubar Shah, Sabrina Tavernise and Mark 29 Maccetti, “Taliban Leader in Pakistan Is Reportedly Killed,” The New York Times, August 7, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/08/world/asia/08pstan.html?ref=asia) However, feuding among Taliban members over his successor reportedly brought about the death of another top militant (Ismail Khan and Sabrina Tavernise, “Feuding Kills a Top Militant, Pakistan Says,” The New York Times, August 8, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/world/asia/09pstan.html?ref=world). In the last few months U.S. forces have greatly restricted the use of manned and drone air strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan, because the often high number of civilian casualties has been recognized as a major source of anger against the U.S. and the governments they collaborate with, and hence have been a recruiting aid to the Taliban and their associates.

An article published in the July edition of the Sentinel newsletter of the Combating Terrorism Center, housed at the United States Military Academy at West Point, stated that there is a “genuine” risk that militants could seize weapons or bomb-making material from Pakistan nuclear facilities, some of which have been attacked by the Taliban. The Pentagon, which has been seeking to bolster Pakistan’s government in its fight against Al Qaeda and Taliban forces, expressed satisfaction with security at the facilities (“Article Points to Risk of Seizure of Pakistani Nuclear Materials,” The New York Times, August 12, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/world/asia/12nuke.html?ref=world).

Some improvement of relations between Pakistan and India could be seen in June, as Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan had a brief meeting in the midst of a Moscow summit, the first since the terrorist attacks by Pakistan militants at Mumbai in 2008 (Lydia Polgreen and Somini Senguta, “Hint of a Thaw as Leaders Of India and Pakistan Talk,” The New York Times, June 17, 2009).

Asia (including the Middle East) & the Pacific Developments

Stephen Zunes ([email protected]) “Obama in Cairo,” Foreign Policy in Focus, June 8, 2009, http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/6173, according to the author, “There have been quite a number of articles analyzing Obama's speech in Cairo examining both its many positive elements as well as areas in which it fell seriously short, but I have chosen to focus on one area in particular.!I certainly appreciated his respectful tone, his frank acknowledgement of the legacy of colonialism and Cold War machinations, his renunciation of claims to bases and natural resources in Iraq, and his effort to appear to be taking a more even-handed approach towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, among other disappointments, I was frustrated at President Obama's rather timid support for greater democracy and human rights in the Arab and Islamic world, particular when contrasted with a call earlier in his political career to fight to end repression in both Saudi Arabia and Egypt.”

"Israel loses prized `Free` Press status; Kuwait tops Arab World," Occupation magazine, May 03, 2009, http://www.themedialine.org/news/news_detail.asp?NewsID=25020, reports, "Israel’s media freedom ranking has been downgraded from `free` to `partly free, in the wake of restrictions on reporting begun during the Israeli Gaza attack in December and January, the first time the Jewish State has lost its status as the only Middle Eastern nation with a `free` press." Freedom House of Washington, DC lowered Israel’s rank from 59 to 72 of 195 countries surveyed, citing restrictions on journalists` freedom of movement, increased self-censorship during wartime and `biased reporting.` The report indicated that the Middle East has the lowest level of press freedom of any region in the world, with three in every four Middle Easterners living in one of 15 `not free` Middle Eastern nations. Four Middle Eastern countries were considered 'partly free,' Israel, Kuwait, Lebanon and Egypt, ranked at 72, 115, 118 and 128 respectively, of the 195 countries surveyed. The Palestinian Authority, ranked 184, and Libya, 100, received the least favorable ratings in the Middle East. The report found "media environments in the region are generally constrained by extremely restrictive laws concerning libel and defamation, the insult of monarchs and public figures, and emergency rule," despite some positive impact from the rise of transnational broadcast media and Internet-based forms of information dissemination have had a positive impact,` the report said. The report was especially critical of media conditions in Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Tunisia, "where journalists and bloggers faced harsh repercussions for expressing independent views." Amidst the generally low ratings of Middle Eastern nations, even a downgraded Israel remained the top ranked country in the region in terms of its level of media freedom. Freedom House stated that not only had the Gaza conflict brought with it restrictions on reporting, but also "official attempts to influence media coverage" and "greater self-censorship and biased reporting." A major problem of the restrictions during the Gaza fighting was that reporters had to rely almost entirely on the Israeli Defense Force for information about Gaza developments. Meanwhile, Media freedom in the Israeli Occupied Territories, previously ranked as one of the most restrictive media environments in the world, was found to have suffered additional negative decline due to what the report called "worsening intimidation by both major political factions that restricts critical and independent coverage," with journalists in the West Bank and 30 Gaza facing "pressure and threats from all sides, including from Israeli forces present in some parts of the territories." Meanwhile, Kuwait, receiving the highest ranking among Arab nations in the Middle East, has had an increase in media development and competition in recent years. Where a few years ago the country had only Kuwait TV and a few newspapers controlled by elite families since the 1960s, currently Kuwait has over a dozen daily newspapers and seven, eight or nine different satellite channels with political programming and open debate. There is concern that this expanding freedom of discussion continue.

Darya Shaikh, "New poll suggests Israelis and Palestinians want two states," Common Ground News Service (CGNews), April 23, 2009, http://www.commongroundnews.org, reports that a new poll by the OneVoice Movement finds that the two-state solution remains the only resolution that is acceptable to the majority of both Israelis and Palestinians: 74% of Palestinians and 78% of Israelis would be willing to accept a two-state solution, while 59% of Palestinians and 66% of Israelis find a single, bi-national state to be unacceptable. Furthermore, 77% of Israelis and 71% of Palestinians find a negotiated peace to be either essential‚ or desirable. However, "the findings imply that mainstream Israeli and Palestinian populations have yet to acknowledge the significant concerns of the other side. While the issue of greatest significance for Palestinians is freedom from occupation (94% deem it a very significant‚ problem in the peace process, ranking it the primary issue on the Palestinian side), only 30% of Israelis find it to be very significant‚ ranking the issue 15th on the Israeli list of priorities. Similarly, the primary issue for Israelis is stopping attacks on civilians (90% percent rate it a very significant‚ issue). This issue meets with 50% approval on the Palestinian side, but ranks as 19th in a list of 21 issues." "First and foremost, the poll reveals a clear desire for civic engagement in the peace process: ordinary Israelis and Palestinians not only want to be informed about the negotiations' progress, they desire greater involvement in the process (58% of Israelis and 74% of Palestinians think civic involvement in the peace process is essential‚ or desirable).” "Progress at the negotiating table is only one step in the process of reaching a realistic solution. An end to the conflict will only come when leaders reach an agreement that their peoples are ready to understand, accept and support. And this comes through civic education, true engagement of the grassroots. Governments alone can‚t take this on. They need to work in tandem with civil society and grassroots organizations to ensure true connection between the top-level negotiation process and the will of the citizens of all sides.” As part of this effort, OneVoice will be launching a Town Hall Meetings series throughout Israel and Palestine, which will start in May and continue throughout 2009. The meetings will build on the poll's results to start critical discussions, highlight consensus where it already exists, and work toward consensus where there is none." The full report can be downloaded at: http://onevoicemovement.org/programs/documents/OneVoiceIrwinReport.pdf.

Clay Ramsay, "Some publics are open to a new approach in the Middle East," Common Ground News Service (CGNews), May 28, 2009, http://www.commongroundnews.org, indicates important shifts in U.S. opinion on the Palestinians and Israelis [apparently at least partly a result of Israel's Gaza assault]. Essentially unchanged, 33% in the U.S show more sympathy for Israel than for the Palestinians - compared to the 12% who express more sympathy for the Palestinians, according to an April WorldPublicOpinion.org poll. What is new is that 51% expresses equal levels of sympathy for each side, an increase of 10 points from 2002. Moreover, 75% of Americans say that Israel should not build settlements in the Palestinian territories, up 23 points from 2002. In addition, 64% of those who sympathize more with Israel feel that it should not be building settlements in the West Bank while 80% those who sympathize equally with Israel and the Palestinians agree, as do 96% of those who sympathize more with the Palestinians. "The consensus of the American public in favor of this longstanding US government position against settlement expansion includes 65 percent of Republicans as well." Meanwhile, A poll conducted for the Anwar Sadat Chair for Peace and Development (University of Maryland) this spring by Prof. Shibley Telhami across six Arab countries, found clear evidence that President Obama now has the ear of Arab publics in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Morocco and the UAE. Across these countries, 45% see the new president positively - even though most continue to view the United States negatively in general. 51% say they are somewhat hopeful after a few weeks of the Obama administration toward the policy in the Middle East'. In a shift from the recent past, many Arabs are open to the possibility that the United States will act in ways that improve the situation in the region. "This openness to new approaches among publics in the United States and Arab countries comes in part from the feeling that the new administration may prove willing to put fairly distributed pressure on all sides to reach a settlement of the conflict. If it does so, no one can expect other governments to always like it. But public opinion is favorably aligned to support what President Obama might try to do next."

Nathan Jeffay, “Pollsters find Israeli public less supportive of settlements,” The Forward, June 3, 2009, http://www.forward.com, informs that, “Pollsters at Tel Aviv University found on 1 June that the majority of Israelis are prepared to dismantle those settlements located outside the large blocks that Israel is expected to keep in any agreement with the Palestinians. The same pollsters, who survey the Israeli public monthly, 31 consistently find that a majority of Israelis - almost two-thirds - consider the settlements a liability rather than an asset.” Support for the settlers and settlements has reached an all time low. “Further neutralizing opposition to Obama’s insistence on curbing “natural growth” is the general sense of lethargy in Israel. Characterized by disillusionment with the established paths of both left and right, ‘Israelis are generally worn out, and in the same way that today they won’t take to the streets calling for peace, they are not going to get up and fight for the settlements’, said Mitchell Barak, CEO of Keevoon Research, Strategy & Communications.” “Today, the public believes that ‘settlements did not stop terror and they use up Israeli resources,’ said Tel Aviv University political scientist Tamar Hermann, who is in charge of her institution’s monthly opinion polls.” “The shifts in attitude have taken place toward both large settlement blocks and (in an even more marked manner) outlying settlements. Regarding practical action, though, the public draws a line between the two, and is prepared to see the outlying ones dismantled before anything happens to the larger blocks. Israelis would still need to be convinced that their country is ‘getting something in return’ for any major evacuations, but there is no major emotional or political attachment to overcome, said Schueftan, who is a former senior security adviser to numerous Israeli prime ministers.”

Global Exchange reported, May 19, (http://salsa.democracyinaction.org) “Yesterday, during the first White House meeting between U.S. President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, Obama successfully pressured Netanyahu to agree to peace talks. However, Netanyahu gave no indication that his government would halt settlement expansion or ease the blockade on Gaza,” while much of Washington, DC continues to give Israel broad support. (See also, Barak Ravid and Natasha Mozgovaya, “Obama gets tougher with Israel on Palestinians, Iran,” haaretz.com, May 25, 2009, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1083080.html). Since then, in the face of pressure from the Obama administration, Netanyahu agreed to stop new West Bank settlement construction (but not necessarily 'natural expansion' (population increase) or East Jerusalem construction.

The August 18 issue of the Other Israel Billboard, list serve, noted three relevant up dates: “New U.S. plan calls for demilitarized Palestine,” Hearts - Obama, Umbra to discuss initiative which also drops Palestinian right of return, says Al-Quads Al-Arabic (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1108343.html); “Netanyahu reportedly agrees to settlement freeze `until early 2010` / Peace Now says: not really,” Rona Safer and Frat Weiss - Y-Net - Settlers and their supporters are up in arms against the Prime Minister’s "capitulation to American pressure". However, Obama is reported to insist on at least a whole year of settlement freeze (http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=35155); and “Mashaal: Hamas Can Speak with Obama,” Paltoday - Hamas is interested in opening a dialogue with the Obama administration because its policies are much better than those of former US president George W. Bush, Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal said on Sunday. Mashaal denied that Hamas was seeking to impose strict Islamic rule in the Gaza Strip, saying religion should not be enforced through coercion (http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=35159).

Rory McCarthy, "End Palestinian demolitions in Jerusalem, UN tells Israel," The Guardian, May 1, 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/01/israel-palestinian-jerusalem-demolitions, states, "The United Nations has called on Israel to end its program of demolishing homes in East Jerusalem and tackle a mounting housing crisis for Palestinians in the city. Dozens of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem are demolished each year because they do not have planning permits. Critics say the demolitions are part of an effort to extend Israeli control as Jewish settlements continue to expand. The 21-page report from the UN office for the co-ordination of humanitarian affairs is the latest round in an intensifying campaign on the issue." "The UN said that of the 70.5 sq km of East Jerusalem and the West Bank annexed by Israel, only 13% was zoned for Palestinian construction and this was mostly already built up. At the same time 35% had been expropriated for Israeli settlements, even though all settlements on occupied land are illegal under international law. As a result Palestinians in East Jerusalem had found it increasingly difficult to obtain planning permits and many had built without them, risking fines and eventual demolition, the UN said. As many as 28% of all Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem were built in violation of Israeli planning rules." The UN report stated, "Throughout its occupation, Israel has significantly restricted Palestinian development in East Jerusalem" The report said 673 Palestinian structures had been demolished in the east between 2000 and 2008. 90 of them in 2008, the highest number of demolitions for four years, leaving 400 Palestinians displaced. Similar demolitions are carried out regularly by the Israeli military across the West Bank. The report expressed special concern for areas facing mass demolition, including Bussan in Silwan, just south of the old city, where the threatened destruction of 90 houses would lead to the displacement of 1,000 Palestinians. The report stated that families who lose their homes are faced with the choice of moving into crowded apartments with relatives or renting new homes, which half the time takes at least two years, while they have to struggle with debts from fines and legal fees. Israel’s Jerusalem municipality accepted there was a `planning crisis` but said it was `not just in eastern Jerusalem but throughout all of Jerusalem that affects Jews, Christians and Muslims alike`. It said the mayor would present a new plan for the city.

32 “Settler youth clash with leftists after trying to rebuild outpost,” Haaretz.com, May 27, 2009, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1088600.html, reports, on the occasion of Israeli security forces tearing down two illegal Israeli settlement expansions, “Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has resolved to move against the outposts in a bid to stave off pressure from the Obama administration, which seeks Israeli gestures of good will towards the Palestinians. The outpost evacuation elicited an angry response from the right.” However, on July 1, The International Mideast Media Center, http://www.imemc.org/, reported, “A group of Israeli settlers took over farmland in the village of Kafr Al-Labad, near Tulkarem, in the North of the West Bank on Wednesday. The settlers put up three tents where they are living in now, completely ignoring the pressure the US is mounting on Israel to freeze all settlement building activity.” While, a four-hour meeting, June 30, between Israeli Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, and US Middle East Special Envoy, George Mitchell, ended without an agreement on the illegal Israeli construction of settlements” (“Barak-Mitchell meeting ends with no agreement on settlements,” International Mideast Media Center, July 1, http://www.imemc.org/).

ICG, Israel’s Religious Right and the Question of Settlements, Middle East Report N°89, July 20. 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6228&l=1, finds, “Benjamin Netanyahu is in a bind. Israel is facing arguably unprecedented pressure to halt all settlement activity, led by a new and surprisingly determined U.S. administration. But the prime minister also heads a distinctly right-wing coalition and faces intense domestic pressure from settlers and their allies. However important, what will emerge from current discussions between Washington and Jerusalem will only be step one in a long process designed to achieve a settlement freeze, settlement evacuation and a genuine peace agreement with the Palestinians. Understanding how Israel might deal with these challenges requires understanding a key yet often ignored constituency – its growing and increasingly powerful religious right.” “Today, the settlement issue is being quickly transformed by the shifting dynamics of the religious right. Tens of thousands of national-religious Jews populate the settlements; they enjoy political, logistical and other forms of support from hundreds of thousands inside Israel proper. In addition, an equal if not larger number of ultra-orthodox who initially shared little of the national-religious outlook, gradually have been gravitating toward their view; many among them are now settlers. Together, the national-religious and ultra-orthodox carry weight far in excess of their numbers. They occupy key positions in the military, the government and the education and legal sectors, as well as various layers of the bureaucracy. They help shape decision-making and provide a support base for religious militants, thereby strengthening the struggle against future territorial withdrawals from both within and without state institutions. The religious right believes it has time on its side. Its two principal camps – the national-religious and ultra- orthodox – boast the country’s highest birth rates. They have doubled their population in West Bank settlements in a decade. They are rising up military ranks. Their political parties traditionally play important roles within ruling government coalitions. Many – in the leadership and among the grassroots – are preparing the ground for the next battle over settlements and territorial withdrawal, animated by a deeply rooted conviction in the rightness of their cause. Treating every confrontation – however insignificant the apparent stake – as a test of wills, religious militants have responded to the demolition of plyboard huts with revenge strikes on Palestinians, stoning their cars, burning their crops, cutting their trees and occasionally opening fire. Mainstream religious leaders for the most part appear powerless to condemn, let alone tamp down the violence.” Those on the religious right “are banking on their support within state institutions to discourage the government from taking action and on their own rank and file to ensure that every attempt to evict an outpost or destroy a structure comes at a heavy price. For that reason, some security officials worry that unrest could spread, with violence not only between Israeli Jews and Palestinians but also among Jews; they also fear discord in military ranks that could complicate action. Some steps are long overdue. Having long given succor to the settlement enterprise, the state needs to rein it in; while it at times has acted against the excesses of individual religious militants, it too often has shown excessive lenience toward anti-Palestinian violence or hateful incitement, especially with a religious content. Rabbis who call on soldiers to defy army orders to remove settlements or who justify violence in many cases continue to receive state salaries; religious colleges with a record of militancy continue to operate without oversight or regulation; inflammatory material finds its way on to army bases. All this should stop. Judicial and law enforcement agencies need to investigate and prosecute cases of anti- Palestinian violence and hate crimes. The army should show the same determination in protecting non- Jewish as it does Jewish civilians in the West Bank. But Israel’s religious right has deep roots, and even its most militant expression cannot be dealt with exclusively through confrontation, however effective U.S. pressure might be. Along with necessary firmness, there are other ways to defuse the problem: The government could help pass an early evacuation compensation law, providing for advantageous financial terms to those settlers who agree to move, thereby isolating their more hard line members. Unlike what happened with the Gaza disengagement, the government could start early planning for settler relocation by building alternative homes inside Israel proper. While some settlers will be determined no matter what to remain on what they consider their Biblical land, here, too, ideas are worth exploring. In negotiations with Palestinians, Israel could examine whether and how settlers choosing to remain might live under Palestinian rule. Israel’s 33 religious parties should be made to feel part of the diplomatic process, rather than as its mere spectators or even its targets; in this spirit, third parties such as the U.S. should be reaching out to them. The current mix of neither strict law enforcement nor effective outreach is a recipe for greater difficulties ahead. To ignore the reality and weight of Israel’s religious right would hamper an already uncertain path to an Israeli-Palestinian agreement and, should an agreement be reached, toward a lasting and sustainable peace.”

International Crisis Group (ICG), "Gaza's Unfinished Business," April 23, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6071&l=1, warns, "If the underlying factors that precipitated the Gaza war are not addressed, Hamas and Israel could soon find themselves on the edge of another explosion." "The fundamental crisis today is not humanitarian but political. If the siege remains, Hamas could launch large-scale attacks. If weapons smuggling and rocket fire persist, Israel could mount a new offensive. Without some Palestinian unity, Gaza's rebuilding will not begin. In short, defusing this crisis requires a sustainable Israel-Hamas ceasefire, Gaza's reconstruction and Palestinian reconciliation. The war galvanized the world's attention, but three months later, urgency has given way to complacency and complacency to neglect. Delinking a ceasefire from a prisoner exchange might be politically costly for Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu, but it is necessary." Crisis Group Senior Analyst, Nicolas Pelham, states, "A ceasefire is a vital first step. It will be difficult to achieve, but its components are obvious: Gaza's borders need to open, the rockets need to stop, and some form of third party monitoring must take place." "The endless deferral of reconstruction, hamstrung by continued closure of Gaza's borders, is equally dangerous. While Israel has legitimate concerns about Hamas diverting imported material, holding Gaza's population hostage is wrong and will backfire. Instead, Israel should be satisfied with end-use verification by an independent, international body. Little progress can occur without Palestinian unity. A principal roadblock has been insistence that any new government abide by the Quartet's three conditions - recognition of Israel, acceptance of past agreements and renunciation of violence. As Crisis Group has argued, words matter but actions matter more. The international community should judge the government on what really counts: willingness (or not) to enforce a mutual ceasefire with Israel, acceptance of the PLO Chairman‚s authority to negotiate an agreement with Israel and respect for the results of a referendum on an eventual accord. 'A comprehensive unity agreement between Hamas and Fatah appears unlikely now, but a more limited agreement is still possible', says Crisis Group Senior Analyst Robert Blecher. 'Neither Fatah nor Hamas wants to give up the territory it controls. But that should not prevent a unified government from rebuilding Gaza and providing President Abbas greater legitimacy'."

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) reported that six months after the Israeli incursion into the Gaza Strip, the area is still under siege, with the residents living in despair, poverty, unable to reconstruct their homes or make other repairs (“Red Cross: 'Gazans still living in despair, unable to rebuild their homes’,” International Mideast Media Center, July 1, http://www.imemc.org/). Jewish Voice for Peace ([email protected]) reported, July 5, that Israel illegally seized a ship in international waters, The 'Spirit of Humanity' bringing humanitarian aid to the still blockaded Gaza strip. “Many people from around the world have spent the last two days writing letters and calling elected officials, demanding that Israel release the 'Spirit of Humanity' humanitarian aid boat, its cargo, and crew of 21.” As of July 5, a new humanitarian aid convoy led by Viva Palestina was preparing to attempt to enter Gaza. For more information go to: http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=3OJmpNF6SKE8Um0%2BYlc6H0aKIS5B%2B%2FXY.

Taghreed El-Khodary and Ethan Bronner, "Hamas: seeks ceasefire / wants to be part of (two-state) solution," The New York Times, May 4, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/05/world/middleeast/05meshal.html?_r=1&ref=world, states, Khaled Meshal, "The leader of the militant Palestinian group Hamas said Monday that its fighters had stopped firing rockets at Israel for now. He also reached out in a limited way to the Obama administration and others in the West, saying the movement was seeking a state only in the areas Israel won in 1967." "His conciliation went only so far, however. He repeated that he would not recognize Israel, saying to fellow Arab leaders, 'There is only one enemy in the region, and that is Israel.' But he urged outsiders to ignore the Hamas charter, which calls for the obliteration of Israel through jihad and cites as fact the infamous anti-Semitic forgery, 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.' Mr. Meshal did not offer to revoke the charter, but said it was 20 years old, adding, “We are shaped by our experiences." In terms of Hamas goals. he said, “We are with a state on the 1967 borders, based on a long-term truce. This includes East Jerusalem, the dismantling of settlements and the right of return of the Palestinian refugees.” (...) Regarding recognition of Israel, Mr. Meshal said the Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat and Mr. Abbas had granted such recognition, but to no avail. “Did that recognition lead to an end of the occupation?" - (See also links to the references in Jerusalem Post, Ynet, IMEMC http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=33281). This view is supported by, "Poll: Palestinians support peace and believe Meshaal does too," Ma’an News, 21 July 2009, www.maannews.net, which reports "An overwhelming 34 majority of Palestinians believe Hamas leader in exile Khaled Meshaal has recognized Israel’s right to exist following his June speech where he expressed support for a two-state solution, a recent poll found." A monthly poll, carried out July 4-6, in the West Bank and Gaza, for the Near East Consulting Company showed 77% of Palestinians support a peace settlement with Israel, and 70% would agree to disarm all factions and leave security in the hands of the Palestinian Authority security services. Pessimism reigned over prospects that US President Barack Obama would seriously pursue the halt of settlement construction, with 64% of respondents saying he was unlikely to or would not push toward the goal. While most were for a peace deal, 92% supported President Abbas’ decision to halt peace talks until settlement construction is frozen. Much of the poll focused on Palestinian perceptions of political change amongst the members of Fateh and Hamas. "Trust was not high in any party, with only 38% expressing confidence in Fateh, 11% in Hamas and 5% in other factions. Similar numbers came out for trust in the leaders of each movement, with 37% saying they trusted Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and 12% trusting de facto Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh. A majority of 51% do not have trust in either leader. As for government legitimacy, 46% feel the second caretaker government under Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad is legitimate while 20% believed that the de facto government headed by Ismail Haniyeh is legitimate; 34% said neither were legitimate representatives of Palestinians. Ninety% of respondents supported holding legislative and presidential elections. Of those who would vote, 35% would elect Abbas, 24% would elect Marwan Al-Barghouthi, 12% Ismail Haniyeh and only 2% would vote for Meshaal.

Michael Slackman, “Mubarak to Tell U.S. Israel Must Make Overture, The New York Times,: August 16, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/world/middleeast/17mubarak.html, reports that at late August White House meetings, ”President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt is expected to tell the Obama administration that Arab nations want peace, but are unwilling to abide Mr. Obama’s call to make good-faith concessions to Israel until Israel takes tangible steps like freezing settlements, an Egyptian official said.”

The Palestinian coalition, Fatah, had a stormy meeting in August, the first all Fatah gathering in 20 years, but Unanimously reelected Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, Fatah party leader. Most Fatah members continue to support a two state solution, though many have been critical over the way negotiations have been carried out. Many delegates at the conference have been urging Fatah leaders to take tougher positions against Israel, rejecting the idea of negotiations for their own sake and insisting on reserving the option of some kind of resistance should peace talks fail. (Isabel Kershner, “Palestinians Elect Leader, Unopposed, as Party Chief,” The New York Times, August 8, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/world/middleeast/09mideast.html?ref=world). The meeting also elected a number of new, younger leaders.

Israel has long been charged with dominating Palestinian resources. Dan Izenberg, "Israel drawing more than its share from Green Line aquifers," Jerusalem Post, Apr. 20, 2009, http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=33042, reports. "Under the 1995 Oslo II Accords, Israel was given rights to 75 to 80% of the water supply from the Western, North- eastern and Eastern Aquifers that straddle the Green Line. At the time, the estimated potential of the aquifers was 679 million cubic meters per year. Israel was supposed to take about 540 million cu.m. but in fact has been extracting 871 million," 50% more water than it is authorized to do, the World Bank has charged. ! The Spanish National Court decided, June 30, not to go forward with an investigation into the death of 14 Palestinians, mainly women and children, when the Israeli army shelled a building in Gaza in 2002 and assassinated a Hamas leader (“Spanish court drops criminal charges against Israeli officials; Israel happy,” International Mideast Media Center, July 1, http://www.imemc.org/).

The Israeli ministerial legal commission approved, May 24, a draft bill to prohibit the commemoration of the Palestinian Nakba – the Calamity of the founding of the state of Israel. The law includes a penalty of up to three years of imprisonment for any breaches of the prohibition. In reaction to this draft law, Ittijah - Union of Arab Community Based Associations, reacted, saying that al Nakba is one of the biggest crimes committed against a population in the twentieth century, and that the Palestinian people have the right to demonstrate about it, and that no law can revoke such a right (“Their independence is our Nakba,” Occupation Magazine, May 26, 2009, http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=33657). Three days later, the Kneset approved the first reading of a bill establishing a one year prison sentence for anyone speaking against Israel’s existence as a Jewish and democratic state, should the call contain a reasonable possibility `that it may lead to acts of hatred, scorn or lack of loyalty to the State or its government authorities or law systems which have been established legally` (Amnon Meranda, “MKs support arrest over denial of Israel’s existence [as a `Jewish and democratic` state], Ynet News, May 27, 2009, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3722439,00.html).

35 The Palestinian Jayyous village broad coalition, in an open letter, May 4, 2009, to the Council on Ethics of the Norwegian Government Pension Fund, asked the Norwegian government fund to divest from Lev Levievs Companies, holding "Leviev is the co-owner of Leader Management and Development, the company that is building the Israeli settlement of Zufim on our villages land. According to media reports, Danya Cebus, a subsidiary of Levievs company Africa-Israel, has also built Israeli settlements on Bilins land, as well as the settlements of Har Homa and Maale Adumim around Jerusalem” ("The village of Jayyous asks Norway to divest from Lev Levievs Companies," Occupation magazine, http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=33279).

Avraham Sela, “After the elections: Whither Lebanon?” Common Ground News Service (CGNews), June 11, 2009, http://www.commongroundnews.org, reports, “The final results of the Lebanese elections last Sunday clearly indicate a continuation of the political status-quo. The distribution of parliamentary seats between the two rival blocks has hardly changed. The majority coalition (March 14‰) of the Sunni, Druze and a large section of the Maronites led by Sa'ad Hariri, son of the assassinated Lebanese leader Rafiq Hariri, scored 68 (that is, a loss of one seat). At the same time, the opposition (March 8‰), comprised of the Shi'i parties - Amal and Hizbullah (with the latter retaining its 11 seats) - and the Free Patriotic Movement led by the Maronite former general Michel Aoun, preserved its parliamentary power. The rest of the seats were taken by independents (with one more compared to the previous elections of 2005).” It is likely the continuing status quo will include the continuing of ongoing political struggles in Lebanon.

Just before the election, ICG, “Lebanon’s Elections: Avoiding a New Cycle of Confrontation,” Middle East Report N°87. June 4, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6130&l=1, counseled, “With the crisis that pushed the country to the brink of new civil war in 2008 apparently past, the parties are reverting to form, thus reviving rather than resolving the underlying conflicts. Regardless of who ultimately prevails – the Hizbollah-dominated alliance or the pro-Western coalition – forming a viable government and agreeing on a common program will in the best case be time-consuming and require difficult compromise from all. The ballot is also an important test for an international community that in recent Middle East elections has shown a disquieting tendency to accept results selectively. The challenge will be to bring winners and losers together rather than exacerbate their differences and threaten to trigger another cycle of violent confrontation.” “The May 2008 Doha agreement brought the country back from the brink. But the accord was akin to a temporary truce preserving all sides’ fundamental interests and restoring a degree of institutional normalcy (with the election of a consensual president and establishment of a unity government) until parliamentary elections could resolve the political standoff. From the outset, the June voting was thus viewed as a way for one side or the other to impose a more favorable balance of power and legitimize its preferred political outlook. In this sense, the truce obscured the issues that fuelled the conflict and have gradually re-emerged as the campaign intensified. These include the status of Hezbollah’s weapons, the Sunni-Shiite split, an intra-Christian competition for leadership and differing views of Lebanon’s identity and foreign alliances. The shamelessness with which both sides are making use of the international tribunal looking into the assassination of former Prime Minister Hariri is a likely precursor of profound and perilous post-election friction.” “Increasingly radical positions on both sides foreshadow, in the best of circumstances, arduous negotiations to reach a compromise. External actors are contributing to polarization by taking sides, more and more openly, for their respective allies. International consensus on the need for peaceful, legitimate elections could well come to a halt as soon as balloting concludes; at that point, the game of backing one side and ostracizing the other looks likely to resume. Under this scenario, which today appears the more probable, the confrontation will not end. It will be pursued by different means.” Or the elections, “The law agreed upon by the major parties betrayed this initial promise. It is aimed above all at perpetuating the status quo and bolstering communal loyalties. The elections will further entrench existing political elites, the system of which they are prime beneficiaries and the structural paralysis it produces. The reason is straightforward: the Doha agreement was made possible only once the conflict had spiraled out of control, jeopardizing the political class’s collective interests. The peril for now having passed, all actors are returning to old practices. Both camps are engaging in brinkmanship, seeking to intimidate opponents by implicitly warning of widespread instability should results not be to their liking. Will Lebanon once more need a brush with disaster before a new compromise is forged? And, assuming it is achieved, would such a formula be sustainable over the longer term or would the country yet again be led by a government that cannot govern?” “At a minimum then, the coalitions’ respective external supporters ought to avoid past mistakes, recognize the legitimacy of electoral results and press their allies toward peaceful compromise. They can and should do more. They could support civil society’s reform efforts, insisting for example on reviving the Constitutional Court, which both March 14 and March 8 political leaders prefer to enfeeble. They also could clearly and publicly denounce abusive electoral practices, from vote-buying to the lack of a standardized ballot. At the very least, the first elections of the post-Syrian era should raise the bar for future votes. They are an opportunity to lay the ground for changes, however modest and incremental, to a political system that no longer has the luxury of blaming the Syrian occupation for all its many shortcomings. RECOMMENDATIONS

36 To Lebanese Parties: 1. Recognize and accept the election results, while avoiding rhetorical incitement. 2. Reiterate support for the broad principle of power-sharing. 3. Relaunch, as soon as possible and under the president’s guidance, the national dialogue on strengthening Lebanon’s sovereignty, which was initiated by the Doha agreement but de facto suspended as elections neared. 4. Task a parliamentary commission, upon formation of a new government, with immediately drafting an electoral law that includes reforms set aside in the context of the Doha agreement, in particular: (a) bolstering the independence and mandate of the Electoral Supervision Committee; and (b) defining clear and practical rules governing campaign funding and propaganda. 5. Task a parliamentary commission, upon formation of a new government, with immediately drafting a law on the Constitutional Council, in particular granting the court the power to interpret the Constitution. To both sides’ foreign allies (notably the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria and Iran) and actively involved third parties (such as France, Turkey and Qatar): 6. Accept and recognize the election results. 7. Avoid exacerbating divisions by, notably, encouraging a power-sharing arrangement. 8. Deal with the future government on the basis of its actual behavior (in particular whether it respects international obligations), rather than its specific composition. 9. Engage in a mediation effort or, if needed, support one undertaken by others. 10. Take steps to improve the political system by: (a) backing civil society reform efforts toward systemic reform; (b) insisting on strengthening the Constitutional Council’s role; and (c) denouncing, publicly and clearly, abusive electoral practices, such as vote-buying and the lack of standardized ballots.

Instability was increasing in Yemen, in early August, as an intermittent rebellion in northwestern Yemen flared up, leaving dozens dead and wounded, while the nation continues to be embroiled in a struggle with a violent separatist movement in the south and an increasingly bold insurgency by Al Qaeda (Robert F. Worth, “One of Yemen’s 3 Insurgencies Flares Up,” The New York Times, August 10, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/11/world/middleeast/11yemen.html?ref=world).

ICG, “Yemen: Defusing the Saada Time Bomb,” Middle East Report N°86, May 27, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6113&l=1, had earlier cautioned, “a war has been raging on and off in Yemen’s northern governorate of Saada since 2004, flaring up in adjacent regions and, in 2008, reaching the outskirts of the capital, Sanaa. The conflict, which has brought about extensive destruction, pits a rebel group, known generically as the Huthis, against government forces. Today’s truce is fragile and risks being short-lived. A breakdown would threaten Yemen’s stability, already under severe duress due to the global economic meltdown, depleting national resources, renewed tensions between the country’s northern elites and populations in the south and the threat from violent groups with varied links to al-Qaeda. Nor would the impact necessarily be contained within national borders. The country should use its traditional instruments – social and religious tolerance, cooptation of adversaries – to forge a more inclusive compact that reduces sectarian stigmatization and absorbs the Huthis. International actors – principally Gulf states and the West – should use their leverage and the promise of reconstruction assistance to press both government and rebels to compromise.” On the foreign dimension, “As the government accuses the rebels of alignment with Iran and of loyalty to the Lebanese Hizúbollah, Huthi leaders denounce its alignment with the U.S. They also claim Saudi interference, in particular funding of government and local tribes.” ICG recommends: To the Government of Yemen and rebel leaders: 1. Take immediate steps to prevent renewed warfare by: a) engaging in direct talks; b) agreeing to a mediation and reconstruction committee comprising government officials, rebel representatives and international actors (such as donor governments and international organizations); c) assisting in the safe return of those displaced during the war; and d) granting access to war-affected regions to diplomats, journalists, and humanitarian and human rights organizations. To the Government of Yemen: 2. Address population and rebel grievances by: a) conducting a damage survey in war-affected areas with the assistance of independent national and international experts to facilitate compensation and reconstruction; b) jump-starting development in Saada governorate and other war-affected zones; c) halting recruitment and deployment of tribal or other militias; and d) releasing persons detained in the context of the war, declaring an amnesty for insurgents and halting summary detentions of journalists, human rights activists and independent researchers. 3. Reduce sectarian and other social tensions by: a) promoting and facilitating inter-sectarian dialogue and exchange, including by fostering Zaydi participation in public debate; and b) condemning the stigmatization of the Hashúeúmite identity and facilitating the entry of qualified Hashemites into state institutions. To rebel leaders: 4.!Release government soldiers and other persons detained in the context of the war. 5. Articulate political demands and publish a political program as a step toward becoming a political movement or party. 6. Endorse clearly government sovereignty in Saada governorate and other districts with a rebel presence. To civil society organizations: 7. Support and participate in mediation, damage- assessment and reconstruction efforts in war-affected regions. 8. Promote dialogue between the government and insurgent leaders. To Western donor governments: 9. Pressure both sides to end the conflict and participate in mediation efforts. 10. Insist on full access to war-affected regions for diplomats, journalists, and humanitarian and human rights organizations. 11. Pledge reconstruction assistance for the development of Saada governorate as an incentive to reach a durable peace agreement. To regional countries: 12. Pledge diplomatic support as well as development and reconstruction assistance to

37 war-affected areas. 13. Condemn and refrain from any military or financial assistance to parties in conflict, including tribes or armed militias.”

International Crisis Group (ICG), "China's Growing Role in UN Peacekeeping," April 17, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6062&l=1, finds, "China's participation in UN peacekeeping has grown considerably, providing not only much-needed personnel, but also vital political support at a time when both conflicts and peacekeeping operations are becoming more complex." "China now has over 2,000 peacekeepers serving in ten UN peacekeeping operations, making it the second largest provider of peacekeepers among the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. China does not currently provide combat troops, but its civilian police, military observers, engineering battalions and medical units fill a key gap. There are some concerns, however. In several cases, China has sent peacekeepers only after giving support to actors that aggravated the situation. And China's relationships with problem regimes in the developing world have fed suspicions that its peacekeeping is motivated by economic interests. In fact, China's economic and peacekeeping decision-making tracks operate separately, and tensions between the foreign affairs ministry, military and economic actors mean there is no overall strategic approach to peacekeeping." Crisis Group‚s North East Asia Project Director, Stephanie Kleine-Ahlbrandt, believes, "China's relationships with difficult regimes may well also benefit UN peacekeeping efforts. Beijing can bring to the table valuable political capital and economic leverage, in some cases even encouraging host countries to consent to peacekeeping operations, as in Sudan." "China should be encouraged to work alongside the UN and other leading peacekeeping contributors to develop its own peacekeeping policy, improve the effectiveness of UN peacekeeping mandates, and promote a more strategic approach to stability in conflict countries earlier on. While China benefits from its involvement in peacekeeping, there are several constraints on its capacity to do more. Although willing to shoulder more of the responsibilities for international peace and security, Beijing worries about overstepping the boundary between responsible and threatening. 'Other UN member states, Western countries in particular, should help China overcome such constraints', says Robert Templer, Crisis Group's Asia Program Director. 'They should publicly request Chinese contributions to peacekeeping and set an example by increasing their own troop contributions.'"

China continues to have serious internal problems resulting from its internal imperialism. There continues to be repression and resistance in Tibet (for example see Edward Wong, “Report Says Valid Grievances at Root of Tibet Unrest,” The New York Times, June 6, 2009), while the Dalai Lama continues to seek a peaceful accommodation with the Chinese government under which Tibet would have internal autonomy, but China has to be pushed even to hold talks (Edward Wong, “Autonomy Is the Solution For Tibet. Dalai Lama Says,” The New York Times, May 29, 2009). Less noticed by the West has been a similar repression of Uighur people, in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, an oil rich area of strategic importance for China. As with Tibet, the Chinese have brought in to the region thousands of ethnic Chinese, who are favored in gaining and advancing in jobs and in gaining educational opportunities, so that a once independent people are now a discriminated against minority in their own country. In early July, a Chinese attempted crackdown of Uighur protests over Chinese authorities' inaction on the mob killing and beating of Uighurs, brought on by false rumors, at a toy factory in Shaoguan in China's southern Guangdong province sparked deadly and damaging riots, that included Uighur attacks on Han Chinese. Later, Han Chinese made deadly attacks on Uighurs – through all of which the police and other security forces were ineffective in restoring and maintaining peace – and indeed reports indicate the security forces were part of the difficulties (Edward Wong, “Clashes in China Shed Light on Ethnic Divide,” The New York Times, July 7, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/world/asia/08china.html?scp=3&sq=Uigher%20riots,%20July%202009&st=cse; And Rebiya Kadeer, “The Real Story of the Uighur Riots,” The Wall Street Journal,” July 8, 2009, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124701252209109027.html). China, unfortunately, in this writers view, has created difficulties for itself and all concerned, by been inspired by repressive, U.S. pre-Indian New Deal Indian policies, rather than more recent, progressive policy beneficial for all parties, as exemplified by the U.S. Indian policy of Self-Determination, despite all its defects and incompleteness.

China and Taiwan continue to negotiate closer economic and other relations, as in May the leader of the Taiwanese governing party met with the President of China, in Beijing (Michael Wines, “Chinese President Meets Leader of Taiwanese Party,” The New York Times, May 24, 2009).

The long and terrible civil war between armies in the field in Sri Lanka, has now ended, but both continuing relief and appropriate and sufficient development are needed, both for humanitarian reasons, and to prevent the war from reappearing as a guerilla conflict. This is the view of ICG, "Development Assistance and Conflict in Sri Lanka: Lessons from the Eastern Province," April 16, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?l=1&id=6056, urging, that with the ending of fighting in the northern Vanni 38 region, "the Sri Lankan government and donors should not repeat mistakes made in the Eastern Province, where violence continues despite development activities." pointing out that, "the east is far from being the model of democratization and post-conflict reconstruction that the government claims and offers important lessons for the north." "Before committing any additional reconstruction and development assistance, donors must insist that the basic conditions for sustainable development are guaranteed and that the government has taken tangible steps towards democratic political transformation in both the north and the east. Otherwise, there is too great a risk that international funds will ultimately be wasted or possibly even prolong conflict. In the Eastern Province, violence, political instability and the government's reluctance to devolve power to the provincial administrations are undermining ambitious development plans. Rather than treating the situation as a typical post-conflict environment, donors need to ensure additional monitoring and coordinated political advocacy. They should insist on a written agreement on basic principles with the government, to be signed during a high-level donor development forum and prior to the commencement of any new projects. The Sri Lankan government should provide the basic level of human security necessary to successful development work by ending impunity for human rights violations and placing its counter-insurgency campaign under strict legal accountability. It must also empower provincial councils to address development and security needs. 'The provision of humanitarian aid and reconstruction by itself is not enough,' warns Donald Steinberg, Crisis Group Deputy President for Policy. 'The problems the people of the north and the east have been enduring for decades are ultimately political in nature. They require a careful, democratic and inclusive political response.'" Amnesty International (AI), complained, August 10, “Sri Lanka's bloody civil war ended 3 months ago, yet right now almost 300,000 civilians are being held captive inside military-run internment camps that operate like prisons. Trapped between the Sri Lankan Army and rebel Tamil Tigers during the final months of combat, they've been interned behind barbed wire with no government plan for setting them free or returning them home.1 ‘UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon described the camps as "by far the most appalling scenes I have seen.’" AI states that the interned refugees are “Locked up in filthy, overcrowded camps. Detained against their will. Living in fear of torture, execution, abduction and sexual violence.” AI calls “on the Sri Lankan government to free civilians from the nightmare of civil war.” For more go to: http://www.kintera.org/TR.asp?a=bfIKKZNyGcIML5K&s=fkLWJdPQIeLPJ1MOLuE&m=jtKNI0MGIhI7F.

A related problem is pointed out in, ICG, “Sri Lanka’s Judiciary: Politicized Courts, Compromised Rights,” Asia Report N°172, June 30, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6186&l=1, stating, “Sri Lanka’s judiciary is failing to protect constitutional and human rights. Rather than assuaging conflict, the courts have corroded the rule of law and worsened ethnic tensions. Rather than constraining militarization and protecting minority rights, a politicized bench under the just-retired chief justice has entrenched favored allies, punished foes and blocked compromises with the Tamil minority. Its intermittent interventions on important political questions have limited settlement options for the ethnic conflict. Extensive reform of the judicial system – beginning with a change in approach from the newly appointed chief justice – and an overhaul of counterproductive emergency laws are essential if the military defeat of the LTTE is to lead to a lasting peace that has the support of all ethnic communities.” “RECOMMENDATIONS: To the President and Government of Sri Lanka: 1. Reconstitute immediately the constitutional council under the Seventeenth Amendment by appointing the slate of nominees already forwarded by the government and the opposition parties and commit to respecting the council’s judicial appointments until a more independent and effective mechanism for judicial selection is operational. 2. Negotiate with the opposition parties in good faith to amend the Seventeenth Amendment to reduce political parties’ involvement in the constitutional council, and instead include members of the Supreme Court selected by lot, president’s counsel of long standing and representatives of civil society organizations with demonstrated experience and knowledge concerning judicial selection, constitutional law and fundamental rights. 3. Repeal sections of the Emergency (Miscellaneous Provisions and Powers) Regulations No. 1 of 2005 and the Emergency (Prevention and Prohibition of Specified Terrorist Activities) Regulations No. 7 of 2006 (and all previous emergency regulations that may remain in force at present) that authorize detention without charge outside areas of ongoing military hostilities, that derogate from the criminal procedure code and that criminalize conduct involving the exercise of free speech and associational rights. 4. Move the administration of the legal framework set out in Emergency Regulations and the PTA from the defense ministry to the justice ministry, with clear civilian oversight over the national security apparatus, especially with regard to detentions and detainees’ access to justice. To the Government and Opposition Parties in Parliament: 5. Amend the provisions of the 1978 constitution concerning the judiciary in order to: a) allow actions against the president for the non-performance of mandatory legal duties, e.g., by the way of writs of certiorari, prohibition or mandamus (Article 35); b) prohibit by law sitting judges from holding other remunerative and/or administrative positions during their tenure on the bench or from securing such posts on commissions or otherwise after their retirement; and c) create an independent judicial tribunal for the adjudication of charges of misconduct or incapacity of members of the judiciary, including the Supreme Court, where members of said tribunal 39 would be chosen by lot and would exclude any judges who were alleged to be connected in any way with the alleged offences. 6.! Enact a contempt of court law limiting and imposing procedural constraints on the imposition of contempt sanctions in line with the 2005 views of the UN Human Rights Committee. 7. Amend Chapter III (in particular Article 15) and Chapter XVIII of the constitution, the Public Security Ordinance, and the 1979 Prevention of Terrorism Act (Temporary Provisions) to state that derogations from and restrictions on constitutional and human rights are limited by law to be consistent with the constraints imposed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 8. Overrule the Singarasa judgment of the Supreme Court by legislation or constitutional amendment, clarifying Sri Lanka’s compliance with the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and committing to following the views of the Human Rights Committee in past and future cases concerning compensation and other remedies. 9. Enact legislation requiring the immediate publication and wide public dissemination of any regulations (including emergency regulations) issued by the government and opinions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, with the provision of necessary funding. To the Constitutional Council (once reestablished): 10. Follow a rule of seniority in appointments to the higher judiciary except in cases where the constitutional council makes a public finding that compelling reasons exist for declining to promote a judge. 11. Place a moratorium on the promotion of officials from the attorney general’s office to the higher judiciary, permitting appointments from the attorney general’s office only after there is numerical balance between career-judge appointees and appointees from the private bar on the one hand, and members of the attorney general’s staff on the other in those courts. To the United National Party (UNP): 12. Express publicly the party’s commitment to reforming the constitution’s judicial appointment and removal system and the elimination of the emergency powers of arrest, detention and prosecution without full due process protections under the Public Security Ordinance and the 1979 Prevention of Terrorism Act (Temporary Provisions) (PTA), until constitutional amendments can be passed to improve those processes. To the Chief Justice of Sri Lanka: 13. Task publicly the registrar of the Supreme Court with independent responsibility for assigning judges to benches of the court in specific cases by random lot, and bar any judge of the court from taking any role in the selection of benches. 14. Publish clear rules for when benches of more than three judges will be formed in cases raising challenges to administrative or executive action and when appeals or re-hearings from three-judge benches will be heard by larger benches of the court. 15.!Publish clear standards for the exercise of the Supreme Court’s discretionary fundamental rights jurisdiction, including rules that ensure that challenges to ongoing detentions are addressed speedily even pending the filing of any criminal charges, that victims of torture and their families receive adequate compensation, and that all petitioners are protected from improper coercion or violence while their cases are pending. 16.!Even in the absence of legislation requiring the publication of Supreme Court opinions, direct the registrars of the higher judiciary to publish immediately and disseminate widely judgments from those courts in Sinhala, Tamil and English. 17. Order the expeditious adjudication of challenges to the president’s non-application of the Seventeenth Amendment. To the Judicial Service Commission (JSC): 18. Promulgate clear rules to ensure due process protections and publicity in proceedings against judges for misconduct in the JSC, including the requirements that judges be notified of the specific charges against them; that judges have an opportunity to respond in writing and with the aid of counsel; that any findings of misconduct be promptly made available to the judge; and that JSC decisions can be appealed to Supreme Court panels. 19. Publish a schedule of appointments and transfers for magistrate judges that minimizes uncertainty or manipulation in the location and duration of appointments; derogations from the schedule should be open to appeal to the commission and allowed only under publicly stated exceptional circumstances. 20. Promulgate rules requiring all settlements between police and victims of torture to be subject to approval by a magistrate judge, who should ensure that victims are not subject to undue pressure in reaching settlements and that the settlement is fair. 21.! Order magistrates to use their wide powers to visit and monitor conditions in detention centers housing surrendered and suspected LTTE members; and organize training workshops for magistrates to equip them to use their monitoring powers more effectively. To the Attorney General: 22. Expand the role of state counsel in the magistrate courts, tasking them with the role of providing a check on police prosecution of ordinary crimes to ensure against the use of torture or other forms of abusive treatment or discrimination. 23. Expedite investigations and prosecutions of disappearances, illegal detention, torture or killings by state actors. To the World Bank, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and Other International Donors: 24. Ensure that any further funds dispersed on the justice sector are not used as mechanisms for leverage by political actors or factions within the judiciary.”

Rhoderick Chalmers, “Nepal Politics in Choppy Waters." Mail Today, May 5, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6088&l=1, comments, “While India is preoccupied with elections, Nepal risks throwing away the chance of peace that its own successful polls delivered just a year ago. The immediate crisis stems from the Maoists' attempt to oust army chief General Rookmangud Katwal for disobeying government orders, a controversial move opposed even by their own coalition partners. President Ram Bara Yadav countermanded the sacking, arguing that he has the right to accept or reject government decisions - a step which prompted Prime Minister Prachanda to resign in protest at what he called the president's " unconstitutional and undemocratic" effort to establish himself as a parallel power centre. Prachanda also pulled no punches in railing against foreign intervention in the dispute, a clear reference to Indian ambassador Rakesh Sood's energetic efforts to rally support for the army's " sanctity". This is more than just an unseemly spat: the fragile consensus on which Nepal's peace process was built is 40 close to falling apart and the country now faces a constitutional crisis. The tussle over the army chief is symptomatic of a wider collapse in trust and a bitter struggle for the future of the country. The Maoists feel they were blocked at every turn in government while their opponents fear they are trying to subvert state institutions in preparation for a seizure of power. There are good reasons for mutual suspicions on both sides.” “Building mutual confidence required constant dialogue at national and local levels. But inter- party committees only functioned sporadically. Holding parties to their commitments (and the Maoists have been egregious in their flouting of many) called for functional, neutral monitoring. But no monitoring bodies were ever established. Salvaging the peace process will require cool heads and hard graft. Almost one hundred regular meetings of a PLA- Nepalese Army- UN joint committee have helped ensure the military ceasefire has held perfectly. A similar approach could draw some of the poison from contentious issues like the return of property seized during the conflict. Whether General Katwal stays or goes, what Nepal desperately needs is public security, basic governance and effective policing. Indian interests are clearly at stake in Nepal - and it is willingness to defend them doggedly and publicly. But if New Delhi's stalwart defense of General Katwal is meant to encourage stability, it is misconceived. Propping up the army as a political tool has only added fuel to the fire. Ensuring it sticks to its mandate while helping to build structures for meaningful civilian control - such as a functional ministry of defense - would be the best guard against dangerous politicization under governments of any color.”

Strife in Thailand, largely class based, that has had the major political parties struggling with each other – often physically – continued this spring, and the basic problems and unrest related to it , discussed in previous issues of NCJ, are ongoing (For example, see Keiyth Mydans and Thomas Fuller, “Strife Swells in the Streets of Bangkok,” The New York Times, April 14, 2009).

ICG, “Recruiting Militants in Southern Thailand,” Asia Report N°170, June 22, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6170&l=1, states. “.While Thai leaders are preoccupied with turmoil in Bangkok, the insurgency in the South continues to recruit young Malay Muslims, especially from private Islamic schools. These institutions are central to maintenance of Malay Muslim identity, and many students are receptive to the call to take up arms against the state. This is not a struggle in solidarity with global jihad, rather an ethno-nationalist insurgency with its own version of history aimed at reclaiming what was once the independent sultanate of Patani. Human rights abuses by the Thai government and security forces have only fuelled this secessionist fervor, and policies that centralize power in the capital have undermined a regional political solution. Changing these policies and practices is essential as the government tries to respond to the insurgents’ grievances in order to bring long-lasting peace to the region.” “Even as the political battle between the government and supporters of ousted former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra – in itself violent – plays out in the capital, Thailand needs to address the political grievances that have long fuelled resentment: the disregard for Malay ethnic identity and language, the lack of accountability for human rights abuses, and the under-representation of Malay Muslims in local political and government structures. Without such measures, harsh suppression and attempts at instilling Thai nationalism in Malay Muslim radicals through re-education will only generate more anger that will in turn ensure a steady flow of recruits committed to an enduring struggle.”

In Myanmar (Burma), military government repression continues, moving toward the first elections in many years. In August, pro-democracy leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was convicted of violating her house arrest (when an American entered her compound uninvited) and sentenced to three years of hard labor, but her sentence was commuted to a new term of house arrest of up to 18 months (Seth Mydans, “Pro-Democracy Leader in Myanmar Is Convicted,” The New York Times, August 11, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/world/asia/12myanmar.html?ref=world).

North Korea still continues to shift back and forth from being hostile and expanding its nuclear weapons program, and being conciliatory, at times even taking steps to suspend its atomic arms program. Relations between the two Koreas continue their parallel swings. David E. Sanger, ”Coming to Terms With Containing North Korea,” The New York Times, August 8, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/weekinreview/09sanger.html?ref=world, reports that while still seeking to have North Korea end it’s nuclear arms program, the Obama administration has essentially switched to a policy of containment, to prevent Pyongyang from engaging in nuclear proliferation. One factor is that North Korea is seen by Seoul and Washington as less of a threat to the South, including that it does not have enough jet fuel for its air force to practice, much less make a sustained attack. The new policy includes additional international sanctions, most particularly the searching of ships coming from North Korea that are suspected of carrying nuclear or related material. One North Korean freighter returned home after being continually shadowed by a U.S. destroyer. Meanwhile, there has been an effort to shut down North Korean banking and sources of funding 41 abroad that can be used for military development. “Still, there are reasons to wonder whether containment of North Korea can work. The core idea is that wariness and time are the best instruments with which to let a corrupt, inept government rot from within, as when the Soviet Union collapsed. ‘I wish they’d conduct a nuclear test every week,’ a member of Mr. Obama’s team joked recently, referring to estimates that North Korea has only enough fuel for 8 to 12 weapons. The problem is that every American president since Harry Truman has underestimated how much rot the North Korean regime could withstand. Each thought the North could fall on his watch. After all, it has been the most sanctioned nation on earth since the early 1950’s, and it has recently cut the few deep economic ties that it made in the past decade with the South.” Meanwhile, some former officials who have dealt with Pyongyang believe, that with President Clinton’s obtaining the release from Pyongyang of two U.S. journalists seized along the North Korean-China border (it is not clear if they actually entered North Korea) for illegally entering the country, the North Korean government is ready to engage the world. President Obama has said he is prepared to return to the Six Nation talks when Pyongyang is. Since the journalists release, negotiations between North and South Korea have shifted to moving forward.

In the First seizing of a North Korean ship under the boarded under sanctions adopted by the United Nations Security Council, in June, Indian authorities detained a North Korean vessel and searched it for radioactive material, in Mid August (Lydia Polgreen, “N. Korean Ship Searched for Radioactive Material,” The New York Times, August 10, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/11/world/asia/11korea.html?ref=world).

ICG, “North Korea’s Nuclear and Missile Programs,” examines what is known about the North Korean nuclear and missile programs as of mid-2009. It notes that before the 1980s, North Korea had a clear military advantage over South Korea, but the balance of conventional forces has reversed, particularly with the end of the Cold War. Thus Pyongyang’s atomic weapons and missiles are primarily of deterrent value, militarily, while a threat for proliferation, as North Korea sells material and technology for economic, diplomatic and internal political reasons. “Nevertheless, misperception, miscalculation, escalation or a change in military strategy could conceivably lead to their deliberate, accidental or unauthorized use. The risk of an accidental nuclear explosion cannot be ignored, given uncertainty about the sophistication of the North’s technology and its known generally poor safety standards.” “Whatever the motives that have driven its development, the elimination of North Korea’s nuclear and missile arsenal will require considerable planning and resources. Diplomatic efforts should focus on the nuclear issue now, but progress on this front would create opportunities to address Pyongyang’s other weapons of mass destruction (WMD), including a large chemical weapons stockpile and possible biological weapons, which must be eliminated before a stable and permanent peace can be established in North East Asia.”

North Korea’s chemical, and possibly biological, weapons programs, and steps that might be taken concerning them is the subject of ICG, “North Korea’s Chemical and Biological Weapons Programs,” Asia Report N°167, June 18, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6159&l=1. The report warns, “The proliferation of North Korean WMD materials or technology would endanger global security and non-proliferation regimes. An international norm against chemical and biological weapons has emerged, but a few nations and terrorist groups still seek to acquire them. Most states can produce chemical weapons on their own if they choose to, but North Korea could provide materials or technology for integrating CW munitions with delivery systems to shorten developmental and deployment timelines.” “ North Korean entities, with or without government authorization, could be tempted to sell biological weapons or agents, believing the detection risk to be low. The likelihood of such a transfer would increase if the country were to become unstable or collapse. The North’s economy urgently needs reform, but the regime’s failure to adopt changes leaves weapons and weapons technology as its vital source of foreign exchange. Abandonment of CW and BW and integration into the global economy will require compliance with international export control rules and norms, as well as significant aid. Diplomatic efforts to eliminate North Korean WMD and ballistic missiles must continue, but the international community must be prepared for multiple contingencies including: a deliberate, accidental or unauthorized chemical or biological attack or incident; a chemical weapons accident in North Korea; an accidental release of biological agents in North Korea; the North’s use of CW following an intentional or inadvertent military clash and escalation; North Korean use of biological or chemical weapons in a preventive war against South Korea; the transfer of chemical or biological weapons, precursors, materials and technologies to other states or non-state actors; and arms races.” Current international institutions for dealing with the North Korean chemical and biological weapons “may not be sufficient for addressing all issues, and new regional instruments may be necessary. Regional efforts could increase opportunities for cooperation through issue linkage and confidence-building aimed at the establishment of a collective peace and security regime. For example, the region could initiate processes for missile disarmament and cooperation in the peaceful exploration of outer space; the elimination of chemical weapons; conventional arms control; and non-traditional security cooperation in the realms of energy security, food security and public health. While the diplomatic priority now must be to focus on the nuclear issue, progress on this front would create opportunities to address Pyongyang’s other weapons of mass destruction, including a large chemical weapons stockpile and possible biological weapons, which must be eliminated before a stable and permanent peace can be established in North East Asia. If North Korea credibly commits to abandoning its nuclear program in 42 the Six-Party Talks, a multi-faceted effort should be made to establish a fully WMD-free Korean Peninsula.”

ICG. “North Korea: Getting Back to Talks, Asia Report N°169, June 18, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6163&l=1, states. “The motivations for North Korea’s second nuclear test are, as with many of its actions, mostly impenetrable. It may be the latest step in an unrelenting drive to become a permanent nuclear state or it could be advertising nuclear wares to potential buyers. It may be driving up the price others will pay for the North to give up its weapons or it might be about ensuring that the military will accept whatever decision Kim Jong-il has made on his successor. Most likely, North Korea’s nuclear weapons program serves multiple purposes for the leadership. Whatever the rationale, there are no good options in response. Finding a way to resume talks on ending the nuclear program may appear to reward Pyongyang’s bad behavior, but diplomacy is still the least bad option. At the same time, the UN Security Council’s strong and united condemnation of the test in Resolution 1874 must be enforced, while containment of proliferation and deterrence of North Korean provocations need to be boosted. Getting the North Koreans back to the table may not be easy; not only have they tested nuclear explosive devices and missiles, but they have said that the Six-Party Talks are dead, they will no longer respect the Korean War armistice, and any sanctions imposed by the UN will be treated as a declaration of war. Much of this is the normal overheated rhetoric that Pyongyang often produces, but it would be a mistake to put the issue on the back burner. Getting North Korea back to talks will require significant changes in the way the portfolio is handled in Washington, including a high-level approach by the U.S., if and when there appears to be a prospect, however uncertain, that the North is willing to engage seriously.” “The temptation will be to punish North Korea with mostly ineffectual multilateral sanctions and then wait for the crisis to blow over, but there are good reasons to take up the challenge now: A likely succession in North Korea could unleash instability, or it could result in a much more belligerent or isolated military regime. The transfer of power after Kim Jong-il is far less clear than when his father died in 1994. An isolated North Korea under sanctions will be more, not less, likely to sell weapons or technology for hard currency. Given that its clients have been in the Middle East and South Asia, this is likely to create further problems in highly insecure areas. The nuclear test may have narrowed the cracks that were appearing among the countries in the Six-Party Talks, with China and Russia more likely to press the North on coming to an agreement. The longer the issue is left to fester, the greater the strains on the alliances, the risk to the balances that have kept the peace in North East Asia for decades, the advances the North will make in developing warheads and missiles and the likelihood proliferation will occur. The Six-Party Talks faltered in December 2008 on issues of sequencing and verification. These issues can be resolved, and the talks need to resume and address them. But a bolder approach is also needed that will be less likely to become enmeshed in the bilateral concerns that participants have with the North. While still preserving the Six-Party framework, not least because of its potential utility as a mechanism for addressing North East Asian security issues more generally, the U.S. needs to talk to Pyongyang directly at the highest levels. At best this could result in a deal; at worst it might shed some light on North Korea’s motivations and aspirations. High-level engagement may seem to be rewarding bad behavior, but it is also the only way any agreement is likely to be reached. While any direct bilateral talks should continue the “actions for actions” model established in the multilateral forum, a U.S. negotiator should not be entirely limited by that approach. The views of North Korea’s leadership, both military and civilian, are shaped by the Korean War and by a deep insecurity about the U.S. in particular and the outside world in general. Assuaging that insecurity by formally ending the Korean War, establishing liaison offices and eventually diplomatic relations and providing greater humanitarian aid would cost little but would build significant confidence. Bilateral contacts in the realm of education, sports, arts and sciences would also be helpful. The U.S. administration needs to avoid the pitfalls of its predecessors. Interminable battles over policy, with the hesitations and mixed signals they produce, will only undermine diplomacy. Putting implementation on hold while waiting for North Korea to collapse has always been a mistake. Any strategy will need to be sold to Congress but not at the price of giving any primacy to a military response. It needs to coordinate closely with Japan and South Korea, but it must also persuade its allies that solely bilateral concerns cannot be allowed to hold up the key issue of North Korea’s denuclearization. While diplomacy needs to be backed up by the most effective possible deterrence and containment, it is still the best option. This Policy Report is published simultaneously with two Crisis Group Background Reports, North Korea’s Nuclear and Missile Programs and North Korea’s Chemical and Biological Weapons[1] and should be read in conjunction with them. RECOMMENDATIONS To the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea: 1. Return to the Six-Party Talks, implement commitments under the Six-Party “Statement of Principles”, and specifically allow inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and other Six-Party participants to verify its nuclear declaration submitted in June 2008. 2. Implement commitments under the 1992 Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, which prohibits the production or possession of nuclear weapons, the enrichment of uranium, and the reprocessing of spent reactor fuel. 3. Abide by UN Security Council Resolutions 1695, 1718 and 1874, which demand that the DPRK not conduct another nuclear test or ballistic missile test and return to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and IAEA safeguards. To the Government of 43 the United States: 4. Be prepared, if and when there appears a prospect, however uncertain, of engaging seriously (and after consulting with China, Russia, Japan and South Korea), to send a high-level special envoy to Pyongyang, to discuss how to break the deadlock in the Six-Party Talks in a way that alleviates the security concerns of both North Korea and the international community. 5. Improve coordination in the Six-Party process by revitalizing the Trilateral Coordination and Oversight Group, which has languished in recent years. 6.!Maintain a strong policy of deterrence and stepped up containment, and encourage China, Russia, Japan and South Korea to do likewise. 7. Reconsider, with South Korea, so as to reinforce the deterrence and containment message, the termination of the U.S.-South Korea Combined Forces Command scheduled for April 2012. 8. Give strong weight in the current Nuclear Posture Review to the impact of a clear change in U.S. doctrine – to “no first use”, or at least a declaration that the only role of nuclear weapons is to deter others using them – in undermining the DPRK argument that it needs a nuclear deterrent. To the Government of the Republic of Korea: 9. Maintain the separation of humanitarian assistance and denuclearization in inter-Korean relations. 10.!Deploy limited missile defense, but refrain from joining a fully integrated regional missile defense system with Japan and the U.S. unless diplomacy fails. To the Government of the People’s Republic of China: 11. Press Pyongyang by all available diplomatic means to accept and engage seriously with a high-level U.S. special envoy, return to the Six-Party Talks, implement its previous commitments and abide by relevant Security Council resolutions. 12.!Consider suspending the “Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance between China and the DPRK” until North Korea returns to the Six-Party Talks. To the Government of Japan: 13.!Separate the issues of denuclearization and North Korean abductions of Japanese citizens and be prepared to restart cooperation on humanitarian aid and fuel supplies. To the Government of the Russian Federation: 14.!Provide technical expertise if needed to verify the DPRK’s nuclear declaration.”

In a poor, mostly Muslim area of the Southern Philippines, in recent months, the Abu Sayyaf group, suspected of having links to al Qaeda, has carried out kidnappings for ransom. With government security officials concerned that the ransom payments might fund the revival of the group on Basilan and Jolo, on August 12, hundreds of Philippine troops began assaults on two Abu Sayyaf encampments believed to base some 400 armed fighters, bringing heavy fighting (“Filipino Soldiers Attack Militants,” The New York Times, August 12, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/world/asia/13philip.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper)

ICG, “Indonesia: The Hotel Bombings,” Asia Briefing N°94, July 24, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6243&l=1, stated, “On 17 July 2009, suicide bombers attacked two hotels in the heart of a Jakarta business district, killing nine and injuring more than 50, the first successful terrorist attack in Indonesia in almost four years. While no one has claimed responsibility, police are virtually certain it was the work of Noordin Mohammed Top, who leads a breakaway group from Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), the regional jihadi organization responsible for the first Bali bombing in 2002.” “The attack sets back Indonesia’s counter-terrorism efforts, but its political and economic impact has been minor.” “If the perpetrators are arrested quickly, Indonesians and expatriates will relax, although it will not necessarily mean the end of terrorist cells in Indonesia. If Noordin Top eludes police again, as he has for the last seven years, the nervousness will remain. One key question for the police to answer is how the operation was funded. It is possible the bombers raised the funds locally through armed robberies as they did for the October 2005 Bali bombing. If money came from an outside donor, a possible source would be al-Qaeda or its affiliates. This would open the possibility that outside donors could look for other Indonesian partners in the future, even if Noordin Top is behind bars. A third possibility is a donation from an Indonesian source outside the Noordin group itself.” In meeting the threat of future terrorist acts, “The easiest step and the most unwise would be to turn the anti-terrorism law into an internal security act that allowed for lengthy preventive detention. Instead, Indonesia needs continued attention to community policing, more attention to JI-affiliated schools that offer protection to men like Noordin and opportunities for recruitment, more understanding of international linkages, better intelligence and more support for prison reform.” (See also the earlier, ICG, “Indonesia: Radicalization of the ‘Palembang Group’,” Asia Briefing N°92, May 20, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6110&l=1)

In early August, Indonesian police undertook a raid in which a number persons suspected in the hotel bombings were arrested and killed. (“Indonesia Kills 2 in Raids on Militants,” The New York Times, August 8, 2009, http.www.nytimes.com). Police then announced they had stopped an attempt to assassinate Indonesia’s President in a 16-hour raid on a militant hide-out outside Jakarta (Seth Mydans, “Plot to Kill Indonesian President Foiled,” The New York Times, August 9, 2009, http.www.nytimes.com).

Preliminary actions by Turkish citizens (mostly civil society and academics) and the Turkish government over the past decade are providing opportunities for significant healing between Turkey and Armenia. ICG, "Turkey and Armenia: Opening Minds, Opening Borders," April 14, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6053&l=1, urged that "Turkey and Armenia should seize their best opportunity yet to normalize relations, work on a new approach to shared history and open a European border that for nearly a century has been hostage to conflict." 44 "The two sides are now close to agreement on a package deal that will establish diplomatic relations, open the border and set up bilateral commissions to address a range of issues. These commissions will include one on joint historical dimensions of the Armenian-Turkish relationship, which will work to broaden understanding of the Ottoman-era forced relocations and massacres of Armenians, widely recognized as the Armenian genocide. Turkey contests the term genocide, disputing its legal applicability and pointing to mitigating circumstances as the Ottoman Empire fought on three fronts in the First World War. But many Turks, including officials, now publicly express regret over the tragic and high loss of Armenian life."

"A separate but related issue, the stalemated Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, still risks undermining final agreement on the Turkey and Armenia normalization package. Azerbaijan opposes any border opening until Armenia withdraws from its occupied territory. But Turkey should not sacrifice this chance to move forward, and should persuade its ally that détente which makes Armenia feel secure will do more for a settlement than continuing a fifteen-year impasse. For long-term normalization with Turkey to be sustainable, Armenia, together with Azerbaijan, should ultimately adopt the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Minsk Group basic principles for settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict of the OSCE, and Armenia should withdraw from Azerbaijani territories that it occupies. Turkey and Armenia should finalize their agreement and thus create new momentum for peace and cooperation in the South Caucasus,' says Sabine Freizer, Crisis Group's Europe Program Director. 'They should not wait until the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is settled. But outside powers such as the U.S., EU, Russia and others should build on their rare common interest to move both Turkish-Armenian normalization and the Nagorno-Karabakh process forward.'"

ICG, “Georgia-Russia: Still Insecure and Dangerous,” Europe Briefing N°53, June 22, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6171&l=1, finds, “Ten months after the ‘August war’ between Georgia and Russia, violent incidents and the lack of an effective security regime in and around the conflict zones of South Ossetia and Abkhazia create a dangerous atmosphere in which extensive fighting could again erupt. Russia has not complied with key aspects of the ceasefire agreements that President Medvedev reached in August/September 2008 with French President Sarkozy in his then EU presidency role. Its 15 June Security Council veto of an extension of the sixteen-year-old UN observer mission mandate in Georgia and Abkhazia and its apparent intention to require the removal of the mission of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) by the end of the month are blows to regional security that will further fuel tensions. Most of the on-the-ground conflict resolution machinery is thus being dismantled. Moscow should review its counterproductive position and work for a reasonable compromise allowing the UN and OSCE monitors to continue their important work.” Russia “has legal obligations to do more for the security and safety of local populations, regardless of ethnicity, and to prevent human rights abuses in areas that are in effect under its control. Most importantly, it must expand efforts to allow the return of internally displaced persons (IDPs), especially the approximately 25,000 ethnic Georgians who have been unable to go back to their homes in South Ossetia. All sides in the conflict – Georgian, Russian and South Ossetian – committed war-time abuses, but the actions of Ossetian militias, who systematically looted, torched and in some cases bulldozed most ethnic Georgian villages, were particularly egregious. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) called those abuses ‘ethnic cleansing’ Human Rights Watch cited ample evidence to label them “crimes against humanity” and “war crimes”. The PACE also noted ‘the failure of Russia and the de facto authorities to bring these practices to a halt and their perpetrators to justice’. Indeed, Russian troops largely stood by, unwilling or unable to perform their security duties. Since August 2008, Russia has consolidated its position in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.” “. It has not returned its military presence to pre-war levels and locations, as called for in the 12 August six-point plan, and, in April 2009, it sent additional troops to South Ossetia and Abkhazia. In violation of its 7-8 September agreement with the EU, it has prevented the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) from continuing pre-war activities in South Ossetia, including monitoring and implementation of a rehabilitation and reconstruction program.” “It has now gone two steps further, not only vetoing the UN mission that has been working in Abkhazia but also blocking a renewed mandate for the OSCE mission to Georgia that has been active in South Ossetia. Though none of the other 56 OSCE member states support it on this latter step, the fourth biggest OSCE mission is on the verge of closing on 30 June because a mandate extension requires consensus. Several rounds of discussions sponsored by the UN, EU and OSCE, focusing on security and humanitarian issues, have been held among representatives of the four sides in Geneva without tangible results. The presence of excess troops and lack of a security regime have made it impossible for even some IDPs who lived in the former Russian “buffer zones” in Georgia to feel secure enough to return to their homes.” “ To stabilize the security situation, lessen chances for renewed major hostilities and improve the humanitarian situation, Russia should: re-engage fully in discussions within the Security Council so as to move beyond its 15 June veto and reach agreement on a functional security regime and implementation mechanism that will facilitate a continued role for the UN in Georgia; comply fully with the ceasefire agreements, in particular by withdrawing from areas its troops did not occupy before 7 August 2008 (the Akhalgori district of South Ossetia, Perevi village on the Georgian side of 45 the administrative border with South Ossetia and the Kodori Gorge region of Abkhazia); allow the EU Monitoring Mission (EUMM) and international agencies including the UN immediate, free and unfettered access to South Ossetia to monitor security and provide humanitarian assistance; encourage the South Ossetian de facto authorities to announce that Georgian IDPs will be allowed back immediately and engage with donors to find funding for reconstruction in destroyed villages and other areas of South Ossetia damaged during the war; participate constructively in the Geneva talks; and accept the Greek Chairmanship’s status neutral proposal and support continuation of the OSCE Mission. The Georgian government and the de facto authorities in South Ossetia and Abkhazia should: agree on joint measures, including international monitoring missions’ access to all areas, to prevent incidents and human rights violations in conflict zones and facilitate voluntary, safe, dignified IDP return; implement a comprehensive integration strategy to increase IDPs’ ability to fully participate in political, social and economic life; avoid belligerent rhetoric and false media reporting on the situation in conflict areas; and welcome humanitarian and reconstruction projects sponsored by Western governments or international organizations, including the OSCE, UN, and EU, and amend laws that could obstruct such work. The EU, the U.S. and the Council of Europe and other international organizations should: support ongoing international investigations into the conduct of the August war and violations by all sides; suspend Russia’s right to vote in the PACE if it does not cooperate in reversing ethnic cleansing in South Ossetia, in particular by fulfilling its 12 August and 7-8 September commitments; encourage the International Olympic Committee to study whether the 2014 Winter Olympics can be safely held in Sochi, Russia, if an effective security regime has not been established in neighboring Abkhazia; encourage the Security Council to remain seized of the matter, despite the!UN Mission’s termination; urge the UN Secretary-General to continue exercising good offices by appointing a special envoy and pursuing efforts to facilitate the peace process; invest the EU mission with an expanded role to address the situation on the ground; and participate constructively in efforts to resolve immediate security and humanitarian problems, including by encouraging the parties to fully engage in the Geneva talks, as a first step towards broader conflict resolution. This briefing focuses primarily on the situation in South Ossetia; subsequent reporting will be directed at the situation in Abkhazia.”

Thom Shanker, “U.S. to Resume Training Georgian Troops,” The New York Times, August 13, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/world/europe/14military.html?_r=1&em, reports, that senior U.S. Defense Department officials stated, August 13, that the United States is resuming combat training in the republic of Georgia to prepare its army for counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan, even though this risks angering the Russian government.

Sabine Freizer The EU-Turkey-Cyprus Triangle: "Time for Turkey to Be Visionary in the South Caucasus,” Analysis and Commentary from Crisis Group, May 15 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6103&l=1, “Optimism about the normalization of Turkey-Armenia bilateral relations, so prevalent on 22 April when the two countries announced that they had agreed on a comprehensive framework for reconciliation, has suddenly faded. Normalization would include opening of the Turkey-Armenia border, establishing diplomatic relations, and setting up of bilateral commissions to deal with multiple issues, including the historical dimension of their relations. It first seemed that these steps could be accomplished by Autumn 2009. Now they may be delayed for years. Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan put a brake on the reconciliation effort when in Baku on 13 May, he did not mince his words: ‘the closure of the [Turkey-Armenia] border is a result of the [Armenian] occupation in Karabakh […] until the occupation ends, the border gates will remain closed.’ “Since 1993, Turkey has maintained a policy of keeping its border with Armenia closed until Armenian forces withdraw largely due to its wish to express its respect for historical and ethnic ties with Azerbaijan. The closed-border policy had no impact on Armenia's Nagorno-Karabakh stance, and arguably made Armenia less likely to withdraw in exchange for peace;” “For Turkey, breaking with its former tried and failed policy, normalizing with Armenia offers an opportunity to become a strategic player in the South Caucasus. It has had success in establishing discussions through a Caucasus Stability and Cooperation Platform, but it will have difficulty promoting and leading this as long as it blockades one of the countries that participates. It wants to cooperate as equal partners with Russia in the South Caucasus, in political and economic spheres, but it will be limited unless it is seen as even handed. Russia, which has signed a collective security arrangement with Armenia, has understood this over the past several months and repeated its overtures to Azerbaijan in a host of fields. Turkey is interested in supporting the ongoing OSCE Minsk Process to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, but it cannot be a neutral broker while it openly supports one of the conflicting sides. Finally an open Turkey-Armenia border is likely to have the immediate effect of ending Armenian perceptions of encirclement by hostile Turkic peoples, and making them more likely to withdraw from territories around Nagorno-Karabakh now retained as security guarantees. These are the messages that Turkey’s leaders should be sending to their Azerbaijani counterparts, rather than nationalist pledges to remain “one nation in two states.” “There is no doubt that progress on resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict would enhance Turkey’s ability to normalize relations with Armenia and stability in the South Caucasus. But Ankara’s best chance of bringing a new positive momentum to the process is precisely by normalizing with Armenia.” “Regarding Nagorno-Karabakh, the best that can be expected any time this year is agreement 46 on these basic principles, and the mediators sound optimistic about a possible breakthrough.” “Once an agreement on basic principles is signed, lengthy and difficult talks await the sides to reach a comprehensive settlement leading to the start of actual withdrawals. If Turkey plans to wait until this occurs, it will remain on the sidelines for many years to come in the South Caucasus, allowing the U.S., EU and especially Russia to maintain the lead in its own backyard.”!

India has proposed to UNESCO that the first university for peace and sustainable development in South Asia, proposed as Mahatma Gandhi Centre for Peace Education and Sustainable Development, be set up in Delhi, with UNESCO as a partner in the project. HRD Minister Kapil Sibal is scheduled to take up the issue with UNESCO authorities during the World Conference on Higher Education in Paris. For more information go to: http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/india-proposes-first-peace-university-in-south-asia/66915/on.

European Developments

It was reported in March, that Russia plans to create a new military force to protect its interests in the disputed Arctic region, according to a Kremlin strategy paper. The document outlines Russia's policy for the Arctic, which is believed to contain as much as 25 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and gas. For further details go to: http://kimpavitapress.org/2009/03/29/russia-plans-to-create-arctic-military-force/.

Michael Schwirtz, “Clashes Kill Over 20 in Russia Region,” The New York Times, August 14, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/15/world/europe/15russia.html?ref=world, discusses the continuing violence and instability in Russia’s North Caucasus region, “underscoring the Kremlin’s continued struggles to bring the volatile area under control.”

The U.S. and Russia have moved forward in developing further nuclear disarmament, with a setting of preliminary terms (Clifford J. Levy and Peter Baker, “U.S and Russia Take Step To Cut Nuclear Arms,” The New York Times, July 7, 2009), but they continue to disagree on developing a cyberspace treaty (John Markoff and Andrew E. Kramer, “U.S. and Russia Differ on Treaty for Cyberspace,” The New York Times, June 28, 2009).

Desmond Tutu, Jimmy Carter and Lakhdar Brahimi, “Cyprus: ‘The Last and Best Chance for Peace,’" Today's Zama, May 7, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6094&l=1, discusses the possible setback for the Cyprus peace process of Turkish Cypriot voters rejecting the party of their leader, Mehmet Ali Talat, who has been meeting almost weekly for eight months to work out the terms of a settlement to reunify the island with his Greek Cypriot counterpart, Dimitris Christofias. The authors point out that the election is primarily about the economic downturn, and not a rejection of the peace process, while Talat still leads the Turkish Cypriot administration and will continue to lead negotiations for the Turkish Cypriots. Never-the-less, the election loss “underscores the fact that time is running out to find a solution to the Cyprus problem. Talat has set the presidential election in early 2010 as a deadline for agreement, while Christofias is not without political challenges within his own coalition.” With limited political capital, Talat and Christofias “need their own people to join them in the peace process. An overwhelming majority of Cypriots are unhappy with the status quo, believe a settlement is possible and reject any return to violence, but are deeply distrustful of each other and of the peace process. They have seen too many previous efforts fail. A culture of cynicism and complacency seems to be the default position, especially among politicians and the media. Opening up the debate about what peace could look like would help.” “Second, strengthening links between the two communities is essential. The island has been split for so long that generations have grown up with no idea of life on the other side. It is very difficult for schools, law enforcement agencies, soccer clubs and telephone, electricity and water companies to cooperate across the Green Line. Teenagers can’t even send text messages across the divide. Trade between the communities is limited. Lowering these barriers with respect and sensitivity would help to heal the wounds of the past and, importantly, to build trust. Researchers already estimate that reunification could raise annual incomes by about 1.8 billion euros -- more than 5,500 euros per household. Everyone needs to see that there are benefits to reunification that will simplify life, strengthen the economy and outweigh the compromises that any settlement will require. Third, the major regional powers, whose presence hangs heavily over the island, need to play their part. Greece is urgently called upon to play a more constructive role in the peace process by explaining the benefits of its own normalization of relations with Turkey and its support for that country’s EU membership. And Turkey could give a tremendous boost to confidence in the peace process by announcing a symbolic withdrawal of some troops from northern Cyprus as a goodwill gesture -- a move that would also greatly assist Turkey’s convergence with Europe.” In addition, explicit international expressions of support for a settlement would help to persuade the leaders of both communities that success would bring proper recognition and reward. It would certainly help if the EU promised substantial development funds, including for resolution of property issues, once an agreement is in place. This is the best chance in 30 years for a federal settlement in Cyprus, and it may be the last.” A continuing conflict has potential negative consequences for the rest of Europe. (See also Hugh Pope, Can Cyprus Buck 47 the Partitionist Trend?, Today's Zaman, July 24, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6232&l=1). to do that yet.

ICG, “Serb Integration in Kosovo: Taking the Plunge,” May 12, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6092&l=1, proposes, “The Pristina government should do more to emphasize to Kosovo Serbs - few of whom deal with state bodies - the benefits of dialogue and cooperation. There is a real opportunity now that Belgrade’s strategy to undermine independent Kosovo by supporting parallel institutions both to prevent Serbs‚ exodus and to isolate them from Kosovo structures is having only limited success.” “The policy of opposing all engagement retains support among Serbs north of the Ibar River but has proved unrealistic for those living in the south’s smaller enclaves, who have found there is no choice but to deal with Albanian society around them. Despite Belgrade‚s boycott call, increasing numbers of Serbs are beginning to engage pragmatically with Kosovo institutions, relying on them for services, applying for official documents and accepting Kosovo salaries. Kosovo’s best opportunity to further the integration of its Serb minority is to implement a comprehensive decentralization plan like that recommended before independence by the UN Secretary- General’s special envoy, Martti Ahtisaari. It would create new Serb-majority municipalities with enhanced autonomy in education, healthcare and culture that could maintain close ties with Serbia. But for this approach to have a chance of gaining Serb acceptance, Pristina needs to avoid burdening it with rhetoric on Kosovo‚s independence. The U.S., EU and others should support this approach by encouraging dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina on matters affecting Kosovo Serbs. The EU in particular must use the leverage it has due to Serbia’s desire to advance its membership prospects to insist Belgrade end support for the parallel structures and not hinder the integration of Kosovo Serbs.”

ICG, “Bosnia: A Test of Political Maturity in Mostar,” Europe Briefing N°54, July 27, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6245&l=1, warns, “The administration of Mostar is collapsing, a warning sign for Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). There has been no mayor, budget or functioning city council since an October 2008 election; tension threatens to poison relations between the leading Bosniak and Croat parties, which are coalition partners throughout BiH. The crisis is rooted in ethnic demographics, recent conflict history and a city statute that replicates many of the power-sharing rules that govern the state. Mostar’s Croat majority, much like the state’s Bosniak majority, chafes against these rules, considering them illegitimate and foreign-imposed, and seeks to force the Office of the High Representative (OHR – the international community’s peace implementation body) to impose a solution on its behalf. Yet, a fair solution is within the council’s competence and, like the city’s chronic grievances, can best be handled without the High Representative using his extraordinary (Bonn) powers. The international community should deliver the message that fourteen years after the end of their war, it is time for the Bosnians to take responsibility for their own futures.” “Mostar is today Bosnia and Herzegovina’s only truly divided city. Still, healing has begun. Long considered the Beirut of the Balkans, it is today peaceful and bustling. The long-hovering threat of renewed violence has decisively receded. The statute imposed by the High Representative after consultation with local and national leaders in 2004 has united the city administratively. Nevertheless, peace and unification have not kept Mostar from a general breakdown of its government. Its multi-ethnic city council has failed on fourteen separate occasions to elect a mayor, and councilors have begun boycotting sessions. The city has not paid its employees, schoolteachers and firemen, as well as the construction workers and staff of its many publicly-owned companies since March 2009. The council has transacted no business since passing a temporary budget, long since expired. As townspeople wish a pox on all of them, the city’s divided political elites are escalating their rhetoric and invoking wartime injustices with worrying frequency. The immediate crisis concerns the procedure for electing the mayor, but it has brought older, deeper and more fundamental problems to the surface that will persist long after Mostar finally gets its chief executive. The real disputes are over Mostar’s role in the broader Croat community, the Croats’ position in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and most generally, how majority rule and minority rights can coexist in a multi-ethnic environment. These problems mirror those that afflict BiH as a whole, and the prescription for the city’s ills points the way toward countrywide reform. Alone among Bosnia’s cities, it runs on laws and institutions built on the same, internationally-designed framework used to build the Bosnian state. The Croat majority is frustrated, internally divided and deeply hostile to the city’s power sharing statute, which it seeks to replace with a less restrictive form of majority rule. The Croats also try to compensate through Mostar for their lack of a home territorial unit. The large and assertive Bosniak minority is fiercely protective of its legal privileges, enshrined in that same statute, but complains of neglect at the hands of both its more prosperous Croat neighbors and the Bosniak national leadership, whose interests are elsewhere. The tiny Serb minority, remnant of wartime ethnic cleansing carried out by Bosniaks and Croats alike, deals with its perceived vulnerability largely through ingratiation and emigration. The breakdown of Mostar’s internationally-imposed government shows what happens to a consensus-based system in the absence of inter-ethnic agreement. The solution requires that the mayoral deadlock be addressed urgently: the High Representative should facilitate a solution by clarifying the law, 48 previous statements from his office notwithstanding; and the city council must honor the statutory provision for electing the mayor by secret ballot. After formally adopting the imposed statute, the city council should amend the statute if it considers that any ambiguity remains, so as to allow the election of the mayor by a majority of those present and voting in the council in a third and final round, thereby guaranteeing the election of a new chief executive. But Mostar’s leaders should not stop there. They must work together to articulate a vision of their common home that recognizes its symbolic importance to Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Croats, while ensuring Bosniaks and Serbs a fair share in the city’s administration and development. They should begin with practical local measures, including: the city council and the new mayor should complete the consolidation of the city’s utilities and publicly-owned companies, taking into account not only the ethnic balance but also the rights and interests of the companies concerned; and the city council should take steps to reduce opportunities for corruption and favoritism, especially in the lucrative regulation of construction permits, by streamlining procedures in line with World Bank recommendations. Responsibility falls also on Bosnia’s leaders, who should in due course: change Mostar’s electoral system, as part of a general reform of the country’s constitutional order, to bring it into line with the rest of the country; institute direct election of the mayor; and adopt provisions that retain protection for Bosniak and Serb political interests; and work toward a national constitutional solution that meet the needs of all three constituent peoples. Much like counterparts in Sarajevo and Banja Luka, Mostar’s leaders expect the international community, in the form of the High Representative, to rescue them from their failure to compromise. Since ambiguities in the statute imposed by the High Representative and a subsequent interpretation by his office have contributed to the present crisis, such an intervention could be justified. But the threat of imminent violence does not hang over this crisis in a way that would require a last-resort, imposed solution, and taking responsibility out of Bosnian hands would weaken national capacity and reinforce a culture of dependence countrywide. The solution to Mostar’s ills, like BiH’s, is within the reach of local and national leaders. The OHR will likely close soon, and those leaders will have to assume full responsibility for their country. Bosnians must show the political maturity – and not only in Mostar – to run their own affairs.”

The Basque Separatists group ETA has made a number of attacks in Spain in the last few months, Including some that have killed police officers (“Basque Separatist Group Says It Killed Policemen,” The New York Times, August 8, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/world/europe/09basque.html?ref=world).

In Europe, the bad economy, and particularly dropping employment has increased anti-immigrant and anti=minority feelings. This is particularly the case in Hungary where attacks on Gypsies, some of them deadly, have risen (Nicholas Kulish, “As Economic Turmoil Mounts, So Do Deadly attacks on Hungary’s Gypsies,” The New York Times, April 29, 2009).

Protestant Paramilitary groups, the Ulster Volunteer Force, the Ulster Defense association, the Ulster freedom Fighters, and the Red Hand Commandos, in Northern Ireland announced, in late June, that they had completed the process of decommissioning their weapons, in front of witnesses. There is still some possibility that some splinter groups on either side may attempt violence, as occurred in March when two Republican splinter groups killed two British soldiers and a police officer, in an attempt to restart low intensity warfare. But the murderous acts, instead, brought increased solidarity for holding and further building the peace (“Northern Ireland Factions Scrap Their Arms,” The New York Times, June 28, 2009).

African Developments

In the deadliest attack in Algeria in over a year, in June, 18 paramilitary police officers and a civilian were killed in an ambush, allegedly by al Quaeda members, that the government has long been fighting (“Algeria: 18 Officers and a Civilian Die in Ambush,” The New York Times, June 19, 2009.

Over the last few months, conflict in the Nigerian Delta has intensified, with increased attacks on foreign oil facilities and the taking of hostages. The International Crisis Group (ICG), "Nigeria: Seizing the Moment in the Niger Delta," April 30, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6080&l=1, had already projected, "The Niger Delta risks sliding deeper into conflict and criminality and spreading instability across the Gulf of Guinea, unless Nigeria's President Umaru Yar‚ Adua responds constructively to recommendations of a key committee." "The Technical Committee report submitted on 1 December 2008 represents the most promising effort to develop a coherent strategy in the Delta. It urges the government to seize the opportunity for ending armed conflict and beginning longer-term development in the oil-rich region." "The Technical Committee's report recommended amnesty for militant leaders within a comprehensive DDR program and accompanied by increased allocation of oil revenues to the Delta. While it did not address all aspects of the region's crisis, its recommendations were sufficiently comprehensive to serve as a catalyst. The Committee had also urged the government to issue a White Paper by 1 January outlining strategies for rapid implementation. The lack of a definite response is deepening disillusionment in the region. The government should respond to the report, in particular by accepting an external third party. It should simultaneously raise allocation of Delta-derived 49 revenue to at least the 17 per cent recommended by the National Political Reform Conference in 2006, pending further negotiated increases, while strengthening budget transparency and financial accountability at state level, so the money is used to benefit the region and implement priority projects identified by the Niger Delta Regional Development Master Plan (NDRDMP). Delta ethnic and militant leaders must reciprocate government initiatives by freeing all hostages, ending violence and cooperating on DDR. They should also consult more closely with each other, in order to achieve greater unity and improve chances for successful negotiations." Crisis Group‚s West Africa Project Director, Richard Moncrieff, stated, "If Nigeria misses this opportunity, the Delta risks sliding deeper into conflict. Insecurity could spread further across the Gulf of Guinea, and Nigeria's oil production and drive for socio- economic advancement will be even more severely disrupted.”

Adam Nossiter, “Nigerian Amnesty Plan Faces Difficulties,” The New York Times,: August 10, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/11/world/africa/11nigeria.html?ref=world, finds that the Nigerian government’s offers a 60 day amnesty for militants in the oil producing Nigerian Delta who will turn in their weapons in return for a stipend of $13 a day, but the plan is being greeted by skepticism, and few takers, as there is a wide spread sentiment that the region’s problems of poverty, corruption and pollution are going unaddressed. The local people are not getting their share of the huge amounts money coming to Nigeria from pumping oil out of the region, as 80% of the oil payments in Nigeria have been going to 1% of the population of the country, perhaps all of whom live outside the Delta. Thus militant kidnappings of industry personnel and attacks on petroleum pipelines and facilities continue. In 2008, the number of militant attacks rose by a third to 92, from those of the previous year, and the violence has continued to rise this year. The Nigerian military has attempted to crush the militancy by force, but has had little strategic success, and in July, militants succeeded in expanding their operations outside the Delta, setting fire to tankers and an oil depot in Lagos. As has been suggested repeatedly in these pages for quite some years, it would seem that only an approach that provides equity on the basic economic, environmental and related issues is likely to be successful.

ICG, “Chad: Powder Keg in the East,“ Africa Report N°149, April 15, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6055&l=1, found, "Eastern Chad is a powder keg with potential to destabilize the entire country as well as neighboring states and worsen the already dire humanitarian situation. Local conflicts based on resource scarcity have been exacerbated by national and regional political manipulation. The population has already suffered enormously, from the domestic Chadian disputes, the Darfur crisis and the proxy war between Chad and Sudan alike. The two governments, with support from their international partners, should resume implementation of the Dakar Agreement, but a conference specifically dedicated to the conflict in eastern Chad should also be organized in order to allow local and national actors to find solutions to the domestic causes of the crisis. This conference should be integrated into the existing structures of the peace process in Chad. Chad’s successive regimes have failed to ensure the well-being and security of the population in the East, thereby fuelling mistrust of the central government. In order to counter armed opposition groups, the regimes first of Hissène Habré and now of President Idriss Déby have used a divide-and-conquer strategy, pitting ethnic groups against one another. Nevertheless, eastern Chad was relatively stable until 2003, despite a tense political climate and sporadic bloody clashes. The humanitarian and security problems that have shaken it since then are unprecedented, with spillover from the Darfur crisis aggravating pre-existing inter- ethnic confrontations and strengthening cross-border intercommunal loyalties.! Large-scale internal displacement and a massive influx of Sudanese refugees have upset eastern Chad’s demographic balance and intensified the struggle for resources. Both the Chadian government and rebel groups have armed their supporters, leading to bloodier banditry and bloodier inter-ethnic conflicts that often pit farmers against cattle breeders and making the work of humanitarian workers increasingly difficult. The central government has systematically co-opted for its own political purposes traditional mediation and conflict management mechanisms, such as diyah, the compensation due for shedding blood." "The international community has had a pair of peacekeeping missions on the scene since February 2008 to alleviate spillover effects of the Sudanese conflict into eastern Chad:! a European Union force (EUFOR) and the United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic and Chad (MINURCAT). However, neither significantly improved the security situation. On 15 March 2009 MINURCAT took over the responsibilities of EUFOR but with a mandate that, like those of its predecessors, is limited to reducing insecurity in camps for refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) and the surrounding areas and does not include, as it needs to, promoting a political process that treats the Chadian roots of the crisis. The international community should end its head-in-the-sand attitude and deal with the root causes of the crisis by putting pressure on the Chadian government to organize the conference on the conflict in eastern Chad cited above. That conference should include representatives of the central government, rebel groups, customary leaders and opposition political parties.! It should examine the fundamental political causes of the instability in the East and put in place an adequate framework for dealing with them. MINURCAT should be mandated to organize the conference and act as a neutral body for selecting many of its participants. France, which has reinforced Déby without helping the Chadians to find a durable solution to 50 the crisis, should pressure the government to engage with the communities in the East for the organization of such a conference. Recommendations: To the Government of Chad: 1.!Contribute, with MINURCAT’s help, to the organization of a peace conference on the eastern conflict and send governors and prefects as representatives of the government to participate in tackling the following issues: a) conflict between farmers and cattle breeders and access to land and water; b) the issue of diyah; c) the role of traditional chiefs; d) the spread and circulation of weapons and regional disarmament; and e) reconciliation and harmonious coexistence of communities. 2. Agree, at the conclusion of this conference, to a permanent mediation council composed of key figures from the East who are accepted by the participants of the conference and who would monitor implementation of the conference’s resolutions and mediate between the government and local chiefs. 3. Cooperate with MINURCAT and do not restrict the movement of its personnel. 4.!Open a new round of negotiations with the rebel groups based on the Syrte Agreement in order to agree on a sustainable ceasefire, define assembly points and create a joint military commission. 5.!End any support for Chadian militias as well as, in accordance with the Dakar Agreement, for Sudanese armed groups and work towards normalization of bilateral relations with Sudan. To Chadian Rebel Groups: 6. Agree to a long-lasting ceasefire and resume, under UN oversight, dialogue with the Chadian government on the basis of the Syrte Agreement and support the holding of a peace conference on eastern Chad. To the Government of Sudan: 7. End support for incursions and armed attacks by Chadian rebels operating from Sudanese territory and work towards normalization of bilateral relations with Chad in accordance with the Dakar Agreement. To the United Nations Security Council: 8. Mandate MINURCAT to organize the peace conference for eastern Chad and act as a neutral body for the selection of its participants. 9. Ensure MINURCAT has all necessary troops and equipment to fulfill its mandate, including helicopters. To the UN Secretary General: 10.!Appoint a special envoy to lead the negotiations relating to the peace conference for eastern Chad. To MINURCAT: 11.!Monitor the Chadian police and gendarmes who staff the UN-created Détachement Intégré de Sécurité (DIS) rigorously in order to improve protection of refugees and internally displaced persons. 12. Accelerate troop deployment. To the Government of France: 13. Support diplomatically and financially the organization of the peace conference on eastern Chad and make its financial, military and political support to the government conditional on progress in that conference and other national conflict resolution mechanisms. To the European Union: 14. Finance and help organize the peace conference on eastern Chad. To the Government of Libya, the African Union, and the wider International Community: 15. Support diplomatically and financially the organization of the peace conference on eastern Chad. 16. Help obtain Chadian and Sudanese respect for the Dakar Agreement. 17. Press the Chadian government and rebel groups to resume talks on the basis of the Syrte Agreement.”

In Zimbabwe, the struggle for power has continued within the coalition government between President Mugabe (and his supporters) and his opponents seeking a more representative regime. ICG, “Zimbabwe: Engaging the Inclusive Government,” April 20, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6064&l=1, proposed, "After years of violence, repression and a catastrophic economy, there is optimism Zimbabwe is turning a corner, but the international community must do more to make the process irreversible." After a disastrous decade in which the President ruined the country in his attempt to hold on to power, finally agreeing to a "power sharing" arrangement with the opposition in yet another maneuver to try to remain in office, "there is considerable international skepticism whether the flawed arrangement can succeed. President Robert Mugabe has described the inclusive government as a temporary one in which his ZANU-PF party remains in control. But Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai sees it as a transitional process that can stabilize the country, leading to elections under a new constitution in two years. 'There are signs that a more constructive political dynamic is developing, including within the parliament, the one institution with some democratic legitimacy and where cross-party collaboration will be needed to pass major reform legislation', says François Grignon, Crisis Group's Africa Program Director. While the humanitarian and economic situations remain dire, many schools have reopened, prices have stabilized, and basic stocks are returning to shops. As a result, the credibility of Tsvangirai, who leads the main faction of the divided Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), is rising. However, hard-line members of the security establishment are trying to cause the new government to fail by tactics that include continuing arrests and detention of activists, refusal of police to carry out some government orders and efforts to drive out the last few hundred white farmers by continued farm invasions. To counter the risk of an attack against Tsvangirai or a military coup, a South Africa-led negotiation is needed to have the hardliners accept retirement before the elections, in exchange for limited immunity from prosecution for political crimes. It would be premature for the U.S., the European Union and others to remove their visa bans and asset freezes against key members of the Mugabe regime at this stage or to give the government direct budget support. To lessen the suffering and support the dynamics of change, however, donors should reengage and inject significant resources under a 'humanitarian plus' approach that aims for both relief and rapid recovery. 'If the international community stands back with a wait-and-see attitude, the unity government is likely to fail, and Mugabe and the military establishment will entrench themselves again, warns Donald Steinberg, Crisis Group Deputy President. 'There http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6064&l=1.'"

In July, Zimbabwe’s Premier Morgan Tsvangirai – an opposition member of the “coalition government” still carrying out the struggle between President Mugabe and the opposition – announced, at the beginning of July, that he had obtained s $950 line of credit for his nation from China (Celia Dugger and Michael Wines, “Zimbabwe Gets Credit Line From China,” The New York Times, July 1, 2009). Human Rights Watch 51 charged, in June, that President Mugabe’s Party violently took over illicit diamond mines, in 2008, using the illegal funds obtained there to buy loyalty from restive soldiers and enrich party leaders (Celia W. Dugger, “Report Says Zimbabwe’s Army Violently Took Control of Diamond Fields,” The New York Times, June 27, 2009).

Donald Steinberg and Fouad Hikmat, “Sudan: ‘Keeping Our Eyes on the Prize,’" allAfrica, May 4, 2009, allAfrica, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6087&l=1, asserts that the Khartoum government has changed the international focus and debate by expelling international aid workers, assisting 3 million displaced people in Darfur, – in response to the indictment of the county’s president by the International Criminal Court – away from pressuring the government to peruse peace, to trying to get it to let the aid agencies back in. The impact is devastating in worsening the already deplorable conditions in which people under attack, mostly displaced, try to survive, while making the surrounding region less stable. “Still, there are signs that Khartoum may have gone too far. Public displays of support from Arab and African leaders are grudgingly given, and are accompanied by private statements that Khartoum expulsion of aid agencies was both a moral and tactical blunder, showing its callous disregard for its own people. Further, the Obama Administration has tapped Scott Gration as his special envoy to Sudan, tasking him - along with Senator John Kerry -- with testing the value of engaging the regime. With Obama's own brand of magic behind him, Gration will first push for the full restoration of humanitarian assistance for the displaced. If Bashir senses that his martyr's role is wearing thin, the sands may indeed start shifting. But Gration cannot stop there, as he well knows. He needs to build on any progress in negotiations by securing tangible and permanent steps from Khartoum to produce a peaceful settlement of the Darfur crisis, including through ongoing negotiations; to end its annihilation campaign in Darfur; and to guarantee Darfuri participation in next year's general elections. The ruling National Congress Party must also fully implement its side of the CPA, including by rapidly demarcating the 1956 North-South border, repealing repressive laws on the media and civil society, and making national security and intelligence agencies accountable to other national institutions. At the same time, the Darfur rebel groups and the Sudanese People's Liberation Movement must also be pressed to demonstrate equal commitments to a peaceful settlement in Darfur and implementation of the CPA. In particular, the various Darfuri factional leaders must be told that they cannot sit comfortably in Paris, London and Ndjamena and use Bashir's actions as an excuse to stay away from peace talks in Doha, Qatar. They do not get to pick their negotiating partner, and refusing to talk would only hurt their own people. The fate of the people of Darfur and the rest of Sudan depends upon whether the international community can avoid falling for Bashir's latest act of legerdemain, and keep its eyes on the true prize: a just and lasting peace in Sudan.”

ICG spoke in the same vein more recently in, “Sudan: Justice, Peace and the ICC,” Africa Report N°152, July 17, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6226&l=1, saying “The International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant against President Bashir for atrocity crimes in Darfur has brought Sudan to a new decision point. The long-ruling National Congress Party (NCP) has defied the court, gained African Union (AU) and Arab League pressure on the Security Council to suspend the case and restricted humanitarian aid in Darfur, putting several million internally displaced persons (IDPs) and others at risk. Darfur rebels have been emboldened, reducing prospects for diplomatic progress. Simultaneously, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) that ended the North-South civil war is unraveling. As a new U.S. special representative begins to make his mark, the international community may be ready to sacrifice the justice issue for a quick-fix deal that would ensure elections in 2010. But Sudan will have peace only when its impunity system is dismantled. The right course is to build leverage by strongly backing the ICC so as to persuade the NCP that it will only secure the deferral of Bashir’s case by adopting and implementing serious reforms.” “What is needed is not to sacrifice peace in Darfur to save the CPA – in any event a self-defeating proposition – but to strengthen peacebuilding throughout Sudan by taking aim at the system of impunity that has led to and prolonged the country’s multiple conflicts. To the National Congress Party: 1.!Implement legal and judicial measures to end impunity in Darfur, such as: a) appointing non-partisan judges, including in the special courts; b) ensuring the independence of courts, reviewing police investigation, arrest and prosecution procedures and replacing the chief justices and police commanders in the three Darfur states; c) holding all government forces and associated militias accountable for their violations of international humanitarian law, such as attacks on civilians; destruction of property, livelihoods and means of sustenance, including wells and granaries; murder; forcible transfer of populations; and inhumane acts such as torture and rape; and d) amending the provisions in the police law, the criminal law and the criminal procedural law that give the police and security personnel immunity. 2. Review the security management committee in each Darfur state and allow UNAMID to participate in it. 3. Replace the governors and their deputies by technocrats to administer the three Darfur states until elections. 4. Persuade President Bashir to step down as soon as possible, and in any event before the general elections. 5. Nominate another presidential candidate and agree with the GNU to postpone the election to 2011, so as to give time for Darfur’s stabilization and allow fair 52 Darfuri participation in the process. 6. Engage genuinely with the ICC. 7. Prosecute officials for whom the ICC has issued arrest warrants, by first suspending Ahmed Haroun, governor of Southern Kordofan state, and then bringing him and militia commander Ali Kushayb to trial in a credibly independent Sudanese court for the alleged crimes that are the subject of the ICC proceedings. 8. Suspend application of any court decisions on political and military prisoners in Darfur pending a final peace agreement there. 9.!Establish a Transitional Darfur Task Force (TDTF), a high-level committee comprised of the president, first vice president, special envoy of the UN/AU, chief commander of UNAMID and the justice, interior and humanitarian affairs ministers, to monitor implementation of the above judicial and accountability measures. 10. Accept and implement a comprehensive ceasefire in the three Darfur states through the Doha peace process. 11. Participate in the UN/AU/Qatar- supported Doha peace process and accept and implement a comprehensive ceasefire in Darfur, as well as judicial reforms and transitional justice mechanisms, as key components for settlement of the conflict. To the Permanent Members of the UN Security Council, particularly the U.S. and China: 12. Affirm their support for the ICC and insist that Sudan and other countries cooperate with the execution of the arrest warrants, unless or until the Security Council defers the prosecutions in accordance with Article 16 of the Rome Statute. 13.!Agree to deferral on the basis of Article 16 only on condition that the Government of Sudan first implements the measures set out above. 14. Recommend to the UN/AU special envoy in charge of the Darfur peace process that judicial reforms and transitional justice mechanisms be included as key components of any settlement. To the UN and AU Special Envoy, Djibrill Bassolé: 15. Put judicial reforms and transitional justice mechanisms such as a truth and reconciliation commission and vetting procedures prominently on the Doha agenda. To the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court: 16. Proceed with investigations into crimes allegedly committed by other senior Sudanese officials and rebel leaders in Darfur and consider seriously the option of sealed arrest warrants where appropriate. To the African Union Panel on Darfur (AUPD): 17. Request the NCP to demonstrate progress in national investigations into the policies that drove the crimes and support the inclusion of judicial reforms, lifting of institutionalized immunities and the establishment of credible transitional justice mechanisms as key elements of the Darfur peace process. 18.!Recommend practical measures for transforming the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights into a court able to conduct trials for atrocity crimes on the continent.

In July, United Nations Secretary General Man Ki-moon stated that Sudan’s government cooperation with peacekeepers had improved in Darfur, at lest for the moment making major violence rare, but the extreme humanitarian crisis continued (“Sudan: Cooperation Better U.N. Finds,” The New York Times, July 21, 2009). The Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague, in July, redrew the boarder between the north and south in a disputed oil rich area of Sudan, in an effort to keep the peace (Sharon Otterman, “Court Redraws Disputed Zone in Sudan in Effort to Keep North and South at Peace,” The New York Times, July 23, 2009).

Daniela Kroslak and Andrew Stroehlein, “Somalia: ‘The Key to Security at Sea Is Stability on Land’,” The Independent, April 17, 2009,,http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6061&l=1, comments, “Piracy off the coast of the Horn of Africa is merely a symptom, not the disease. The underlying issue is that the world has left Somalia to fester as a failed state for 18 years.” “The chaos has given birth to extremism and terrorism. True, optimism is not in huge supply when it comes to Somalia, but with the right international approach, there are a few green shoots of hope that might be nurtured into some sort of stability. Although Somali President Sheikh Sharif has been having a hard time consolidating the newly formed Government of National Unity, his efforts in reaching out to radicals, and their willingness to engage with him, have shown it is possible to draw their leaders into a negotiation process - if they see that they can gain from it. The epicenter of the problem manifested in the piracy upsurge is the semi-autonomous region of Puntland. After being a relative success story within Somalia, Puntland risks becoming another failure. The international community needs to focus on training a coastguard and security forces more widely and engage with pirate groups to draw them into a refashioned security sector. This has to go hand-in-hand with an economic rescue package that would revive Puntland and create an alternative for those drawn to piracy out of sheer survival. The international community should also draw up a list of individuals who pull the strings of the piracy business, undercut their distribution systems and threaten travel bans and legal procedures against those - the majority, in fact - who have dual Somali/Western nationality. Instead of conducting military operations that would give the pirates and the insurgency a common cause, the international community should bring radicals to the negotiation table and be willing to make concessions to them for the benefit of peace, if and when they abandon their aggressive anti-government campaign.”

William Minter and Daniel Volmanm “The Somalia Crossroads: Piracy and insurgency tempt Washington to get it wrong again,” In These Times, July 2009, warn that the combination of piracy and the likely increase of al Queada activity in Somalia – including raids elsewhere, based in Somalia – could draw the U.S. into another quagmire, there.

The United Nations Refugee Agency reported, in July, that so far in 2009 536,00 people had been left homeless by fighting between the government and Hutu rebels in the Easton Congo (“Congo: U.N. Agency 53 Reports 536,00 Left Homeless,: The New York Times, July 25, 2009).

ICG, “Congo: Five Priorities for a Peacebuilding Strategy, May 11, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6095&l=1, Asserts, “The dire situation in the Kivus region of Congo will not improve without a comprehensive strategy of sustained political and results-oriented partnership between the government and the international community.” “The five-week joint military operation between the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda against Rwandan Hutu rebels, the Forces Démocratiques pour la Libération du Rwanda (FDLR), in the Kivus….did not produce significant results and highlights the need for a new tack.” “Full normalization of relations between Congo and Rwanda is essential if the eastern Congo and the Great Lakes region as a whole are to be stabilized. The agreement under which Rwanda accepted to withdraw its support for the renegade General Laurent Nkunda’s Congrès National pour la Défense du Peuple (CNDP) insurgency and simultaneously press it to accept integration into the national army, while Kinshasa agreed to a joint military strike on its territory with the Rwandan army against the successors of the 1994 genocidaires, is an attempt to address a problem that has poisoned bilateral relations for fifteen years. But the FDLR remains powerful, with up to 6,000 fighters, a strong chain of command and a political branch disseminating propaganda abroad. Its existence as a fighting force continues to disrupt efforts to build peace in the region. Former CNDP leaders and Congolese army commanders have a horrendous record of causing severe suffering to civilians during their operations and of active involvement in the illegal exploitation of natural resources in North Kivu. Sexual violence has taken a catastrophic toll on the Kivu population and must be addressed decisively. A peacebuilding strategy for the Congo should have five priorities: credible and comprehensive disarmament strategy for dealing with Rwandan Hutu rebels in both North and South Kivu; reform of the security sector; fostering reconciliation and human security; political engagement dedicated to improving governance; and continuing efforts to sustain stabile regional relations. The international monitoring group chaired by UN Special Envoy Olusegun Obasanjo and Great Lakes Envoy Benjamin Mkapa should work with both governments to support and implement this peacebuilding strategy, while donors should condition their support on adoption and implementation by Kinshasa of a comprehensive package of judicial measures to fight impunity.” François Grignon, Director of Crisis Group’s Africa Program, foresees, ‘Unless momentum for radical reforms and decisive action against impunity are fostered, the Kivus will revert into a new state of low-intensity conflict under the radar screen of capitals but with continuing tragic consequences for its civilians. Now is the time to concentrate efforts on a comprehensive strategy and on keeping both Rwanda and the Congo under pressure to abide by all the commitments they have made in the past few months.’”

In July, ICG followed up in proposing ways to disarm the FLDR in, “Congo: A Comprehensive Strategy to Disarm the FDLR,” Africa Report N°151, July 9. 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6209&l=1, suggesting, “a new comprehensive strategy involving national, regional and international actors, with a clear division of labor and better coordination, so as to take advantage of the recent improvement of relations between the Congo and Rwanda, put an end to the enormous civilian suffering and restore state authority in the Congo’s eastern provinces. Its prominent components include: civilian protection by responsible Congolese security forces and the UN peacekeeping mission (MONUC); a reformed disarmament and demobilization program involving psychological operations and informational campaigns as well as options for return or resettlement (including in third countries); Rwanda’s development of a list of FDLR génocidaires in eastern Congo and their subsequent isolation by sophisticated psychological operations, accompanied by talks with commanders not involved in the 1994 genocide; in due course, limited military actions by Congolese army units specifically trained to weaken the command and control structure of the rebels in coordination with Rwandan forces; legal initiatives in third countries to block propaganda and support from FDLR leaders outside the DRC; consolidation of Rwanda-Congo relations; and dividends to the people of the Great Lakes region through economic and social development.” The full article contains an extensive set of specific recommended actions.

A referendum on Niger, in early August, that opposition officials claim is essentially a coup d’état, has secured another three years in office with no limits for future terms for President Mamadou Tandja (Adam Nossiter, “President Claims More Power in Niger’s Disputed Referendum,” The New York Times, August 7, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/08/world/africa/08niger.html?ref=world).

Feuding leaders in Madagascar agreed on a power sharing arrangement, in early August, setting up an interim government until a new election within 15 months. Seven months earlier, President Marc Ravalomanana was overthrown by Andry Rajoelina, the mayor of the capital city, Antananarivo, who had the support of the military. Those months have been marked by sometimes violent struggle, during which there have been truce agreements, but they have failed to hold. (Barry Bearak, “Madagascar Political Rivals Agree to Power-Sharing Deal,” August 9, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/world/africa/10madagascar.html?ref=world)..

54 ICG, “Burundi: Integrating the FNL Successfully,” July 30, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6249&l=1&m=1, found, “The peace process in Burundi has made considerable progress in recent months, but its further consolidation is necessary for successful presidential elections in 2010 and to put a permanent end to the threat of armed conflict.” “There have been encouraging developments. Since last December, the former rebels of the National Forces of Liberation (FNL) have met legal requirements by dropping the ethnic reference “Hutu” from their name. They have integrated some of their combatants into the security forces, demobilized others and registered as a political party. There are, however, reasons for concern. Burundi is not yet free of violence. The former rebels have not turned in all their arms, and like the party in power, the CNDD- FDD, they seem ready to use any means, including violence, to win the 2010 elections. The government accuses the FNL of abusing the population, while the former rebels say the authorities subject them to persecution and arrest. To preserve the peace process, the FNL must stop levying illegal taxes, mistreating civilians and using violence against local officials. For their part, the authorities must end arbitrary arrests, prolonged detentions and improper treatment of FNL supporters. ‘If the peace process is to continue and the elections in 2010 to be held successfully, both the FNL and the government must renounce violence and respect the individual and political rights of others’, says François Grignon, Crisis Group’s Africa Program Director. ‘Moreover, they must play by the rules and not resort to illegal means to bolster their political position’. “Recent positive developments are in part linked to the involvement of regional states and the broader international community. The Partnership for Peace in Burundi, a new mechanism, chaired by South Africa and including the UN, the African Union, Uganda and Tanzania, can play a key role in keeping the peace process moving forward. It should take responsibility for mobilizing regional states and the broader international community and for proposing sanctions or other corrective measures as needed.”

ICG, “Côte d'Ivoire: What's Needed to End the Crisis,” Africa Briefing N°62, July 2, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6202&l=1, “On 4 March 2007, the two main actors in the Côte d’Ivoire crisis signed the Ouagadougou Peace Agreement (OPA). The deal initially produced a peaceful atmosphere. The demarcation line between the armed forces was dismantled, a new government formed and the groundwork laid for addressing the conflict’s key questions: Ivorian identity and citizenship, and presidential legitimacy. Yet, more than two years later, the OPA is in deep trouble. The conflict will only be resolved if the commitments made in the Burkinabé capital are finally translated into action. Organizing credible elections will not be enough to rescue Côte d’Ivoire from a decade-long crisis; substantial progress in the disarmament process and genuine reunification of the administration are also needed. President Compaoré’s facilitation needs to generate new momentum, and other international partners must increase their pressure. Political leaders have been pushed to the wall, with less than a half-year left to organize free and transparent elections as agreed and proceed with disarming thousands of combatants. Another postponement of elections would be a death blow to the OPA. If armed groups are not at least partially dismantled, there will be a severe risk of new unrest.” “Disarmament has been limited to a few instances of small arms destruction. Both sides maintain significant forces and continue to import military equipment, in violation of the UN arms embargo. This poses a real threat to the electoral process, since they can intimidate voters and possibly manipulate results or violently contest them. 5,000 Forces Nouvelles ex-rebel combatants are still awaiting integration into the new army, and the military zone commanders (“com’zones”) in the formerly insurgent north retain personal protection units with hundreds of fighters. A 20,000-strong militia of Gbagbo loyalists is yet to be dismantled, and his “young patriots” networks in Abidjan have not been dissolved.” “The following measures must be taken to advance peace in 2009: On the electoral process. Data processing, including opening the planned 68 data processing centers, must start as soon as possible. The Independent Electoral Commission and the commercial technical body that has been hired must present a detailed plan for distributing polling cards and launch an information campaign to give people precise information on where and how to get them. The Prime Minister must supervise the electoral process and surround himself with a more competent team able to coordinate it. On disarmament. Gbagbo and Soro must take responsibility to speed up the integration of their respective forces into the joint police and gendarmerie and to start reform of the national army, which is supposed to take in 5,000 ex-rebels. Both sides must finally engage in real disarmament by registering and giving up their weapons and ammunition in parallel. On administrative reunification. Prime Minister Soro should strengthen his cabinet with more experienced and competent staff. A single administration is needed in the entire country by year’s end. Prefects and mayors must receive adequate financial and logistical means to restore civilian state authority in former rebel zones. The northern boundary should be secured by state police and customs officers, rather than former rebels. The UN Security Council should increase pressure on Ivorian leaders and France make resumption of full cooperation conditional on free and transparent elections and a peaceful post-electoral period. The Burkinabé facilitation should be reinforced and, with Soro’s help, negotiate directly with each “com’zone” over their integration and work with Gbagbo to dismantle his various militias.”

ICG, “Guinea-Bissau: Beyond Rule of the Gun, Africa Briefing N°61, June, 25, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6177&l=1, “The assassinations of the chief of defense staff, General Batista Tagme Na Wai, on 1 March 2009 and President Joao Bernardo Nino Vieira early the next 55 day have plunged Guinea-Bissau into deep uncertainty. National Assembly Speaker Raimundo Pereira was quickly sworn in as interim president pending the election the constitution requires. That the killings occurred only months after the acclaimed November parliamentary elections, however, indicates that, in current circumstances, the democratic process cannot cope with the rule of the gun, as well as the extent to which the military’s use of force has overwhelmed state institutions. Without outside help to end military involvement in politics and impunity, it may be impossible to halt a slide into further violence. Elites need to stand up to the military, but they require support. The international community should work for an international or hybrid commission of inquiry into the killings. Security system reform needs to be improved by better international coordination and creation of a national commission with enhanced autonomy.” “Since the return to multi-party rule in 1994, no president has successfully completed the constitutionally-mandated five-year term. General Tagme is the third chief of defense staff to be assassinated in nine years. Although the violence pre-dates the surge of organized drug trafficking in the region, the possibility of huge illicit riches has increased the stakes in the power struggle, leading to a vicious cycle of criminality and political instability, the beginnings of which are visible not only in Guinea-Bissau but also in neighboring Guinea. Recent events point to increasing factionalism in the military, which could pose a serious challenge to current efforts to reform the army.” ”To begin to build political stability through the de-militarization of political power, the following measures should be pursued by political and military elites in the country and supported by the international community, particularly the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the Community of Portuguese Speaking Countries (Comunidade dos Paises de Lingua Portuguesa, CPLP) and the UN: Guinea-Bissau’s political elites, in particular the new president, should fully and decisively implement reform of the armed forces, prioritizing the planned reduction from 4,458 to 3,500 troops. They must stop looking to the military to settle or adjudicate political disputes and desist from creating client groups in the army. The military itself must realize that its continued involvement in politics and related violence has seriously eroded its once proud legacy. If it is to regain public trust, it must turn away from this and embrace professional reform. Senior officers should consider early retirement and postings to regional and wider international peacekeeping operations as honorable options for ending their careers. The international community must send a strong signal that the continued use of force and human rights abuses are unacceptable and will entail consequences. The international force to protect state institutions and civilian politicians that some former senior Bissau-Guinean officials have proposed should be established. Likewise, an international or hybrid commission of enquiry into the assassinations backed by a UN Security Council mandate should be negotiated with the new president, as several Bissau-Guinean politicians have urged, and pushed hard if, under pressure from the armed forces, he proves reluctant. Security system reform (SSR) needs to be much better coordinated between the UN and the European Union (EU); a lead country should be identified for implementation, possibly Portugal, the former colonial power; and a trust fund created and the number of direct donors reduced. Domestic ownership of the process should eventually be enhanced through establishment of a national commission, with greater autonomy than the current steering committee.

The state run (but well respected and independent) human rights agency in Kenya released a report, in July, naming more than 200 suspects, including some government ministers, as perpetrators in the post election violence, in 2008, that killed over 1000 people (“Kenya: Report on Post Election Violence, The New York Times, July 21, 2009). Western counter terrorism experts have expressed concern that al Quaked members may come into Kenya from Sudan and attack Western interests and people there (“Jeffery Gettleman, “Radical Islamists Slipping Easily into Kenya,” The New York Times, July 27, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/22/world/africa/22shabab.html&OQ=_rQ3D1Q26sc pQ3D1Q26sqQ3DRadicalQ2520IslamistsQ2520SlippingQ2520EasilyQ2520intoQ2520KenyaQ26stQ3Dcse&OP=36e00a31Q2FV 1KQ7DVGQ24Q27,Q2AQ24Q244Q2BVQ2BAAQ2FVA3VQ2BQ2BV1Q24Q2A@GVPQ7CQ2AdQ27PVQ2BQ2B,Q5EPQ7DPQ7D(Q5 E4j@ ). A Scottish gem expert and mine owner was killed near Voi, in southern Kenya, August 12, by an angry mob during a dispute over mining in a national park (“Kenya: Scotsman Is Killed in a Mining Dispute,” The New York Times, August 12, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/world/africa/13briefs-Kenya.html?ref=todayspaper).

Crime continues to be a major problem in South Africa, with the poor the most common victims. In some low income areas, where the police are often absent and very ineffective, mob violence is a major problem, as groups of angry citizens often lynch suspected criminals (Bary Bearak, “Constant Fear and Mob Rule in South Africa Slum, The New York Times, June 30, 2009.

Latin American Developments

Seven Latin American finance ministers have agreed on the basis for establishing the Bank of the South, in order to have an alternative to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund for development aid. (Tony Phillips, “South American Nations Agree on Technical Rules for Bank of the South, Americas Updater, June 16, 2009, http://americas.irc-online.org/am/6157).

56 Laura Carlsen, “The Lack of Leadership at the North American Leaders Summit,” Americas Updater, May 14, 2009, http://app.streamsend.com/c/5592271/54121/jqRxY60/iKs8?redirect_to=http%3A%2F%2Famericasprogram.wordpress.co m%2F2009%2F08%2F14%2Fthe-deficit-of-leadership-at-the-north-american-leaders- summit%2F%3Futm_source%3Dstreamsend%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_conten, states, “Times of crisis require bold leadership and innovative solutions. They are a sign of the need to break out of failed paradigms and unite people to create new ones. Exactly the opposite happened when the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States met at the North American Leaders Summit in Guadalajara on August 9-10. Instead of leadership, Presidents Calderon and Obama and Prime Minister Harper showed a penchant for generalities, conflict avoidance, and the formulaic proposals. A close look at four critical issues—NAFTA renegotiation, the drug war, the swine flu pandemic, and immigration—reveals the weakness of the official response and offers some suggestions for a renewed civil society agenda on regional integration.”

Laura Carlsen, “House and Senate Pass New Military Aid to Mexico,” Americas Updater, June 11, 2009, http://americas.irc-online.org/am/6122, reflects, “Poor Mexico has suffered a series of hard blows lately. From elections that left a bitterly divided populace, to a blood-soaked drug war, to the economic crisis, to the swine flu epidemic, nothing seems to be going right. Now heaped on top of all that is a little-known measure buried in the U.S. 2009 Supplemental Bill to provide millions of dollars to corrupt Mexican security forces engaged in an unwinnable drug war. Disguised as a way of "helping" our beleaguered neighbor, the measure will push Mexico closer to a Colombia scenario and create a new quagmire to suck up scarce public resources.”

The drug war between the army and drug cartels in Mexico continues to be exceedingly deadly, as exemplified by the August 6 battle between police officers and gunmen that left 12 people dead in the central Mexican city of Pachuca (“Mexico: 12 Killed in Street Battle,” The New York Times, August 7, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/08/world/americas/08briefs-Mexbrf.html?ref=world). In August, U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy, chair of the subcommittee overseeing state department spending, discouraged the Secretary of State from releasing a favorable report on Mexico’s human rights record, an action that would release $100 million in U.S. anti-drug assistance funding to Mexico (“Mexico: Leahy Balks at Mexico Report,” The New York Times, August 6, 2009).

Cliff DuRand, “The Exhaustion of Neo-Liberalism in Mexico” Global Justice Center, http://www.globaljusticecenter.org/articles/the_exhaustion_of_neo.html, gives “an overview of the failure of neo- liberalism in the one country of the global South that perhaps went the farthest in turning its society in that direction. That country is Mexico. And the policies that have reshaped the country are those that grew out of NAFTA. Mexico is an ideal laboratory in which to observe the effects of corporate led neo-liberal globalization –both in its heyday, and now in its crisis.”

ICG, "Haiti: Saving the Environment, Preventing Instability and Conflict," April 28, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6078&l=1, urges, "Haiti's environmental destruction is a time bomb that needs urgent attention if the country is to preserve its social and economic stability." "The combination of environmental destruction and other factors such as weak institutions, extreme poverty and rapid population growth raise the risk of serious new trouble in the island republic. Concerted national and international action, both immediate and longer-term, is needed to avoid the country slipping back into instability." Bernice Robertson, Crisis Group's Haiti Analyst, points out, "The catastrophic state of the environment is closely related to deep-seated institutional, political and governance problems. Coherent national socio-economic development policies have been mostly absent, due to management and political limitations and the narrow interests of those holding economic power." "For years, severe environmental problems have been among the roots of Haiti's social, economic and even political crises. Haiti is one of the world's most natural disaster-prone countries, due to its location in the high latitude tropics, mountainous terrain rising to almost 2,700 meters above sea level and severely degraded environment. Following the devastating floods of 2004, which killed approximately 3,000, Crisis Group warned about future ecological disasters. In 2008, a succession of hurricanes and tropical storms killed close to 800 and left some 100,000 homeless. Efforts to halt the depletion of the natural environment are essential to prevent new instability. The government, with international help, needs to reach out to local communities to make them full partners in reducing environmental degradation. Hurricane-preparedness is another urgent matter. With parliament's approval of the 2008-2009 budget last week, the government should launch its announced pre-hurricane season program immediately. 'Success in environmental rehabilitation depends in large part on good cooperation between those over-using the natural resources and those seeking to better manage them.' argues Markus Schultze-Kraft, Crisis Group's Latin America Program Director. 'The approach to halting and eventually reversing Haiti‚s environmental problems must contain that same strong social component that is fundamental for reducing the risk of renewed violent conflict.'" 57 Robert E. White, “No Going Back: Why the Coup in Honduras Won't—and Shouldn't—Succeed,” Americas Updater, July 22, 2009, http://americas.irc-online.org/am/6260, asserts, “Honduras has suffered a coup d'état at the hands of congressional leaders and the commanding officers of the armed forces. Provided that the United States stands firmly with its partners in Latin America, this revolt against the constitutional order will certainly fall apart. To fail to restore President Manuel Zelaya to power in Honduras would risk reviving in Central America that dark era when the rights of free speech and assembly were curtailed and civilians could govern only within limits set by military leaders. The crisis in Honduras should remind the Obama administration that it has inherited an inadequate policy toward Central America. While President Chavez supplies cheap oil to favored regional allies, the United States supplies funding for the war on drugs and military assistance. Civilian leaders are understandably skeptical of a drug war that only seems to have increased corruption and violence in their countries. Elected presidents also worry that Washington's counter-narcotics program gives the militaries of Central America a license to intervene in the internal affairs of their nations—a role expressly forbidden by the constitutions of all countries in the region. Recent events in Honduras confirm that these fears are well founded.”

Grass Roots International (179 Boylston Street, 4th floor, Boston MA, [email protected]) reported, July 27, that repression in Honduras is continuing, "Over the weekend, Rafael Alegría, a prominent leader of the Via Campesina Central America and outspoken critic of the recent military coup in Honduras, was arrested along with several others including colleagues from the Civic Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras (COPINH).! Some information alleges that a number of the detainees have been tortured."

Dick Emanuelsson, “Military Forces Sow Terror and Fear in Honduras,” May 14, 2009, http://app.streamsend.com/c/5592271/54151/jqRxY60/iKs8?redirect_to=http%3A%2F%2Famericas.irc- online.org%2Fam%2F6354%3Futm_source%3Dstreamsend%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_content%3D5592271%26ut m_campaign%3D%255BAmericas%2520Updater%255D%2520%2520Leadership, reports, “Upon sending in his second Special Report for the Americas Program, Dick Emanuelsson commented on the critical situation being faced in Honduras: ‘This situation has become ugly. There are signs that the situation shares many characteristics of the Chilean dictatorship. That is why it is so important that the world not forget this small and poor country that is made up of a people that has awakened and taken to the streets en masse every day.’ His account of the events of Tuesday and Wednesday clearly describe the wave of repression that is taking place in the two largest cities of Honduras, Tegucigalpa and San Pedro Sula. ‘The peaceful marches that for 46 days have maintained an order not to respond to provocations have been attacked by army units, the Cobra Command, and the national police. There are many accounts that the armed forces, police, and mayor's office of Tegucigalpa have sent infiltrators into the marches...’"

John Feffer, Foreign Policy in Focus, World Beat, "School of Coups," July 28, 2009, Vol. 4, No. 30, www.fpif.org, states, "The United States is still running its School of Americas (SOA) under a different name - the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation - at Fort Benning in Georgia. The institution earned the nickname "school of coups" because it has trained so many Latin American officers and soldiers who subsequently seized power from civilian leaders. Those same fingerprints can be found on the latest coup in Honduras. 'School rosters obtained through the Freedom of Information Act show that General Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, leader of the recent Honduran coup, trained there in 1976 and 1984,' write FPIF contributors Father Roy Bourgeois and Margaret Knapke in School of Coups. 'He was assisted in deposing President Zelaya by General Luis Javier Prince Suazo, head of the Honduran Air Force, who in 1996 rather presciently took an SOA course in Joint Operations.' The more recent relationship between the United States and Honduras has been even more troubling. 'With regard to U.S. military goals, the Honduran military has been loyal, providing a continuous base of operations at Soto Cano, 60 miles outside of the capital, Tegucigalpa, and supplying troops who are stationed in Iraq," writes FPIF contributor Lynn Holland in Honduras: A Broken System. 'In reward for this loyalty, the military is substantially provided with military assistance from the United States. Unfortunately, this very assistance has bolstered the power of the armed forces against that of civil society. In addition, the courageous efforts of political reformers to subordinate the military to civil government and strengthen the rule of law have been undermined.' The Obama administration is repeating this same mistake in Colombia. Obama recently met with Colombian President Álvaro Uribe in the Oval Office. 'The two countries are negotiating an agreement for five military bases in Colombia that would replace not only the U.S. airbase in Ecuador, but much of the controversial Plan Colombia,' writes FPIF contributor John Lindsay-Poland in Revamping Plan Colombia. 'With bases in place for 10 years and more, and the secrecy that accompanies such installations, the proposed agreement would constitute an end-run around the struggles to make U.S. policy in Colombia and the region less militarized'."

Mark Schneider, “Guatemala: ’The Next to Fall?’" GlobalPost, April 15 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6060&l=1, finds that “Mexico's southern neighbor is in danger 58 of becoming a failed state.” “Reeling from gangs, corruption and pervasive poverty, Guatemala now faces well-armed, well-financed drug cartels. Narco traffickers and organized criminals dominate an estimated 40 percent of the country, from the Mexican border to the Caribbean coast, as well as in the little-populated Mayan jungle and forest preserves of the Peten. Opium poppy fields grow freely. The major threat, though, comes from more than $10 billion in cocaine passing through Guatemala each year, with a tenth of the money laundered in the country and used to bribe officials. The drug lords and their friends have become the self- ordained local governments and police, either directly or by buying off others. The Sinaloa Cartel, which has run cocaine trafficking in Guatemala for the past several years, is pitted against the Gulf Cartel newcomers. Their "Zetas" (paid assassins) are ratcheting up violence that inevitably hits "civilians." Last year there were more than 6,200 homicides reported in Guatemala.” “Marauding gang members rule entire urban neighborhoods, routinely abusing women and children. Kidnapping doubled last year to 438 cases, and there have been dozens more victims this year. Most suspect "dirty" or former police are behind the snatchings. If thugs and drug dealers are caught, they are rarely successfully prosecuted. Impunity results from corruption and intimidation of police, prosecutors and judges.” “All efforts to deal with gangs, drugs and crime are made more difficult by Guatemala's history. For decades, Guatemala's elite simply has not allowed tax revenues to rise enough to fund needed schools, health clinics, rural development or justice. The 1996 peace accords that ended decades of civil conflict included unmet commitments to drastically reduce poverty, particularly among indigenous Mayan peoples who comprise a majority of Guatemala's population. The World Bank reports that only 14% of all indigenous children are enrolled in secondary school. And at 44%, Guatemala's child malnutrition rate is not only the highest in Latin America, it is among the worst in the world. In the cities, growing numbers of unemployed, unskilled youth are ready recruits for Maras and traffickers.” “The answer lies not in growing the military, which the peace accords reduced by half from 62,000 to some 30,000, and which the past government cut even further, to 16,000. New security sector resources should be dedicated primarily to civilian law enforcement, training prosecutors and judiciary and re-building police - including vetted muscular units - that can go toe to toe with the traffickers. That is the only sustainable way to combat drug traffickers. A recent national security agenda agreed to by the government, church and civil society is a hopeful sign. With U.S. encouragement, Guatemalan President Alvaro Colom has proposed adding 4,800 new police recruits this year and creating police units to hunt drug traffickers, organized crime heads and the most vicious Maras. In addition, he has proposed adopting the "high impact" court recommendation of the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG), to get a few serious crime courts able to withstand intimidation. Originally established by the United Nations to investigate the presence and activities of illegal armed groups in Guatemala, CICIG has become the key source of investigative support on drugs and crime. However, successful efforts to produce stability and security will also require a new public-private partnership to develop programs that rapidly improve the country's social indicators and give the growing number of alienated young people real opportunities to learn, work and exercise their rights as citizens.“

Joe Tharamangalam, “Can Cuba Offer an Alternative to Corporate Control Over the World Food System?, Global Justice Center, http://www.globaljusticecenter.org/articles/report_cubafood.html, asserts, “The issue of food security has assumed a new urgency in the context of the current world food crisis that is threatening to plunge as many as 100 million people into hunger in addition to the 850 million already in a situation of chronic hunger. As is well known, faced with an even more serious food crisis some two decades ago, Cuba launched a daring and unconventional agricultural revolution, regarded by some as the very “anti-thesis” of the Washington consensus and labeled as an “anti model” by a spokesperson of the World Bank.” The paper draws compares the human development experience of Cuba and the state of Kerala in India, “two well known success stories that have achieved an impressive measure of human well being without waiting for the so called trickle down effect of industrial development or wealth creation”. Signs of improving relations between Cuba and the U.S. appeared at the end of May, as Cuba notified the Obama administration it was prepared to begin negotiations on immigration and direct postal service (Mark Landler, “Cuba Agrees to U.S. Talks In Sign Of a Thaw,” The New York Times, June 1, 2009)

John Lindsay-Poland, “New Military Base in Colombia Would Spread Pentagon Reach Throughout Latin America,” Americas Updater” June 11, 2009, http://americas.irc-online.org/am/6148, states, “The Pentagon budget submitted to Congress on May 7 includes $46 million for development of a new U.S. military base in Palanquero, Colombia. The official justification states that the Defense Department seeks "an array of access arrangements for contingency operations, logistics, and training in Central/South America." This base would feed a failed drug policy, support an abusive army, and reinforce a tragic history of U.S. military intervention in the region. It's wrong and wasteful, and Congress should scrap it.” Concern about the increased military presence in Columbia has been expressed in much of Latin America, with Presidents Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil and Cristina Fernández de Kirchner of Argentina suggesting, August 10, that President Obama and President Álvaro Uribe of Colombia meet with South American leaders soon to discuss the planned increase in American military forces in Colombia, that has unsettled some Latin American leaders. The two Presidents stated at a summit meeting in Quito, that such a meeting could help allay disquiet over the plan. Mrs. Kirchner said the proposal was creating “a belligerent, unprecedented 59 and unacceptable situation.” President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela increased his criticism of the plan, saying the “winds of war were beginning to blow” across Latin America (Alexi Barrioneuvo, “Ecuador: Area Leaders Voice Worry Over G.I.’s for Colombia,” August 10, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/11/world/americas/11briefs-Ecuador.html?ref=world).

The U.N. reported that coca growing has declined in Columbia, the world’s largest producer, in the last year by 28% because of manual eradication, while coca production increased 6% in Bolivia and 4.5% in Peru (“Columbia Cocoa Growing Declines,” The New York Times, June 6, 2009).

Lisa Haugaard and Millie Moon, “Far Worse than Watergate,” Americas Updater, July 22, 2009, http://americas.irc- online.org/am/6253, states, “According to Colombia's attorney general, over the last seven years the Administrative Department of Security (DAS) systematically and without warrants tapped the phones and email of Colombia's major human rights groups, prominent journalists, members of the Supreme Court (including the chief justice and the judge in charge of the parapolitics investigation), opposition politicians, and the main labor federation. Not only did DAS personnel spy on their targets, they spied on their families. This includes taking photos of their children, investigating their homes, their finances, and their daily routines. DAS even wrote a detailed manual of spying methods for personnel to follow. The systematic illegal surveillance by the DAS acted as a significant brake to freedom of expression. The United States must end any assistance to the DAS and call on President Uribe to protect freedom of expression in Colombia.”

ICG, “The Virtuous Twins: Protecting Human Rights and Improving Security in Colombia,” Latin America Briefing N°21, May 25, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6112&l=1, stressed, “Over seven years, the government of President Álvaro Uribe has produced important security gains, but these have been accompanied by serious human rights violations and breaches of international humanitarian law (IHL). Colombia is still not close to the end of its armed conflict. The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the National Liberation Army (ELN), paramilitary successors and new illegal armed groups (NIAGs) – all responsible for multiple atrocities against civilians – can survive with drug financing and, to a degree, due to the state’s inability to extend its legitimate presence into many rural areas. To move toward lasting peace, the Uribe administration must not only maintain its security achievements but also urgently improve its security policy by addressing serious human rights issues and expanding the rule of law and national reach of the state’s civilian institutions. Holding to account senior military involved in extrajudicial killings is a first step but insufficient to curb abuses. International cooperation should focus on supporting the fight to end impunity and protect basic rights.” “Deep-seated, often ideological mistrust between the government and human rights defenders has hindered dialogue on integrating human rights protection and IHL observance into security policy. This is counterproductive and must be overcome through concrete actions by government and civil and political society alike, starting with an end to officials’ repeated efforts to link human rights organizations with the guerrillas. The priorities of government and of human rights defenders are not mutually exclusive but reinforcing. Ending the internal armed conflict requires improved security with full respect for citizens’ fundamental rights. The administration, with international support, should openly engage with human rights organizations on promoting scrupulous defense and protection of human rights. This would increase the credibility and democratic legitimacy of government and state, making security policy more effective and sustainable and enhancing the chance to finally end the lengthy conflict successfully. Urgent measures by the government, the human rights community and international partners should include: committing publicly to Presidential Directive no. 07 of 1999, which instructs public servants to abstain from questioning the legitimacy of the work of human rights organizations and their members as long as they act on the basis of the constitution and the law; strengthening security force professionalism, including by (a) rigorously applying the defense ministry’s 2007 policy on human rights and IHL; (b) establishing an evaluation system for human rights and IHL training of security forces; (c) appointing legal advisers in every army battalion; (d) giving full support to the military inspectors charged with looking into possible human rights and IHL abuses and immediately transferring appropriate cases to the civilian justice system; (e) punishing human rights and IHL transgressors inside the security forces; and (f) conducting new monitoring committee sessions in all army divisions to address torture, enforced disappearance, illegal detention and occupation of civilian property and sexual violence committed by military personnel; continued conditioning of international aid to the armed forces on full respect for human rights; strengthening the investigative ability of the human rights and justice and peace units of the attorney general’s office; training judges and regional attorneys specialized in humanitarian issues; and improving protection programs so as to encourage victims and witnesses to participate in investigations and prosecutions; improving coordination between the ombudsman office’s early warning system unit (SAT) and the government’s interagency early warning committee (CIAT) so the SAT can fully participate in decisions on early alerts, which should clearly determine the responsibilities of local authorities, police and the military, and publishing SAT risk reports under appropriate procedures so as to improve government accountability; formally establishing a cooperation protocol 60 pursuant to which the U.S. Department of Justice assists the justice and peace and human rights units of the attorney general’s office to ensure that all extradited former AUC paramilitary chiefs continue to complete their confessions and testimony under the Justice and Peace Law about human rights violations in Colombia via video conferencing and are sent back to Colombia once their U.S. sentences are served; and reopening constructive dialogue to achieve consensus on and finalize the National Action Plan for Human Rights and IHL. Within the framework of the G-24, Sweden, Spain and the U.S. should take the lead in encouraging a rapprochement between the government and human rights defenders.”

Raúl Zibechi, “Massacre in the Amazon: The U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement Sparks a Battle Over Land and Resources,” Americas Updater, June 16, 2009, http://americas.irc-online.org/am/6191, commented, “On June 5, World Environment Day, Amazon Indians were massacred by the government of Alan Garcia in the latest chapter of a long war to take over common lands—a war unleashed by the signing of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between Peru and the United States.“ For 10 days, some 5,000 Awajún and Wampi indigenous people had been blocking the highway into the jungle to prevent highly destructive logging and mining in their home lands, when government security forces attacked the protestors by helicopter and on the ground, firing rifles. Over 100 were wounded and it least 20 were killed (An Indigenous organization claimed 50 Indigenous people were killed) in the battle. National and international protest, including by Indigenous and human rights organization, forced the government to back down, and repeal some of the recent legislation, allowing extraction on Indigenous lands, that Peru’s Indigenous peoples strongly objected to (Simon Romero, “Peru’s Natives Hail Decision to Overturn Logging Rules,” The New York Times, June 19, 2009). Meanwhile, on June 8, the Inter-American Human Rights Commission (CIDH), of the Organization of American States, condemned the Peruvian government’s violent acts, and reminded it of its obligation to clear up the facts and to compensate for the consequences and called on both sides to promote a process of dialogue. However, less than two weeks after the attack, the government of Peru gave permission to an Anglo-French company to drill for oil in the Amazon (http://survival-international.us1.list- manage.com/track/click?u=b14580b05b832fb959c4ee444&id=cd5bca983f&e=67fbe1fdea).

In late June, the U.S. and Venezuelan governments began negotiating an exchange of ambassadors (“Venezuela and U.S. are Working To Exchange Ambassadors Again,” The New York Times, June 25. 2009).

The United States & Canadian Developments

“Fueling the Crisis,” Foreign Policy in Focus, July 7, 2009, http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=VgrvJLqJP1LvIhAkBjl1AfnOKf0HT2wr, points out that, in the 1990s, when President Clinton made modest cuts in the Pentagon budgets, the arms industry was compensated with a significant increase in military exports. Currently, Obama is working to reduce weapons systems development spending, while negotiating for mutual nuclear arms reduction. Meanwhile, “Military contractors are on pace to dominate U.S. manufacturing exports,” as “the Pentagon sees military exports as a way to cut costs (through economies of scale), reward allies, and shift the fighting burden to other players. ‘In fiscal year 2008, the foreign military sales program sold $36 billion in weapons and defense articles, an increase of more than 50% over 2007," writes FPIF columnist Frida Berrigan in “Weapons: Our #1 Export?,” http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=VgrvJLqJP1LvIhAkBjl1AfnOKf0HT2wr. "Sales for the first half of 2009 reached $27 billion, and could top out at $40 billion by the end of the year. In contrast, through the early 2000s, arms sales averaged between $8-13 billion per year." Meanwhile, this summer suicides by U.S. armed services personnel exceeded combat deaths, just as the U.S. Army is moving change approaches, and give more preparation to troops for dealing with the tensions and human problems of military operations.

MoveOn.org reported, August 7, “It's getting ugly out there. All across the country, right-wing extremists are disrupting congressional town-hall meetings with venomous attacks on President Obama's plans for health care and clean energy. Last night in Tampa, Florida, a town hall meeting erupted into violence, with the police being called to break up fist fights and shoving matches. A Texas Democrat was shouted down by right-wing hecklers, many of whom admitted they didn't even live in his district. One North Carolina representative announced he wouldn't be holding any town-hall meetings after his office began receiving death threats. And in Maryland, protesters hung a Democratic congressman in effigy to oppose health-care reform.” MoveOn was organizing “a plan to fight back against these radical right-wingers. We've hired skilled grassroots organizers who are working with thousands of local volunteers to show Congress that ordinary Americans continue to support President Obama's agenda for change. And we're building new online tools to track events across the country and make sure MoveOn members turn out at each one.” For more information go to: https://pol.moveon.org. The New York Times reported that the disruptions, and related actions, including death threats, have been directly encouraged by right wing radio and TV media 61 commentators, such as Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh (who said the administration’s health care logo was itself similar to a Nazi symbol – a claim the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Anti-Defamation League criticized as a preposterous comparison), and organized with assistance from insurance and other industry lobbyists, and Republican party groups (Ian Urbana, “Beyond Beltway, Health Debate Turns Hostile,” The New York Times, August 7, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/08/us/politics/08townhall.html?em). The growing lack of civility, combined with racism, fueled by right wing commentators and some so called ‘conservative’ politicians, is becoming a growing threat to peace, security and democracy in the United States. One indicator of this is that is that President Obama has received about 30 death threats a day, in the face of which the Secret Service has asked for additional resources to protect him, and other major figures. Meaningful public discussion is becoming more difficult to achieve in many instances, while the increased pressures towards violent acts and clashes not only threaten public safety, but tend to create conditions that can lead to the suppression of civil liberties and the rise of dictatorial government.

Related to this, The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has documented growth in the number of hate groups in the U.S. to 926 in 2008, a 50% rise since 2000, and a 4% increase since 2007, while hate group membership and activity has been increasing (“Hate Group Numbers Surge,” SPLC Report, Spring 2009). The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in June, mirrored earlier SPLC findings, in reporting a growing threat of terror attacks in the U.S. by right wing extremists. The fatal shooting of a Black security guard by white supremacist at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, June 10, exemplified the threat (“Terror from the radical right,” SPLC Report, Summer 2009). The killings of two U.S. citizens in their home near the Mexican border in Arizona, in June, allegedly by a rogue militia, are the extreme of anti immigrant related violence that has increased over the last few years near the Mexican border (Jesse McKinley and Malia Wollan, “New Border Fear: Violence by a Rogue Militia,” The New York Times, June 27, 2009).

Fortunately, some appropriate corrections of the disruption of dialogue at town hall meetings is occurring (as on can see by Googling “rules for town hall meetings:” http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en- us&q=Rules+for+Town+Hall+Meetings&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8). At one meeting clear rules of procedure were set ahead of time, which most people obeyed, and citizens corrected each other when they broke the rules (Jane Sutter. “Civility rules at Mass town hall meeting,” Democrat and Chronicle.com, August 6, 2009, http://blogs.democratandchronicle.com/editorial/2009/08/06/civility-rules-at-massa-town-hall-meeting/). At another meeting (reported on Air America), rules of fair procedure were posted and announced before the meeting, many people involved in organizing the meeting came early and scattered themselves around the room to prevent a large group of disrupters from forming, and after the first disruptive rule violator was escorted out of the meeting, there were no more difficulties. The National Center for Dialogue and Deliberation (NCDD) reported via E-mail, August 10, “Over a dozen leading organizations in public engagement and transparency (NCDD, IAP2, the League of Women Voters, AmericaSpeaks, OMB Watch, etc.) are collaboratively conducting a survey of people/groups who participated in any of the three stages of the recent Open Government Dialogue (the one that's feeding into the Open Government Directive on transparency, participation and collaboration).!We'll be providing White House officials with feedback and recommendations on this online dialogue and drafting process based in large part on the results of the online survey posted at!www.tiny.cc/jr76x,… The White House is looking to us for ideas and feedback to improve their future engagement efforts.

The deteriorated economy and the growing incivility (made easier to encourage, in part, by the economic crisis) have contributed to other increases in violence in the U.S. According to the National Coalition for the Homeless, in a report made public in early August, there has been a rise in violence against homeless people over the last decade, with at least 880 unprovoked attacks, including 244 fatalities, against the homeless at the hands of non- homeless people. Most of “the assailants are outsiders: men or in most cases teenage boys who punch, kick, shoot or set afire people living on the streets, frequently killing them, simply for the sport of it, their victims all but invisible to society.” Maryland recently became the first state to extend hate crime legislation to cover the homeless. Five other states were in the process of doing so, in early August. The District of Columbia has approved such a measure, and a bill along the same lines has been introduced in Congress (Eric Lichtblau, “Attacks on Homeless Bring Push on Hate Crime Laws,” The New York Times, August 7, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/08/us/08homeless.html?em.

While hate crime is up, crime in general in the U.S. is down, according preliminary statistical finings of the Department of Justice Uniform Crime Report, for 2008. Nation wide, from 2007 to 2008, preliminary results show: murder down 4.4%, forcible rape down 2.2%, robbery down 1.1%, burglary up 1.3%, auto theft down 13.1%, other theft down .6%, and arson down 3.9%. Murder rates were down in cities of all sizes over 10, people. But in communities under 10,000

62 population, the murder rate rose by 5.5%. (Solomon Moore, “Despite Bleak Economy, Crime Numbers Take Positive Turn,” The New York Times, June 2, 2009.

A bill in Congress, HR808 again proposes a new U.S. Department of Peace, with The Office of Peace Education and Training within it. Brian Gibbs ([email protected]) proposes that the office could work with the Department of Education to implement proven effective peaceful school programs, such as those listed at: http://www.findyouthinfo.gov/.

^^^^^^^^^^^

DIALOGUING

LETTER ON AVOIDING CATASTROPHE IN THE KOREAN PENINSULA - MAINTAINING MOMENTUM TO NUCLEAR ZERO

By Organizations Worldwide To Governments of DPRK, ROK, United States, Russia, China and Japan, coordinated by John Hallam Nuclear Flashpoints, [email protected], June 21, 2009

Dear Secretary-General Kim Jong IL, Presidents, Prime Ministers, Foreign Ministers/Secretaries of State, of the DPRK, Republic of Korea, Japan, Russia, China, and the United States,

We are writing:

(a) To urge that no party takes any action subsequent to the recent nuclear test by the DPRK that might in any way further raise tensions.

We urge parties to consider instead what steps might result in a steady reduction of tensions in the Peninsula and a return to a process of dialogue and negotiation, in particular through reconvening the Six Party Talks. Provocative actions or words must be avoided. We call on all six parties to refrain from any further provocative actions, including any threats by any party to use force against any of the parties.

(b) We write to urge that the recent DPRK nuclear test be in no way permitted or used as an excuse or argument to deviate from an unbreakable commitment to a world in which nuclear weapons have no place and in which they are completely outlawed.

We unreservedly condemn all nuclear testing by any party whatsoever, both the test recently conducted by the DPRK and all other nuclear tests. Every one of the roughly 2000 nuclear tests done to date has threatened the peace, contaminated the environment and stimulated the nuclear arms - race.

We draw attention to the October 2006 statement by parliamentarians on the DPRK test of that time.(appended)

We affirm that the large-scale use of nuclear weapons may be terminal for civilisation and possibly for humans. The smaller- scale use of nuclear weapons would be an unprecedented catastrophe with global climatic effects. The use of even a single nuclear weapon in the Korean Peninsula by any party whatsoever would be an unprecedented disaster, as well as a crime against humanity, and would likely lead to the further use of nuclear weapons.

The possession of nuclear weapons by the DPRK will decrease, not increase, its security. It will make it a target for the nuclear weapons of others and making the actual use of those weapons more probable. It will provide a powerful impetus to further nuclear weapons proliferation by others in Northeast Asia and elsewhere.

It is vital that the increasing tension in the Korean Peninsula is put into reverse, and a process of decreasing tension is initiated. A process of dialogue must replace threatening rhetoric and threatening actions.

We call on all six parties to refrain from any words or actions that might further inflame matters, and to consider carefully what actions will lead to a reduction in tension on the Korean Peninsula.

We call on the six parties together to consider what might lead to a denuclearised and nuclear - weapons - free Korean Peninsula, (as was the dying instruction of Kim - Il Sung).

63 We call on the DPRK, USA, China, India, Israel and Pakistan to sign and/or to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and we call for an early entry into force of that treaty.

We call on the DPRK to rejoin the NPT as a non - nuclear weapons state and to open all its facilities to inspection by the IAEA.

We call on the Six Parties to explore the possibilities for establishing a North East Asian Nuclear Weapon Free Zone We call for a redoubled commitment by all states to achieving a nuclear - weapons - free world.

We call for the conclusion at an early date of a nuclear weapons convention that will provide an overarching legal framework for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.

When the DPRK tested in Oct 2006, parliamentarians worldwide put out a statemen which is reproduced below.

Parliamentary Statement on Nuclear Testing in October 2006

As parliamentarians from across the political spectrum, and from countries around the world, we share a concern about the announcement by the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea on October 9 that they have tested a nuclear weapon for the first time.

This act increases tensions in North East Asia, increases the risks of further proliferation in the region and globally, and is in violation of obligations of North Korea and all other countries to end nuclear testing and work for the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons.

There have been over 2000 nuclear weapons test explosions conducted by China, France, India, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, each one contaminating the environment, threatening the peace and stimulating the nuclear arms race. There is no need for any more testing by any country.

We welcome the negotiation of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the overwhelming support it has already received. We call on those few States that have not yet ratified the treaty - particularly those with nuclear capabilities including North Korea, China, India, Israel, Pakistan and the United States - to do so..

We also call on North Korea to rejoin the Six Party talks,with China, Japan, South Korea, Russia and the United States,for the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula, and to explore the possibility for a nuclear-weapon-free zone in North East Asia. We call on all six parties to refrain from any further provocative actions that could derail these talks, including any threats to use force against any of the parties.

We are encouraged by the international monitoring system developed by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organisation which has the technical capacity to detect nuclear tests anywhere in the world. And we look forward to the treaty 's entry- into-force in order to make available its compliance mechanisms in the case of any treaty violation.

Signed: (Editors/Coordinators) John Hallam,!People for Nuclear Disarmament Nuclear Flashpoints Project, Sydney Australia. Alyn Ware, Vice- President,!International Peace Bureau (IPB), Prof. Kiho Yi, director,!Nautilus ARI,!Hanshin University, And numeous other persons from many nations Dennis McNamara, the HD Centre's Humanitarian Advisor and organiser of the event <>++++++<>++++++<>

WHAT'S AT STAKE IN HONDURAS

Foreign Policy in Focus, July 28, 2009

It's been a month since Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was deposed in a military coup. Mediation supported by the United States broke down when the coup regime refused to accept a compromise that would allow President Zelaya to return. The Obama Administration still says that it is working for President Zelaya's return, but so far it has not responded to the call for increased U.S. pressure in response to the coup regime's intransigence. [1]

Rep. Raul Grijalva is leading a Congressional effort to press the Obama Administration to increase U.S. pressure on the coup regime by canceling U.S. visas and freezing bank accounts of coup leaders. Can you ask your Representative to sign Rep.

64 Grijalva's letter? http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/grijalva-letter. If the military coup in Honduras is allowed to stand, the repercussions will reach far wider than the interests of one man.

President Zelaya was deposed for seeking a reform of the Honduran constitution, but reform of the constitution is supported by many Hondurans. Movements that promote the rights of poor and excluded Hondurans have long demanded constitutional reform, which they believe is the only way to address their concerns and grievances.! [2]! The ouster of President Zelaya blocks a path to redress of grievances for a large portion of Honduras's population. Moreover, the coup in Honduras sets a dangerous precedent for other governments in the region that face calls for reform.! Many fear that if the coup in Honduras is allowed to stand, it will embolden those in Central and South America who might want to use military force to block political reform movements. [3]

Current signers of Rep. Grijalva's letter include Reps. McGovern, Conyers, and Serrano. Please ask your Representative to sign Rep. Grijalva's letter by following the link below: http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/grijalva-letter

Thank you for all you do to help bring about a just foreign policy, Robert Naiman, Sarah Burns, Megan Iorio and Chelsea Mozen Just Foreign Policy, http://www.justforeignpolicy.org.

References: 1) "U.S. insists it wants Zelaya's return to Honduras," Claudia Parsons, Reuters, July 27. http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE56Q3RE20090727?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

2) "Amid crisis, minorities find a voice," Jim Wyss, Miami Herald, July 22, 2009 http://www.miamiherald.com/news/americas/v-fullstory/story/1151878.html

3) "Shades of Coups Past - And Yet to Come?" Raúl Gutiérrez, Inter Press Service, July 17 http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=47711. XXX+XXX

OBSERVATIONS FROM HONDURAS

Kelly Kuschel, [email protected], July 26, 2009

I am a U.S. citizen, resident of Milwaukee, Wisconsin and enterning my Senior year at the University of Wisconsin- Madison. I am currently!in the city of Danli, Honduras!30 minutes from the border with Nicaragua. For the last 60 hours my family and I have not been allowed to leave our house because of the curfew (they just announced that it was being extended until 6 PM Monday but!it has been extended at least 4 times since Friday at noon). In reality some people are circulating but it is limited. Jets and helicopters flew over the city, in addition to the heavily armed police that are in trucks or on foot, to scare people from going to the border and meeting the deposed president. Some people have made it close to the border but since then have not been able to go forward nor back. They are stuck with little resources. At least 15 a-political doctors were refused entry. The first lady and daughters have been separated from the deposed president for over a month, she has spent the last 50 hours at 20 K.M from the border but the military is not allowing her to go forward. ! My mother tried to deliver food to the people but turned back as soon as she saw a tank blocking the path. There are seven regiments between here and the border 13 between here and the capital. ! To the people in the United States who say that Hondurans are free they are not living in the fear of leaving their house. We are virtually jailed simply for being near the border. The rest of the country has had their right to circulate but even that is limited at midnight. ! The United States has a strong influence in this country and a history of intervention in the area. Honduras, and its people, need the U.S. to come out more strongly against the coup-d'etat. The situation is at a turning point and with a little more political pressure from the U.S. the situation can easily turn for democracy. I would ask that something be done soon before the crisis turns into a civil war.

However, we need the right sort of intervention. It is embarrassing that several house members are undermining the official U.S. Foreign Policy to the region by meeting with the de facto government which took power in a manner that was unanimously condemned by the U.N., and O.A.S, as well as Obama and Clinton. It is embarrassing that they would meet with Micheletti as a head of state when he is recognized by no government in the world as holding that position. It is even more embarrassing when you take into account that these few congress persons are the only elected officials in the world to dignify 65 the coup by meeting with their officials.

I am writing to make known the situation in this country and to ask that a stronger stand be taken by the U.S. in favor of democracy in Honduras since only this way will more bloodshed be averted. ::….:….::

MIDEAST PEACE CAN START WITH A LAND SWAP

David Makovsky*

Source: Wall Street Journal (www.wsj.com), June, 15 2009. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission from the author for rer publication.

Although President Barack Obama publicly welcomed Israeli Prime Minister Ben jamin Netanyahu‚s speech last week in which he gave qualified support for a two-state solution, it is clear that a gap remains between Netanyahu and the Obama administration over the expansion of settlements. Fortunately, there is a way to bridge that gap. The issue of settlements highlights broad philosophical differences about how to approach Arab-Israeli peace. Neoconservatives such as Norman Podhoretz have favoured a hands-off approach. In contrast, foreign-policy "realists", including Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft, favour imposing a peace plan.

The problem with the neoconservative approach is that it assumes the status quo can be sustained. The problem with the realist approach is that it assumes the status quo can be instantly transformed. Neither approach can be applied to a complex reality on the ground.It is foolish to believe that Israel can continue to build settlements for decades without considering the impact that has on the lives of the Palestinians. It is also implausible that successive Israeli governments will view the settler population as mere bargaining chips in a final peace agreement. One cannot disregard the needs of either the Palestinians or of the Israelis.

Israel has been unable to freeze settlement construction since the enterprise began in 1968, and it is hard to see how it could do so now. How would the government justify the new policy to its voters?

The only way to deal with the settlement issue is to render it moot by widening it to peacemaking and heading straight into the final negotiations on territory.Those negotiations are hung up on four issues: the rights of refugees, control of Jerusalem, security and settlements. The first two are impossible to solve when neither side has much trust in the other. The third has become more complex since Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005 and was subsequently barraged with over 3,000 rockets. Ironically, then, the issue with the narrowest gap between Israelis and Palestinians is land.

Last year, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas discussed the possibility of a land swap between the Palestinian territories and Israel. Olmert suggested retaining 6.5% of the West Bank in return for equivalent land inside Israel. Abbas thought the figure should be approximately 2%. The difference is bridgeable. For example, three quarters of all Israeli settlers live in less than 4.5% of the West Bank, largely adjacent to the pre-1967 boundaries. This land could be swapped for an equal amount of land inside Israel.

There are three distinct advantages to focusing the negotiations on territory now. First, it allows the Palestinian Authority to tell its people that it has obtained the equivalent of 100% of the land to be part of a contiguous Palestinian state. As such, negotiations and not Hamas terrorism will be vindicated. Second, Israelis will have something to gain and not just give. Until now, no Israeli leader has succeeded in legally annexing a single settler, let alone a large majority of them. So give a large majority of the settlers who live in the major blocs a stake in being part of the solution rather than part of the problem. They would have their legal status normalised as part of Israel. Settlements and security would be decoupled. The Israeli army would not leave until the Palestinian security services demonstrated an ability to root out terror. Finally, after many decades, the settlements issue would no longer be a thorn in US-Israel relations.

This approach alone will not guarantee successful resolution of the Jerusalem and refugee issues. Yet after success on land they will have to be addressed. Over time, Israel will need to make concessions in Jerusalem, and the Palestinians will need to concede that refugees can only return to the Palestinian state and not to Israel. Stalemate is never a durable strategy, but a proactive approach could shatter old myths and create a better and more permanent reality for both sides.

* David Makovsky is the Ziegler distinguished fellow and Director of The Washington Institute's Project on the Middle East Peace Process and is a member of the Search for Common Ground Middle East Advisory Board. He is also co-author of the just- released "Myths, Illusions and Peace: A New Direction for America in the Middle East.". 66 >-{=::::::+::::::=}-<

LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA

Israel Policy Forum*

Source: Israel Policy Forum, May13, 2009, www.israelpolicyforum.org. Distributed by Common Ground News Service with permission for publication.

Dear Mr. President,

There is a broad consensus within the American Jewish community and among policymakers in support of an active US role in assisting the Israelis and the Palestinians to establish a two-state solution. We believe that this formula both advances America‚s interests in the entire Middle East and is the best achievable means of ensuring Israel‚s survival as a Jewish state and a democracy.

Accordingly, we are in full support of the actions taken by your Administration during its first 100 days in office. They are evidence of your determination to achieve a two-state solution and exceed the reasonable expectations of those of us who long for a secure Jewish homeland at peace with its neighbours.

The contours of the two-state solution have been known for more than a decade and blueprints for getting there have been laid out numerous times. However, we do not underestimate the challenges impeding progress toward the two-state goal.

We believe that the present moment is increasingly propitious for diplomatic action. Your election, and your first months in office, have captured the attention of the entire world˜including the peoples of the Middle East˜giving you latitude that few, if any, of your recent predecessors had. The moment of opportunity is here and the stakes are too high for the United States to allow any more time to be wasted.

We believe that the coming weeks will be critical and we urge you to ask the regional leaders you meet with this month to do their respective parts toward achieving these five achievable goals:

1. An immediate renewal of US-mediated Israeli-Palestinian negotiations toward the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

2. The cessation of Palestinian terror attacks on Israelis and of weapons smuggling into Gaza, and an increase in the number of American-trained Palestinian security forces in the West Bank.

3. A freeze on West Bank settlement construction, the dismantling of superfluous checkpoints and illegal settlements and the cessation of demolitions of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem.

4. The immediate reconstruction of Gaza with a focus on civilian needs and the local economy.

5. The pursuit of a comprehensive peace between Israel and its neighbours, including Syria, using the Arab Peace Initiative as a basis for negotiations.

These ideas are not new. However, they require your conveying them to the parties with a sense of urgency˜urgency built on a clear, immovable and lasting commitment to a policy that is in the national interest of the United States, the Palestinian people, the Israeli people and the people of the entire region.

Your bold leadership can rekindle a candle of hope for the two-state solution that has been flickering. We stand with you and will do everything we can to help you achieve this vision for the Middle East.

Sincerely,

Peter A. Joseph, President, Israel Policy Forum, Larry Zicklin, Chair, Israel Policy Forum, Nick Bunzl, Executive Director, Israel Policy Forum, Endorsed by: Ambassador Samuel W. Lewis, Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering, Jr., Ambassador Robert H. Pelletreau, Jr., Ambassador Edward S. Walker, Jr.

67 *Peter Joseph is president of the Israel Policy Forum (IPF), Larry Zicklin is IPF‚s chair and Nick Bunzl is its executive director. Ambassador Samuel Lewis is the chair of Search for Common Ground‚s (SFCG‚s) Middle East Advisory board, Ambassador Thomas Pickering serves as the convenor of SFCG‚s Holy Sites Initiative and Ambassador Robert Pelletreau is a former co- director of SFCG‚s Jerusalem programme. Ambassador Edward Walker is an adjunct scholar at the Middle East Institute‚s public policy centre. µµµµµµ

A SUSTAINABLE PEACE

Canon Dr. Trond Bakkevig*

This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNewswww.commongroundnews.org), who distributed it with permission for publication.

I was requested to officially greet His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, on 11th May at an interfaith meeting in Notre Dame, Jerusalem. This meeting was to celebrate the significant work that religious leaders of the Abrahamic faiths, and Israeli and Palestinian non-governmental organizations, are undertaking to achieve peace in the Holy Land.

I spoke on behalf of the Council of Religious Institutions of the Holy Land, which comprises representatives of the most senior institutions of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim faiths in Israel and the Palestinian Territories. The Council has been established because we want religion to contribute to peace, freedom and security for both peoples of this land. We are convinced that if religious leaders are not taken seriously in these efforts, religion will be exploited by the forces of extremism and violence on both sides. As convener of the Council, I therefore deeply regret the remarks made at the event by Sheikh Taisir Tamimi, head of the Muslim Sharia courts, who was not invited to speak and spoke in a manner which is not conducive to constructive dialogue.

Among ourselves, the religious leaders in the Council of Religious Institutions of the Holy Land, we have pledged to ensure that we are working to improve the atmosphere of dialogue between one another and to avoid any public statement that could endanger our ability to work together. This is not to say that religious leaders should seek agreement at the expense of honestly confronting problems and real tensions. From our experience we know that those who are loyal to the sources of their faith can have serious disagreements when they seek peace based on justice and security. Religious leaders live amongst their own people. They suffer when their own people suffer, they feel insecure and threatened when their own people feel insecure and threatened, and they share the hopes and dreams of their own people for peace and freedom.

But, religious leaders also know they have the duty, according to their respective religions, to seek the shared values of justice, peace, forgiveness and reconciliation. In our own work we try to realise these values in a variety of ways: by creating lines of communication where conflicts with a religious component can be dealt with instantly and by people in positions of responsibility; by promoting education so that future generations can better understand each other and live in peace as good neighbours; by establishing mutual respect for the status of the holy sites of each religion; working for just solutions of tensions when holy sites are also common sites and securing access for all believers to their respective holy sites.

We also encourage discussion about the future of Jerusalem, a city dear to Palestinian Muslims and Christians, and to Israeli Jews, as well as to billions of believers around the world. As a facilitator of this work I constantly hear the yearning for Jerusalem to be a city of peace, where Palestinians and Israelis of all backgrounds are free to come, pray and celebrate their faith.

Changing political realities have deep implications for our work. We struggle with getting permits to enter Jerusalem for meetings, we hear statements from religious leaders which make our work more difficult, and we are mindful of believers who want their holy sites to be accessible and open to everyone. However, we move on step by step, building trust, trying to achieve tangible results that provide rays of hope.

I firmly believe that it is the task of religious leaders to sustain dreams of peace, security and reconciliation based on truth and justice. Inspired by good conversations in this land, I carry a dream that one day a sheikh, a rabbi and a bishop together will meet in Nablus and speak about the precious heritage of this land; that they together will walk along the beach of Haifa and share the riches of their own faith with one another. And that all three will be able to go to the Holy City of Jerusalem and wish each other well when they go to their respective places of worship.

I remain grateful to His Holiness for meeting with religious leaders, and thus giving his blessing to the work religious people are doing to build a lasting and sustainable peace in this Holy Land. We need this encouragement. But we also know 68 that only freedom, justice, security and respect for the political freedom of the two peoples can provide this Holy Land with a sustainable peace.

Rev. Dr. & Canon Trond Bakkevig is the Convenor of the Council of Religious Institutions of the Holy Land. &&&&&&

THE JEWISH MIND IN THE AGE OF OBAMA

Kobi Skolnick*

Source: MarcGopin.com (www.marcgopin.com), June 10, 2009, This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission from the autho For publication.

Before becoming a peace activist, I spent years as a settler in the hills of the West Bank, planting trees and cultivating the soil. Some of my family and friends still live there and I remain deeply connected to them. For this reason, as the Obama administration‚s new policies unfold, I am of two minds. I understand the settler perspective, but I have a second view that comes from years of experience working for peace.

My two perspectives are reflected by millions of people around the world. After Obama‚s speech on June fourth, one group rejoiced, but for others his words were a dark cloud. For the first group, their hearts were filled with excitement, but others felt the tight grip of fear and distress. Some looked at his words and saw an opportunity to reduce violence while others saw the speech as a vehicle for more violence. Some saw it as an expression of their deepest values while for others the speech challenged the very core of their belief system. One group embraced Obama as compassionate while the other heard in his words an anti-Semitic attack against their sons and daughters.

Is there a bridge between the two perspectives? For the settlement community, Obama‚s speech was the worst news in years. President Obama is living in fantasylandˆ he doesn‚t understand the realities of violence and the hostility directed at the Jewish community. For the rabbis in the settler community, Obama‚s speech goes against the divine design, religious mission, and redemptive plan of the Jewish people. It is a speech, which if taken to its logical conclusion, means expulsion from their homes after many years of building a flourishing society.

although this point of view may be difficult to accept, it is important to understand and even strive to empathise with the settlers. It is an impulse of intellect to explain, blame, or define justice in a way that fits one‚s point of view, but all too often this impulse only leads to less understanding and more conflict.

I chose to highlight this point of view because looking back, I realise that for years there has been a lack of true empathy for other points of view among our diverse communities. Our instinct is to try and classify one another and group people into boxes: he/she belongs to the right or left, this person is right or wrong. However, this prevents us from listening empathetically to other viewpoints.

As a former settler, I can say that settlers have been hit hard; they lost many dear people and have been living in fear. The memories of friends and family members killed in the conflict are a daily presence in their lives and the result is not just the building of physical outposts, but also the building of outposts in their memory. From their perspective, the enemy is alive and right around the corner and proposals for peace have only resulted in more death and loss of loved ones.

I believe that behind burning trees and other intimidating messages from young settlers there is something deeper going on. From a non-violent perspective, this violence is a tragic expression of unmet needs. This is not unique in the case of settlers ˆ sadly, many people all over the world act this way when they find their deepest needs not being met.

Thankfully, we now find ourselves in a historic moment. After years of labelling one another and taking a strong stand for one side or another, there is an opportunity to meet the needs of millions of people with all of the complexity that this implies. However, the solution must begin with the shedding of preconceived ideas and judgments about each other, and the understanding that all of us are part of the same communityˆ humanity. Inside each of us is the ability to acknowledge and connect with human pain and suffering regardless of ideology.

Millions, if not billons, of people in the world want peace. However, the definitions of what that peace looks like have kept us apart. The people who think differently are not 'Jew-haters'. Nor is President Obama anti-Semitic. In his speech, Obama spoke on behalf of millions of people who want to see peace between Jewish Israelis and our neighbours - a peace that can be achieved through non-violent methods. 69 We all want to be seen and understood. We all want to contribute to the well being of others and ourselves. Let us celebrate life together despite ideological differences. Let us pour more water on the seeds of life and peace. In this way, we can use understanding and compassion to bring about an end to the conflict. "The last of human freedoms is the ability to choose one‚s attitude in a given set of circumstances‰" Viktor E. Frankl.

* Kobi Skolnick is an Israeli who was born into a Hasidic family and moved to a radical settlement in the West Bank as a teenager. Today Kobi is a peace activist within a variety of frameworks including the Center for World Religions Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution at George Mason University where he is an associate scholar practitioner. >>>-----+------<<<

A NEW PLAN FOR THE MIDDLE EAST?

Claude Salhani*

There has been much chatter in recent days that Middle East peacemakers are on the verge of a major breakthrough with some predicting that there may be an announcement following Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu‚s visit to Washington on 18 May to meet with President Barack Obama. Will Obama succeed in twisting Israel and the Palestinians‚ arms to the point where they can finally agree over the various issues?

One of the biggest stumbling blocks in the Arab-Israeli dispute has always been the sheer complexity of the problem. The Middle East dispute is not made up of a single issue. Rather, the conflict is a compilation of multifaceted issues, all of which must be addressed simultaneously. Failure to do so will simply not yield results because by the time the parties involved get around to discussing the second or third issue, changes on the ground, instigated by „spoilers‰, will have redistributed the cards, sending everyone back to the starting point. That has been one of the shortfalls of all previous US administrations˜Republicans and Democrats alike˜who have tried to resolve the 60-year-plus dispute. Usually, one of the reasons was that they tried to solve the problem by breaking it up into separate issues. That will simply not work.

"The Palestinian issue cannot be solved item-by-item," Ziad Asali, President of the American Task Force on Palestine told the author. "It would be foolish to do this piece meal," Philip Wilcox, a former US diplomat who served in the Middle East and who now heads the Foundation for Middle East Peace, also said.

The difficult task, however, will be in getting all the pieces to fall into place at the same time, several observers agreed. But where to start?

This is where George Mitchell comes in. Mitchell, of course, is President Obama‚s special Middle East envoy, who likes to „play his cards close to his chest,‰ observed Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian-American professor at New York‚s Columbia University. Khalidi, who advised the Palestinian delegation at the 1991 Madrid conference, is traditionally very well informed about the intricacies of the Middle East peace process.

Like Khalidi, a number of other analysts agree that something is going on in the Middle East peace process. "There is some hope in the air," Ambassador Wilcox told the author. Indeed, in recent days there has been a sense of renewed optimism among some analysts that the issues may finally move forward - in unison - and largely as a result of a new idea put forward by the Obama administration, more likely than not by George Mitchell‚s team. This, however, is far from being a one-man show. Moving the peace process to the point where it is today has involved a cast of thousands.

This new idea, several specialists believe, would be based largely on the Arab Peace Initiative, a comprehensive plan to settle the Middle East dispute first introduced at an Arab League meeting in Beirut in 2002. The initiative originated as an idea first floated by former King Fahd of Saudi Arabia. It offers Israel recognition by all 23 members of the Arab League (22 states plus Palestine) in exchange for Israel‚s withdrawal to pre-1967 borders. Of late, there has been talk of revisiting the Arab Peace Initiative, something Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu would like to see so as not to appear to accept it lock, stock and barrel, believes Noam Shelef of Americans for Peace Now. And despite the fact that many see Netanyahu as a super conservative, it is worth reminding that in the past it was always the Likud that returned (Sinai), yielded (Gaza), and that may just finalise the peace with the Palestinians.

"Netanyahu is going to surprise us all," said Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, a Labour minister, to the Israeli daily newspaper Ha‚aretz. "He understands that there is a new administration in the United States, which is neither of the Clinton administration nor the Bush administration, and that if we don‚t come up with a peace plan, someone else will call the shots for us," said Ben-Eliezer. 70 There remains, however, one more hurdle to jump over ,which makes the rest of the issues discussed so far appear weak by comparison; and that is the issue of intra-Palestinian reconciliation, bringing Fateh and Hamas together. Ironically, in the end it may turn out to be that the final stumbling block holding up the creation of a Palestinian state˜a dream the Palestinians have aspired to for so long, fought so hard to achieve and shed so much blood for, both their own and that of others˜may well be the Palestinians themselves. Unless they can place their differences behind them, they risk prolonging the conflict for another 60 years.

*Claude Salhani is the editor of the Middle East Times and a political analyst in Washington. -+>>><><<<+-

QUARREL ON THE TITANIC

Uri Avneri, 5/16/09

One of the happiest moments in my life occurred in a restaurant. It happened before the second intifada. I had invited Rachel to celebrate her birthday with dinner at a famous restaurant in Ramallah. We were sitting in the garden under strings of colorful lights, the air was fragrant with the perfume of flowers and the waiters were hurrying back and forth with laden trays. We ate Mussakhan, the Palestinian national dish (chicken with tahini baked on pita bread), and I drank arak. Our waiter, who had overheard us talking, took our order in Hebrew. We were the only Israelis there. At the nearby tables, Arab families with the children in their best clothes, as well as a bride and groom with their wedding guests. Bursts of laughter punctuated the murmur of Arabic conversations, and spirits were high. I was happy, and a sigh escaped me: “How wonderful this country could be, if only we had peace!”

I think of that moment every time I hear sad news from Ramallah. The news is depressing, but the memory helps me to keep alive my hope that things could be different. The most depressing news concerns the split between the Palestinians themselves. This split is a disaster for them, and, I believe, also for Israel and the world at large. That’s why I dare to comment on a matter that seemingly does not concern us Israelis. It does.

It is easy to blame Israel. Easy and also justified. In their struggle against the national aspirations of the Palestinians, successive Israeli governments have applied the old Roman maxim divide et impera, divide and rule. Since the Oslo agreement, the central component of this policy has been the physical separation between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Article IV of the Oslo Agreement of September 1993 says: “The two sides view the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as a single territorial unit, whose integrity will be preserved”.

Article X of Annex 1 of the Interim Agreement of September 1995 says: “There shall be a safe passage connecting the West Bank with the Gaza Strip for movement of persons, vehicles and goods…Israel will ensure safe passage for persons and transportation during daylight hours…in any event not less than 10 hours a day.” In practice, the safe passage was never opened. Among all the blatant violations of the Oslo agreements, this was the most severe. Its consequences have been disastrous for both sides.

True, there was a lot of talking about the passage. Ehud Barak once fantasized about constructing a giant bridge between the West Bank and the Strip, after seeing such a 40 km long bridge somewhere abroad. Others spoke about a tunnel underneath Israeli territory. Yet others proposed an extraterritorial highway or railway. None of these ideas was ever implemented. On the contrary, while before Oslo there had been free movement for all, including the inhabitants of the occupied territories, after Oslo this freedom was abolished.

The pretext was – as always – security: convoys of murderers and terrorists would pack the safe passage, trucks loaded with Palestinian rockets would drive to and fro. But the consequences disclose the true aim: what remained of Palestine was cut into two disconnected parts. One cannot rule a territory without physical contact with it. That was proven in Pakistan, which was founded as a state with two disconnected parts separated by Indian territory. Soon enough, war between the two broke out and the Eastern part became the independent state of Bangladesh.

According to the latest Palestinian statistics, which seem reliable, there are now 2.42 million Palestinians living in the West Bank and 1.46 million in the Gaza Strip (in addition to 379 thousand in East Jerusalem). From Yasser Arafat I once heard that more than half of the Palestinian Authority’s resources were being devoted to the Gaza Strip, in spite of the fact that the Strip amounted to only 6% (one sixteenth) of the Palestinian territories.

71 Now there exist in practice two Palestinian entities: the West Bank, whose actual capital is now Ramallah, and the Gaza Strip, with its capital Gaza city. From the political, economic and ideological points of view, the distance between them is growing. And from the point of view of the Israeli occupation policy, that is a great victory.

The Israeli government conducts different strategies against the two Palestinian entities. Against Gaza, the policy is simple and brutal: to overthrow the Hamas government by turning the life of those 1,460,000 men and woman, old people and children, into hell. They are allowed to bring in only the most basic foodstuffs. There was an international outcry when Senator John Kerry discovered the import of noodles is prohibited, because pasta is apparently a luxury. “We shall not give them chocolate when Gilad Shalit is not getting chocolate,” an army officer declared this week. It would be interesting to know how much chocolate the 11 thousand Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails are getting.

The war against Gaza (“Molten Lead”) was intended to wreak death and destruction upon the civilians, so that they would rise up and overthrow their elected government. The dead are already buried, but the piles of rubble remain. The Israeli government does not allow building materials to be brought in, and the inhabitants have started to build homes of mud, as their ancestors did centuries ago. (To make the whole thing even more depressing, it is forbidden to bring in toys, books and musical instruments.)

The Egyptian government cooperates with the Israeli army in enforcing the blockade on the inhabitants of Gaza. Lately it has intensified its efforts to choke the essential supply line through the Rafah tunnels (“smuggling” in Israeli and Egyptian parlance). The campaign recently started by the Egyptian authorities against Hizbullah agents in Sinai has the aim, among others, of cutting this pipeline.The Gaza people have not toppled the Hamas government. On the contrary, their opposition to the Ramallah government seems to be growing, and some say that it is turning into pure hatred.

Against the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, the occupation authorities employ a different, but no less destructive, strategy. They make every effort to present it as a kind of Palestinian Vichy regime, in order to prevent the healing of the Palestinian rift. The Israeli government declares this openly and loudly. This week, the Chief of Staff, Gabi Ashkenazi, wondered publicly how the Palestinian Minister of Justice could sue Israel before the International Criminal Court for war crimes committed in Gaza.

How come, Ashkenazi complained, when throughout the Gaza War there was such close cooperation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority? In other words, the Chief of Staff of the Israeli army declares publicly before the Palestinian people and the entire world that the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah cooperated with the Israeli government in the war against their Palestinian brothers in Gaza, in which - according to the Ramallah Minister of Justice - systematic war crimes were committed. A more damaging blow to the standing of Mahmoud Abbas can hardly be imagined.

Other Israeli officers do not spare their praise for the Palestinian security forces, which – they allege - cooperate with the Israeli army in eliminating Hamas sympathizers in the West Bank. It is hard to imagine that such statements by the occupation officers will do anything to elevate the standing of Abbas in the eyes of the Palestinians, who see with their own eyes how the settlements on their land grow daily.

This week, a friend told me about a conversation he had with a Palestinian official from Ramallah. If Israel attacks Iran, he said with great enthusiasm, the Hamas regime in Gaza will collapse. For an outsider looking in, this is incomprehensible. When the entire Palestinian people is facing a danger to their very existence, when the Israeli government is working tirelessly to make it impossible for a Palestinian state to come into being and there is a real threat that the Palestinian people will be eventually driven out of Palestine altogether, the split resembles a quarrel on the bridge of the Titanic.

There is an old Jewish saying that “the destruction of the temple (in the year 70 A.D.) was caused by mutual hatred.” When the Romans were already besieging Jerusalem, the various Zealot factions in the beleaguered city burned each other’s stocks of food. Among the Palestinians, such things are happening right now. Disunity has always been a curse. In 1948, when they were fighting for their survival, they were unable to form a unified leadership and a unified military force. In practice, every village fought alone, without coming to the aid of its neighbors. Otherwise, perhaps, the Naqba would not have happened, and the untold suffering that continues to this very day would have been prevented.

The main result of the disunity 61 years ago was that the Palestinians were unable to establish the State of Palestine next to the State of Israel, and the territory allotted for it by the UN was divided between Israel, Jordan and Egypt. Yasser Arafat understood this well. He made a huge effort to maintain the unity of his people at almost any cost. As long as he was alive, this unity was maintained. The secret services that planned his murder obviously wanted to sabotage this unity, much as

72 Yitzhak Rabin’s murderers wanted to destroy the peace process. The two murders complemented each other, and not by accident.

Anyone who believes that peace is essential for the two peoples and for the entire world must fervently hope for the establishment of a Palestinian unity government. I believe that this is still possible.

It seems that in this matter, too, Barack Obama must play a leading role. He must put an end to the stupid and disastrous policy of boycotting Hamas and employ his full power to bring about the creation of a Palestinian unity government. Perhaps it will have to be, in the beginning, a kind of super-government under which both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip keep some kind of autonomy.

Peace among the Palestinians themselves is a necessary precondition for peace between Israel and Palestine. Only Israeli-Palestinian peace can also bring about reconciliation between the two peoples and perhaps restore the atmosphere of that magic evening in the Ramallah restaurant – so that it will not remain just a sweet memory. fl------+------‡

BUILDING MOMENTUM

Abdel-Monem Said*

Source: Al-Ahram Weekly (http://weekly.ahram.org.eg), June 25 - July 1 2009. Distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission for republication.

US President Barack Obama's speech at Cairo University triggered a host of repercussions. Perhaps the most salient is that it compelled the Israeli government to declare its position, which Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu did in his speech at Bar-Ilan University on June 14. The Netanyahu speech, in turn, triggered two general responses. Whereas the US and the EU welcomed the speech, the Arabs rejected it, with some Arab media insisting it had effectively sounded a death knell over the negotiating process.

The single most important Israeli gain from the speech was the wedge it drove between the US-EU and the Arab response. The speech was pitched so the US and Europe could pick up on the acknowledgement of the two-state solution, it was tactically useful domestically, and it was a negotiating position that, Netanyahu said, marked a beginning not an end.

Contrary to the general opinion in the Arab world, I believe that we must take Netanyahu at his word and, rather than treating his speech as a final position, look at it as a springboard for attaining the goal of creating an independent Palestinian state, free of settlements, with its capital in East Jerusalem. Anything that conflicts with this aim, such as settlements or the demand to officially recognise Israel as a Jewish state, we should disregard for the time being, though with regard to the latter issue it is vital to insist that Israel guarantee its Arab citizens their full citizenship rights in order to allay the spectre of a mass „transfer‰.

Since the Obama administration has come to power, Washington's attitude towards the Arab-Israeli conflict has steadily moved closer to that of Europe. Washington has been turning up the pressure on Netanyahu to freeze settlement activity and agree to a two-state solution. When European countries, Russia, China, India and other powers, echoed the call, Netanyahu‚s government began to fear a resurgence of the type of international isolation it thought had been consigned to the past.

Having correctly gauged the global temperature, Netanyahu, chose not to openly buck the tide. Instead, he hit upon a formula that sounded conciliatory but, in fact, was calculated to dismantle any Arab-Western-global consensus, minimise Israeli losses and buy time.

Netanyahu's speech was designed to send out mixed signals. On the one hand, he nodded in the direction of global opinion, admitting to the need for the creation of a Palestinian state. On the other hand, he refused to declare a complete halt to settlement activity, insisting upon the "right" to continue construction to meet the needs of "natural growth", which has always been the Israeli code for settlement expansion. Netanyahu then added a long list of demands and conditions regarding the shape and powers of a prospective Palestinian state, topping them off with insistence on a unified Jerusalem and the need for the Palestinians to recognise, in advance, the Jewish character of Israel.

It might be useful, here, to recall Menachem Begin's positions regarding Israeli settlements, airports and land in the Sinai and then to recall that the Sinai was subsequently returned in full to Egypt. It is also useful to bear in mind that many 73 Third World countries, upon reaching independence, started under conditions of less than full sovereignty which was eventually acquired as circumstances changed.

Those countries that welcomed the speech were taken aback by the hasty Arab reaction which appeared to suppose that Netanyahu had said this is where the process stops, with no prospect for a Palestinian state and no horizon for a freeze on settlements. Arab governments, political movements and the media dismissed the prime minister's acknowledgement of the need for a Palestinian state as a ruse aimed at impressing Western countries when the real thrust of Israeli strategy is to press ahead with settlement expansion and to force the question of the Jewishness of the state as a way of effectively forestalling the resumption of negotiations.

There is some validity to this position. After all, how a state defines itself is really its own concern. We have an Islamic Republic of Iran and other countries that are "Islamic". But never in the history of international relations has a state demanded others recognise its definition of itself above and beyond the recognition of its right to exist.

That Western and Arab states should have taken antithetic views over what is tactical and what is strategic in Netanyahu's speech is precisely what he was aiming for. What seems clear to me is that the Arabs must focus more clearly on their own tactics and strategies, including how the US and Europe fit into them.

By no means is this meant to suggest we agree to Netanyahu‚s terms. Rather, the point is that we must engage with him as though his speech was no more than a negotiating position staked out by a Likud hardliner whom we must coax step- by-step into being reasonable, as the Egyptians did with Begin.

Such a strategic handling of the Netanyahu speech is far removed from blanket rejection, which serves only to hand Europe and Washington to Israel on a silver platter. Through such a rational strategy of engagement we can build momentum to support the Palestinian cause. Above all, we must remain on guard against behaving in the way Netanyahu is banking on.

*Abdel Monem Said is the director of Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies. This is an adapted version of an article originally published in Al-Ahram Weekly. fl<:::+:::>‡

ENCOUNTERING PEACE: WHAT NETANYAHU'S PEACE INITIATIVE MUST SAY

Gershon Baskin*

This is a version of an article which appeared in the Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com), June 8, 2009, and is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission for republication..

President Barack Obama‚s Cairo speech and subsequent remarks by him and other senior US officials have made it clear beyond any doubt that the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is two states for two peoples. There is no other solution. Today only three countries in the world are in opposition to it: Iran, Libya and Israel.

I am not so sure that the people of Israel really wish to belong to this club of rejectionists. The creation of an independent, democratic and peaceful Palestinian state is in the interest of the Jewish people, the State of Israel and the Zionist movement. It is high time that the Israeli government take up the challenge of presenting its own peace initiative that will work with the international community, rather than against it, and fulfil the will of the international community to bring about an end to the conflict.

The initiative must, of course, not only present the real and perceived threats that could arise from the creation of a Palestinian state, but also propose constructive and pragmatic solutions for confronting those threats. The international community led by the United States, Israel's closest ally and the most powerful nation in the world, will be quite forthcoming in assisting an Israel which is willing to cooperate with it in bringing about an end to the conflict.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has pointed to at least four real threats that a Palestinian state would pose to the security of the State of Israel and its people. There are practical solutions to all of them. The Palestinian people and the international community fully understand that there are real threats. None of the threats are existential. A Palestinian state cannot challenge the power of Israel˜militarily, economically or in any other way.

The fears of Palestinian militarisation, rockets fired from the West Bank, the smuggling of weapons can all be mitigated by a government that is cooperating with the international community and the Palestinian people in creating the 74 Palestinian state, rather than constantly opposing the inevitable. The international community is more than willing to commit huge resources˜human and financial˜to assist in the process of creating a peaceful and democratic state next to Israel.

International police, civilian and military forces deployed in the West Bank and at the external borders of the Palestinian state, led by a US executive management with European and other personnel working hand-in-hand with Israeli security officials, can design and implement security systems that will prevent what Israel fears in a much more effective way than continued occupation. The peace initiative must indicate its agreement to the principle of partition of the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea on the basis of the 22% -78% divide (the amount of territorial divide created by the armistice lines of 1949).

Furthermore, Israel must come to terms with the reality of Jerusalem belonging not only to it and the Jewish people. We must wake up to the reality that there are two Jerusalems, not one undivided, united Jerusalem as we have been requested to believe since 1967. The parts of Jerusalem where Palestinians live must become the capital of the Palestinian state.

The areas where Jews live in Jerusalem will be the capital of the State of Israel, recognised by the entire international community. Today, not one country in the world recognises Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. It is time for the world to recognise our capital. It is time for us to recognise that Jerusalem can and will be the capitals of two states˜Israel and Palestine. There are positive concrete developments happening on the ground today and they must be continued, encouraged and expanded. The mission of US Lt.-Gen. Keith Dayton in training additional Palestinian security officers and their deployment throughout the West Bank has significantly improved the state of law and order as well as counterterrorism activities in areas where they are deployed.

Israel has allowed its Palestinian citizens to enter several West Bank cities on the weekends to assist in economic development. Now it should allow them to enter with their private cars so that their buying power can be increased beyond what they can carry in their hands.The issue of settlement growth, natural or otherwise, is a tactical issue hardly worth the energy being invested in it. The real issue is the final borders of the State of Israel on the east. A decision on which of the settlements will be annexed and which will be vacated will determine the route of that border. Once agreement has been secured with the Palestinians and the Quartet, Israel will be free to continue expanding and building in those areas that will fall under its sovereignty.

This is the issue which will continue to cause the greatest degree of tension with the United States. It would, therefore, be much more constructive and productive for the government to initiate its own plan for ending its occupation and for the creation of two states for two peoples.

*The writer is co-CEO of the Israel Palestine Center for Research and Information. (http://www.ipcri.org). ))))oOo((((

THE PALESTINIANS AT A PIVOTAL CROSSROAD

Alon Ben-Meir*

President Obama's push for a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict has given the Palestinians an historic opportunity to end their disastrous state of affairs.Although many parties involved in the conflict-especially the Arab states and Israel-have contributed directly or indirectly to Palestinian suffering, the Palestinians have undoubtedly inflicted the greatest injury upon themselves by forgoing numerous opportunities to make peace with dignity. With the best of intentions by the international community, and even with unwavering American and Arab support, only the Palestinians united in their purpose and committed to a peaceful solution can end their hardship and realize a state of their own. Sixty-two years of dislocation and despair can come to an end; the question is will the Palestinian leadership be able to present a united front and rise to the historic occasion?

There are five prerequisites that the Palestinians must collectively meet to achieve a state of their own. Certainly no one should expect either the Palestinian Authority (PA) or especially Hamas to adopt all of these simultaneously or immediately. One thing however must be clear: no Israeli government-regardless of its ideological leaning-will compromise on these five issues, nor will the Obama administration break its resolve in backing them. These demands on the Palestinian leadership are consistent with the requirements imposed by the US, EU and Israel calling on the Palestinians to renounce terrorism, accept prior agreements and recognize Israel's right to exist. Hamas has shown in the past an unwillingness to cooperate with demands from the international community, but it seems that with new US efforts to push reconciliation, Hamas has a unique opportunity to join the political process as a recognized party. The PLO under the leadership of Yasir 75 Arafat went through the same pain, and in 1988 recognized Israel and renounced terrorism. In a recent interview with Hamas leader Khaled Meshal, he agreed not only to a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders, but conceded that "when the time comes, Hamas will make some of the moves demanded of it by the West."

Form a united front:

As the Egyptian-brokered talks between Fatah and Hamas continue, it is becoming more imperative that the Palestinian leadership show a united front as they face upcoming negotiations with the US and Israeli governments. A Palestinian unity government will allow Hamas to save face as it can commit to the two-state solution that the Hamas charter forbids. This will give the radical yet undeniably popular group a voice and stake in the negotiating process, and can bring Hamas to the table as a significant political force rather than an armed faction with a devious political agenda. Both Hamas and the PA (which represents the Palestinian Liberation Organization) know that the prospect of reaching a viable peace deal with Israel requires that the Palestinians speak in one voice. Hamas as a popular movement has secured a place in the Palestinian body politic and no one can effectively deny Hamas a say in negotiations. This why it is critical that Hamas is included in the Palestinian government, because left to its own devices and with no prospect of exercising some power over Palestinian affairs, it will undoubtedly resort to violence to disrupt the process. It appears though that the Egyptian-mediated negotiations between the PA and Hamas to form a unity government have advanced considerably, and the two sides may well reach an agreement this summer.

That being said, Hamas must nevertheless drop the illusion that it can control the Palestinian political agenda entirely. It must realize that the PA, with the support of the United States and other powers, will soon have a military powerful enough to confront Hamas' future challenges and to prevail. The recent clash in the West Bank proved that Fatah soldiers are willing to take on Hamas if necessary. Hamas must further be disabused of any illusion that it can overthrow the PA by political or violent means and take-over the West Bank. The continued training of PA security forces in Jordan with American funding, monitoring and equipping remains essential. It sends a clear message to Hamas' leadership that there will be no chance of unseating the PA and that time is not in its favor. And finally, if Israel is to make any major concessions to the Palestinians, it will only do so knowing that they are in agreement with a united leadership supported by the Arab street. Israel will not risk giving up an inch of land to the PA if it feels threatened that Hamas can hijack it and use it to launch violent attacks. If Hamas wants to gain legitimate political credibility in all of Palestine, it must demonstrate to the International community and to Israel in particular that it can act as a credible and responsible political partner along with the PA.

End all acts of violence

Cessation of violence is fundamental not only to the resumption of peace negotiations but for fostering confidence between all parties. Decades of violence and counter-attacks have not improved the Palestinian prospect for statehood in any capacity. Although the PA has acknowledged this reality, and worked to quell violence in the West Bank, Hamas has made violent resistance against Israel the pillar of its strategy. Hamas too has realized, however-especially following the Gaza war- that continued rocket fire can only get them so far. During the war Hamas' fighters could not confront the Israeli army and assumed defensive posture as they were no match to Israel's overwhelming military prowess. The militants furthermore used women and children as human shields to raise the collateral damage and to bring international pressure on Israel to end the fighting. Now that Hamas has suspended violent resistance, it must continue to reinforce it at all costs in order to become a party to the peace negotiation. Should Hamas choose instead to violently disrupt the political process that the US is leading with the active involvement of the Arab states, it will risk losing all the political capital it gained throughout the past decade.

Ending the calls for Israel's destruction:

Challenging Israel's right to exist will get the Palestinians nowhere, as has been demonstrated in the past. If Israel feels threatened that it must fight for existence it will justify all means, however severe, to ensure its long-term safety and survival. Moreover, Israel does not need Hamas' recognition, though in ongoing negotiations Hamas has indirectly had to acknowledge Israel's existence as a reality. Hamas' leadership has agreed to 1967 borders, a long-term ceasefire and the possibility of living in peace with Israel, as was conveyed by former President Jimmy Carter. Khaled Meshal may come much closer to accepting Israel in his upcoming policy address. Moreover, Hamas is also fully aware of the changing political dynamics in the region as the Arab states are moving toward reconciliation with Israel. The Obama administration has repeatedly reaffirmed America's unshakable commitment to Israel's security and a viable Palestinian state. Hamas should not forsake this opportunity for an unrealistic goal of calling for Israel's destruction. This is a chance that Hamas may not want to miss, especially after watching Hezbollah's recent defeat in the Lebanese Parliamentary elections.

Give up on the Palestinian right of return:

76 This may be the most difficult demand for the Palestinians to come to terms with; it represents one of their toughest bargaining chips and in a large part caused the collapse of the negotiations at Camp David in 2000. While in theory, the Palestinian right of return appears logical, no solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could possibly envision the return of any significant number of Palestinian refugees to Israel proper. From the Israeli perspective, any sizeable influx of Palestinian refugees will change overnight the demographic make-up of the state. This is not a question of right and wrong; it is simply a matter of Israel's survival as a Jewish state for which it was created, and Israel will never abandon or compromise on this principle. That being said, any Palestinian refugee who opts to resettle in their homeland should be able to do so in the West Bank or Gaza once a Palestinian state is created.

In past negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, the Palestinian representatives understood that a solution to the refugee problem lies in resettlement and/or compensation. The United Nations General Assembly resolution 194 (1948) which called on Israel to allow the refugees to return to their original homes is not binding, as is the case with all General Assembly resolutions. Moreover, resolution 194 was superseded by the binding United Nations Security Council resolution 242 (1967), which instead called for "achieving a just settlement to the refugee problem." Having preached the gospel of the right of return so consistently over so many years, the Palestinians' leadership may not be in a position to simply drop the issue altogether unless it is a part of the whole package of a peace agreement. Yet, the sooner they begin to modify their narrative, prepare the public, and indicate to the United States their readiness to address the refugee problem in the context of resettlement and compensation, the easier it will be for the Israelis to make concessions in other areas such as the settlements, where they feel less threatened.

Embrace the Arab Peace Initiative:

The leading Arab states-especially Saudi Arabia and Egypt-must persuade Hamas to embrace the Arab Peace Initiative and rejoin the Arab fold. The Arab Peace Initiative generally calls on Israel to give up the territories captured in the 1967 war and to find a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem in exchange for peace with all Arab countries. This offers Hamas a clear way out of its self-imposed isolation. This is an opportunity Hamas should not forsake, as the Initiative represents the collective Arab will and provides the basis for a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace. Its merits have been acknowledged outside the Arab world by President Obama and Israeli President Shimon Peres among others, and it will likely be included in the Road Map as the official framework for negotiations. Moreover, the leaders of the Arab states are determined to end the Israeli- Palestinian conflict which has been feeding extremism to the detriment of their own regimes. And once Syria joins the peace process on that basis, which may be sooner than later, Hamas will stand alone in the Arab world in its struggle against Israel. Moreover, if Hamas is seen as an obstructionist undermining the prospect of a comprehensive peace, it will force many Arab states that support President Obama's peace offensive to take severe punishing measures against Hamas. Hamas' leadership can see the writing on the wall, and to maintain its political viability it must find a way to join the Arabs states.While it will take time and a concerted effort to include Hamas in the Annapolis process, in the interim it should accept the Initiative created by the Saudis who are instrumental to its survival.

Although these requirements for peace are not new, they have eluded the Palestinians for decades. These years of struggle have also been instructive, however, as the Arab states led by Egypt have gradually concluded that Israel cannot and will not be marginalized or destroyed. A majority of Palestinian civilians have also finally come to accept the premise of a two- state solution. Time and circumstances matter greatly and now both Israel and the Palestinians face an unprecedented opportunity to forge a lasting peace.

Alon Ben-Meir is a professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He teaches courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies, [email protected], www.alonben-meir.com.

FIGHTING OVER SETTLEMENTS

Sadie Goldman*

Source: Israel Policy Forum (www.israelpolicyforum.org), June 25, 2009. Distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission for republication.

In the last week, the US-Israel rift over settlements narrowed, or at least moved from public view to backroom discussions. That is, until Tuesday. In an interview with the Italian newspaper RAI, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said that "arguing" over Israel's position on settlement construction would waste time "instead of moving towards peace". He pledged, however, that, "we will not build new settlements" and "will not expropriate additional land to expand existing settlements". 77 But Netanyahu added a caveat that flies in the face of the American demand that all settlement construction stop. "All we ask", he said, "is that, pending a final peace agreement, the people who are there will be allowed to live a normal life,"- meaning that construction for what Israel deems "natural growth" will not stop.

In Washington, analysts and policy makers have been arguing over the most effective ways to stop settlements and promote negotiations. The main point of discussion has centered on how Israel should begin to deal with settlements: Is it more expedient for Israel to "freeze" settlements - to stop building until a final deal is made? Should Israel work instead to physically remove settlement outposts that it never authorised in the first place? Or should Israel first make a deal on the final borders of a Palestinian state and come to an agreement on which settlements it will annex and which it will remove?

At a Foundation for Middle East Peace (FMEP) panel discussion, FMEP's Geoffrey Aronson and the Co-Directors of the Middle East Task Force at the New America Foundation, Daniel Levy and Amjad Atallah, argued that while stopping all growth through a settlement freeze would be a positive move, it is not worth the political capital that would be expended to get there.

Geoffrey Aronson put it this way: "An effective freeze would be an extraordinarily complex and wide ranging undertaking. . . . Israel will have to undo a system four decades in the making by which settlers, the legislative and executive arm of the state, public-private and super-national communal organisations collaborate in the encouragement and expansion of settlements. Laws empowering public and private bodies to increase settlements will need to be changed. Many existing military orders will have to be rescinded and new ones issued. . . . These massive changes indicate the kind of Israeli political commitment that would be required to impose, maintain and enforce such a change in policy and that the United States would have to make if it wants to enforce a settlement freeze. American efforts would be far better spent if we adopt a policy directed at evacuation of settlements and defining borders for two states."

In the Wall Street Journal last week, David Makovsky, a Ziegler Distinguished Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, also argued that a settlement freeze may not be the issue to focus on first. Instead he promoted the idea of brokering a deal on final borders first: "Israel has been unable to freeze settlement construction since the enterprise began in 1968, and it is hard to see how it could do so now. . . .The only way to deal with the settlement issue is to render it moot by widening it to peacemaking and heading straight into the final negotiations on territory."

Others argue that no territorial agreement will be made until both sides trust each other to fulfill commitments. According to an op-ed on the blog Jewcy by freelancer Moshe Yaroni, a settlement freeze could be the mechanism that not only allows Palestinian and Israeli leaders to build that trust, but also gives Israel the opportunity to start effectively dealing with West Bank settlers.

According to Yaroni, a settlement freeze accomplishes two things: "one, it buys some time for the Palestinian Authority and for a real, tangible peace process to be revived. . . . The second thing it does is to bring the confrontation with the hardcore minority of the settler movement closer to the surface. . . . and the most radical settlers' likely response to a full and genuine freeze on all construction in the West Bank will put law and order to its final test. . . . A freeze would be an investment of political capital, one which will generate great returns if successful and open up more opportunities, including opportunities to push for a rollback of the settlement project."

And what of Israel's contention that it must build to account for the "natural growth" of settlements? According to Daniel Kurtzer, the former US Ambassador to Israel and Egypt, some of the natural growth arguments currently being thrown around in Washington amount to "nonsense".

Writing in the Washington Post, he said that, "No one suggests that Israelis stop having babies. Rather, the blessing of a new baby does not translate into a right to build more apartments or houses in settlements. The two issues have nothing to do with each other. Israelis, like Americans, move all the time when life circumstances-children, jobs, housing availability- change. . . . The Obama administration is pursuing policies that every administration since 1967 has articulated - that settlements jeopardize the possibility of achieving peace and thus settlement activity should stop."

According to Kurtzer, for real movement to be made on settlements, and on a two-state solution: "It is time for Israel to freeze all settlement activity and dismantle the unauthorized outposts." The Obama administration is aware of all the arguments. It now has to decide among them, and act accordingly.

*Sadie Goldman is a Senior Policy Associate with the Israel Policy Forum. from the Israel Policy Forum. ‡+fl 78 WHERE DO GOOD INTENTIONS LED US? A CIVILIAN ACTION PLAN FOR ADVANCING PEACE

Shay Ben Yosef*

This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews, www.commongroundnews.org), who distributed it August 13, 2009, it with permission to publish.

Many people claim that Israel‚s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip was a unilateral attempt to promote peace. In my opinion, it constituted a bi-lateral act of war. After many years of fighting and bloodshed, the Palestinians succeeded in getting Israel to withdraw from Gaza and thus uproot about ten thousand residents from Gush Katif, Netzarim and the north of the Strip.

Did Israel‚s withdrawal contribute to ending the conflict? Are the residents of Gaza happier today? Are the settlers who were uprooted from their homes happier now that they are far from the battleground? Do the citizens of Israel‚s south sleep better at night?

It is not clear who has benefited from the Palestinian success in evicting Israel from Gaza, but it is clear that the withdrawal did not help bring peace any closer. One can liken this to a warring couple who move into separate rooms but continue to share the same house. Not the picture of marital harmony.

The route to peace, even if it is a long and winding road, means developing mechanisms for forging a shared life together ˜ one which offers respect to people of different identities, not one that encourages the construction of barriers or the uprooting of communities.

Indeed, sooner or later political arrangements will be undertaken by governments, but in the meantime we cannot sit around waiting for our dreams (or nightmares) to come true. We must try to advance respect and partnership in the here and now.

I call upon non-governmental organisations, local and international, to develop mechanisms to support a life together. This is an appeal to courageous Israelis and Palestinians to give up the barriers of fear, find topics that cross national boundaries and develop these areas together in a way which makes it possible for us to practice trust, mutual respect and the promotion of healthy relations. I appeal to people to see Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria as places where it is possible to demonstrate good neighbourliness and mutual consideration.

It is true that we cannot ignore the deep roots of the conflict. Jews believe that the essence of Zionism is the building of a Jewish national home in their land, the land of Israel. The Palestinians believe the Jews have robbed them of their land. They demand a solution for the refugees amongst them. The Israelis claim that they have already done their bit by absorbing a million Jewish refugees from Arab countries.

Meanwhile, we have erected walls of suspicion, injury and hatred. Are we destined to live lives of fear and hatred until the long awaited day comes when we will live with respect as neighbours? But in the heart of the disputed areas even while we wait for an agreement, we can still discover areas of collaboration. As a resident of the settlement of Ofra, I can say that on the local level we are working collaboratively with our Palestinian neighbours on environmental matters such as waste, sewage purification and even a joint struggle to counter government decisions that harm the environment.

Here are examples for joint initiatives: - On environmental issues ˜ The environment is shared by us all. It is possible to form a coalition of green organisations that would advocate separating the environment from the conflict; to set up joint initiatives for preventing water and air pollution; to deal with waste disposal and sewage; to work on sustainable regional planning, etc.

- Tourism ˜ The area of Judea and Samaria is an untapped treasure. It has spectacular views, a rich history, vineyards, olive groves and wheat fields. Developing tourism would give rise to a dialog of narratives, invite people from different backgrounds to discover the richness of the other‚s identity and offer the potential to share economic prosperity.

- Infrastructure ˜ Israelis and Palestinians share the same infrastructure. Expanding and deepening collaboration on water issues, energy, communications and transport could benefit everyone and even create a basis for rapid economic development.

79 - Small businesses ˜ Small businesses have proven to be effective in improving the lives of weak segments of society. Anyone who remembers the economic prosperity in the area Bidia-Mas‚ha before September 2000, will remember that even in our parts, small businesses are not only an impetus for economic prosperity but also enablers of positive relations between peoples.

The sceptics will say that so long as there is no end in sight to the conflict there is no chance for collaboration. This is the question of the chicken and the egg that accompanies the Israeli-Arab relationship: so long as the walls of hatred exist along with the assumption that it is possible to resolve the conflict through the use of force, there will be no chance of a resolution. So long as there is no resolution there is no chance of breaking through the barriers of hate.

What mechanism can help us break out of this vicious cycle? The collaboration between international and local NGOs on both sides with a common agenda can kick start local action. This could be accompanied by a parallel attempt to discover a courageous leadership that will promote trust building between citizens on the one hand, and courageous citizens who will call on their leaders to make peace possible, on the other. Together, leaders and citizens will find that the more they succeed in translating their declarations into small, effective acts on the ground, the more they will progress toward peace.

In conclusion, Israeli withdrawal and the uprooting of settlements in response to violent pressure have not and will not lead to peace. When we succeed in lowering the walls of fear and hatred and discovering opportunities for collaboration, we will succeed in finding the political arrangements which will benefit us all.

*Shay Ben Yosef is a group facilitator and consultant on how to navigate complexity. He is currently writing a PhD about the rehabilitation of the former residents of Gush Katif at the Department of Sociology at Bar Ilan University. He lives in the settlement of Ofra. . <____+__T__+____>

ISRAEL'S PUNITIVE MOVES AGAINST CRIMINAL'S FAMILIES ONLY FOSTER MORE ANIMOSITY

Daily Star Editorial

Source: Daily Star (http://www.dailystar.com.lb), April 8, 2009. distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with. permission for republication.

The drama that unfolded during the demolition of a Palestinian house in East Jerusalem recently aptly illustrates the futility of Israel's renewed policy of destroying the family homes of Palestinian attackers. The Israeli supreme court had ordered police to tear down part of the family home of Husam Dweiyat, who last year went on a rampage with a construction vehicle, killing three people and wounding dozens of others before police and passersby shot him dead. The decision meant that Dweiyat's parents were required to pay the price of their son's sins, despite the fact that another Israeli court had in 2000 found the young man to be mentally ill, according to the family lawyer.

But as soon as Israeli officers arrived at the scene on Tuesday to carry out the order, which was said to be aimed at deterring future attacks, a Palestinian motorist tried to run them over with his vehicle and dozens of angry residents began pelting them with stones. The lesson that ought to be drawn from this tragedy is that demolishing the family homes of criminals will not deter criminal behaviour. One could even argue that such backward forms of punishment provoke further criminality.

The medieval mindset behind such punitive home demolitions is all the more obvious when the same logic is applied to other types of crimes. Why don't we hold all families accountable for their relatives' wrongdoings? Make former Premier Ehud Olmert's children pay a hefty fine if their father is found guilty of accepting bribes and engaging in other forms of corruption. Force former Israeli President Moshe Katsav's wife to wear a scarlet letter if her husband is convicted of rape and sexual harassment. Revoke President Barack Obama's citizenship because his Kenyan aunt overstayed her visa in the United States. Does this seem reasonable?

Of course, none of these suggested measures would curb corruption, rape or illegal immigration. And neither has Israel's policy of tearing down the family homes of attackers reduced the number of attacks inside the Jewish state. These and other methods of collective punishment have been deployed in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon and the Golan for decades without any measurable benefit to Israel, and with plenty of adverse effect. It's time to abandon them.

80 A better way to reduce the number of attacks in Israel would be to vigorously pursue a negotiated peace treaty with the Palestinians. As Obama told students in Turkey recently, we already have a sense of the compromises that will need to be made to achieve peace. All that's absent is the political will to do so. >>>>>>><><<<<<<<

GO TO HEBRON

Ori Nir*

Source: Americans for Peace Now (http://peacenowconversation.org), May 5, 2009. Distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission for publication.

Go to Hebron. Observe how several hundreds of ultra-national Israeli settlers, a minority in a Palestinian town of 160,000, have turned the lives of its Palestinian residents into a living hell.

Go to Hebron. Look at how a small Jewish minority rules over an oppressed Arab majority and you will see why Israel needs a two-state solution in order to survive in the future as a democratic Jewish state.

Go to Hebron. You will see how the Jewish settlers and Israel‚s military government have aggressively turned what used to be the centre of town˜the business and trade centre of the southern part of the West Bank˜into a Jewish dominated enclave. Palestinians are not allowed to walk˜let alone drive˜through the long main street of downtown Hebron. They are subject to constant daily harassment by the settlers and the army.

If you want to see what the relationship between Israelis and Palestinians will turn into if we don‚t start reversing the escalating status-quo of Israeli occupation in the West Bank, go to Hebron.

If you care about the future of Israel, if your political thinking is governed by a sense of what is feasible, what is right and what is moral, if Jewish values mean something to you, go to Hebron.

Talk to the settlers. Hear from them what their vision is. Talk to the Palestinians. Ask them about their daily lives. Ask them about the resentment, the hatred the despair and the sentiment of vengeance that the status quo is brewing in their hearts and minds. Talk to the soldiers, the red-beret paratroopers˜Israel‚s best fighters˜who are stuck in this depressing place, their fighting skills reduced to checking shopping bags of old Palestinian women and trying to block teenage settlers from vandalising Palestinian shops or hurling rocks at Hebron‚s Arabs.

If I were Benjamin Netanyahu, I would go to Hebron before I go to Washington to meet with President Obama, before devising the „fresh approach‰ to Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking that he referred to at the AIPAC conference. I believe that Netanyahu˜even someone as cynical as Bibi˜would feel ashamed, as an Israeli and a Jew. I was, when I visited Hebron today with a group of Peace Now and Americans for Peace Now activists.

And as he examines majority-minority relations in Hebron, I recommend that Netanyahu will read this passage, published by Yedioth Ahronoth‚s B. Michael in the newspaper‚s Friday edition:

"On the eve of Independence Day, the Central Bureau of Statistics cited the number of residents of Israel at 7.4 million. There was also a piece of heart-warming news for the holiday: the decisive Jewish majority has been retained. Jews account for 75.5% of the population. Only 24.5% are non-Jews. A regrettable error found its way into those numbers. The origin of that error lies in the strange lifestyle of the Green Line. That line, which supposedly died long ago, leaps out of its grave (or perhaps it is forcibly exhumed) every time either statistical expedience or public relations purposes require this. Following are the real numbers: according to the Central Bureau of Statistics and the CIA, the Israeli government controls 11.43 million human beings. Among them, 5.6 million are Jews, 5.83 million are non-Jews (2.46 million Palestinians in the West Bank, 1.55 million Palestinians in Gaza, 1.5 million Palestinian citizens of Israel and 0.32 million Œother non-Jews‚). The precise figures are as follows: in the realm of the Israeli empire, 49% are Jews and 51% are non-Jews. We can now begin to be referred to as Œminorities‚."

Mr. Prime Minister, on your way to Washington, go to Hebron. Because the creeping Hebronisation of Israel is cancerous. You know that. And you know it‚s not too late to reverse it.

*Ori Nir, the spokesman of Americans for Peace Now, was the Palestinian affairs correspondent for the Israeli daily Ha‚aretz. . -#####- 81 THE JOHNY PROCEDURE

Uri Avnery, 7/18/09

Like the ghost of Hamlet’s father, the evil spirit of the Gaza War refuses to leave us in peace. This week it came back to disturb the tranquility of the chiefs of the state and the army. “Breaking the Silence”, a group of courageous former combat soldiers, published a report comprising the testimonies of 30 Gaza War fighters. A hard-hitting report about actions that may be considered war crimes. The generals went automatically into denial mode. Why don’t the soldiers disclose their identity, they asked innocently. Why do they obscure their faces in the video testimonies? Why do they hide their names and units?

How can we be sure that they are not actors reading a text prepared for them by the enemies of Israel? How do we know that this organization is not manipulated by foreigners, who finance their actions? And anyhow, how do we know that they are not lying out of spite? One can answer with a Hebrew adage: “It has the feel of Truth”. Anyone who has ever been a combat soldier in war, whatever war, recognizes at once the truth in these reports. Each of them has met a soldier who is not ready to return home without an X on his gun showing that he killed at least one enemy. (One such person appears in my book “The Other Side of the Coin”, which was written 60 years ago and published in English last year as the second part of “1948: A soldier’s Tale”.) We have been there.

The testimonies about the use of phosphorus, about massive bombardment of buildings, about “the neighbor procedure” (using civilians as human shields), about killing “everything that moves”, about the use of all methods to avoid casualties on our side – all these corroborate earlier testimonies about the Gaza War, there can be no reasonable doubt about their authenticity. I learned from the report that the “neighbor procedure” is now called “Johnny procedure”, God knows why Johnny and not Ahmad.

The height of hypocrisy is reached by the generals with their demand that the soldiers come forward and lodge their complaints with their commanders, so that the army can investigate them through the proper channels. First of all, we have already seen the farce of the army investigating itself. Second, and this is the main point: only a person intent on becoming a martyr would do so. A solder in a combat unit is a part of a tightly knit group whose highest principle is loyalty to comrades and whose commandment is “Thou shalt not squeal!” If he discloses questionable acts he has witnessed, he will be considered a traitor and ostracized. His life will become hell. He knows that all his superiors, from squad leader right up to division commander, will persecute him.

This call to go through “official channels” is a vile method of the generals – members of the General Staff, Army Spokesmen, Army Lawyers – to divert the discussion from the accusations themselves to the identity of the witnesses. No less despicable are the tin soldiers called “military correspondents”, who collaborate with them.

But before accusing the soldiers who committed the acts described in the testimonies, one has to ask whether the decision to start the war did not itself lead inevitably to the crimes. Professor Assa Kasher, the father of the army “Code of Ethics” and one of the most ardent supporters of the Gaza War, asserted in an essay on this subject that a state has the right to go to war only in self defense, and only if the war constitutes “a last resort”. “All alternative courses” to attain the rightful aim “must have been exhausted”.

The official cause of the war was the launching from the Gaza Strip of rockets against Southern Israeli towns and villages. It goes without saying that it is the duty of the state to defend its citizens against missiles. But had all the means to achieve this aim without war really been exhausted? Kasher answers with a resounding “yes”. His key argument is that “there is no justification for demanding that Israel negotiate directly with a terrorist organization that does not recognize it and denies its very right to exist.”

This does not pass the test of logic. The aim of the negotiations was not supposed to be the recognition by Hamas of the State of Israel and its right to exist (who needs this anyway?) but getting them to stop launching missiles at Israeli citizens. In such negotiations, the other side would understandably have demanded the lifting of the blockade against the population of the Gaza Strip and the opening of the supply passages. It is reasonable to assume that it was possible to reach – with Egyptian help - an agreement that would also have included the exchange of prisoners.

No only was this course not exhausted – it was not even tried. The Israeli government has consistently refused to negotiate with a “terrorist organization” and even with the Palestinian Unity Government that was in existence for some time and in which Hamas was represented. Therefore, the decision to start the War on Gaza, with a civilian population of a million 82 and a half, was unjustified even according to the criteria of Kasher himself. “All the alternative courses” had not been exhausted, or even attempted.

But we all know that, apart from the official reason, there was also an unofficial one: to topple the Hamas government in the Gaza Strip. In the course of the war, official spokesmen stated that there was a need to attach a “price tag” – in other words, to cause death and destruction not in order to hurt the “terrorists” themselves (which would have been almost impossible) but to turn the life of the civilian population into hell, so they would rise up and overthrow Hamas.The immorality of this strategy is matched by its inefficacy: our own experience has taught us that such methods only serve to harden the resolve of the population and unite them around their courageous leadership.

Was it at all possible to conduct this war without committing war crimes? When a government decides to hurl its regular armed forces at a guerrilla organization, which by its very nature fights from within the civilian population, it is perfectly clear that terrible suffering will be caused to that population. The argument that the harm caused to the population, and the killing of over a thousand men, women and children was inevitable should, by itself, have led to the conclusion that the decision to start this was a terrible act right from the beginning.

The Defense Establishment takes the easy way out. The ministers and generals simply assert that they do not believe the Palestinian and international reports about the death and destruction, stating that they are, again in Kasher’s words, “mistaken and false”. Just to be sure, they decided to boycott the UN commission that is currently investigating the war, headed by a respected South African judge who is both a Jew and a Zionist.

Assa Kasher is adopting a similar attitude when he says: “Somebody who does not know all the details of an action cannot assess it in a serious, professional and responsible way, and therefore should not do so, in spite of all emotional or political temptations.” He demands that we wait until the Israeli army completes its investigations, before we even discuss the matter.

Really? Every organization that investigates itself lacks credibility, not to mention a hierarchical body like the army. Moreover, the army does not – and cannot – obtain testimony from the main eye-witnesses: the inhabitants of Gaza. An investigation based only on the testimony of the perpetrators, but not of the victims, is ridiculous. Now even the testimonies of the soldiers of Breaking the Silence are discounted, because they cannot disclose their identity.

In a war between a mighty army, equipped with the most sophisticated weaponry in the world, and a guerrilla organization, some basic ethical questions arise. How should the soldiers behave when faced with a structure in which there are not only enemy fighters, which they are “allowed” to hit, but also unarmed civilians, which they are “forbidden” to hit?

Kasher cites several such situations. For example: a building in which there are both “terrorists” and non-fighters. Should it be hit by aircraft or artillery fire that will kill everybody, or should soldiers be sent in who will risk their lives and kill only the fighters? His answer: there is no justification for the risking of the lives of our soldiers in order to save the lives of enemy civilians. An aerial or artillery attack must be preferred.

That does not answer the question about the use of the Air Force to destroy hundreds of houses far enough from our soldiers that there was no danger emanating from them, nor about the killing of scores of recruits of the Palestinian civilian police on parade, nor about the killing of UN personnel in food supply convoys. Nor about the illegal use of white phosphorus against civilians, as described in the soldiers’ testimonies gathered by Breaking the Silence, and the use of depleted uranium and other carcinogenic substances.

The entire country experienced on live TV how a shell hit the apartment of a doctor and wiped out almost all of his family. According to the testimony of Palestinian civilians and international observers, many such incidents took place. The Israeli army took great pride in its method of warning the inhabitants by means of leaflets, phone calls and such, so as to induce them to flee. But everyone – and first of all the warners themselves - knew that the civilians had nowhere secure to escape to and that there were no clear and safe escape routes. Indeed, many civilians were shot while trying to flee.

We shall not evade the hardest moral question of all: is it permissible to risk the lives of our soldiers in order to save the old people, women and children of the “enemy”? The answer of Assa Kasher, the ideologue of the “Most Moral Army in the World”, is unequivocal: it is absolutely forbidden to risk the lives of the soldiers. The most telling sentence in his entire essay is: “Therefore…the state must give preference to the lives of its soldiers above the lives of the (unarmed) neighbors of a terrorist.”

83 These words should be read twice and three times, in order to grasp their full implications. What is actually being said here is: if necessary to avoid casualties among our soldiers, it is better to kill enemy civilians without any limit. In retrospect, one can only be glad that the British soldiers, who fought against the Irgun and the Stern Group, did not have an ethical guide like Kasher.

This is the principle that guided the Israeli army in the Gaza War, and, as far as I know, this is a new doctrine: in order to avoid the loss of one single soldier of ours, it is permissible to kill 10, 100 and even 1000 enemy civilians. War without casualties on our side. The numerical result bears witness: more than 1000 people killed in Gaza, a third or two thirds of them (depending on who you ask) civilians, women and children, as against 6 (six) Israeli soldiers killed by enemy fire. (Four more were killed by “friendly” fire.)

Kasher states explicitly that it is justified to kill a Palestinian child who is in the company of a hundred “terrorists”, because the “terrorists” might kill children in Sderot. But in reality, it was a case of killing a hundred children who were in the company of one “terrorist”. If we strip this doctrine of all ornaments, what remains is a simple principle: the state must protect the lives of its soldiers at any price, without any limit or law. A war of zero casualties. That leads necessarily to a tactic of killing every person and destroying every building that could represent a danger to the soldiers, creating an empty space in front of the advancing troops. Only one conclusion can be drawn from this: from now on, any Israeli decision to start a war in a built-up area is a war crime, and the soldiers who rise up against this crime should be honored. May they be blessed. -=()()()()=-

WHY A PRIVATE TELEVISION CHANEL IN PALESTINE

Elias Zananiri*

This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews, www.commongroundnews.org) who distributed it, July 30, 2009, with permission for publication.

A state-run television channel and a few domestic terrestrial stations, which mostly re-run programmes from other satellite channels, are almost all that is on offer in the Palestinian Territories. Two other outlets — Al Aqsa, set up by Hamas in Gaza, and Al Quds, which many brand as Hamas-light — are partisan stations. The private sector, so far, has shown very little interest in television broadcast, probably due to the uncertainty that characterises the situation in Palestine and the considerably high risks involved in launching a private television channel.

Today, after years of state-run or partisan media outlets in Palestine, the time has come for a new satellite television channel that is entirely private: a channel that does not belong to a particular political party or governmental body but one that aspires to reflect the interests of the overwhelming majority of Palestinians, those living in the Palestinian territories and in the Diaspora. Such a channel would also provide the Israeli enemy/neighbour with a unique window onto aspects of Palestinian society with which it is completely unfamiliar.

For years, Palestinians have been stereotyped all over the world as terrorists or religious fundamentalists, and accused of being incapable of coping with the changing world around them. And when the second Palestinian uprising against Israel broke out in 2000, images of death, wounded people, destruction and wailing women dominated the screens and came to represent Palestinian society in peoples’ minds. But are these the only images? Do Palestinians live only one mode of life? These were the questions asked when deciding to launch the first truly private television channel in Palestine. For all of their anguish, Palestinians know how to live a normal life. For the overwhelming majority of them, life goes on, for the good and bad. And while people cannot change their past, they can surely shape their future, provided they have the tools. An objective and highly professional television channel can help provide at least some of these tools.

Such a station can also play a very significant role in bridging gaps and mending fences with the “enemy/ neighbour” next door. For years, the Israeli public has been subjected to one kind of Palestinian media discourse, one that focuses more on the conflict and less on its resolution. In my opinion, most of the efforts made over the past years to solve the Palestinian- Israeli conflict have failed only because of the lack of understanding between the two nations. Failure to understand the other exacerbates the conflict and makes it harder to achieve reconciliation. A private television station that can show the Israeli public a different angle on life in Palestine can help counter many of the antagonistic perceptions that Israelis have about Palestinians and vice-versa.

A modern, state of the art and open television channel in Palestine can open doors for a more civilised debate between the two nations, as well as within their own constituencies. Palestinians need a professional media outlet that tells

84 their Israeli neighbours that across the Green Line, the Separation Barrier or the Israeli army checkpoints lives a nation that aspires to freedom and liberty no less than the Israelis themselves.

Palestinians living inside Israel are by default an integral part of the targeted audience of such a station. Their experience of life in Israel should, therefore, become part of the programme grid of any private television channel that strives to reach out to as many interested audience members as possible. The station should strive to feature locally produced cultural, educational, arts, sports and entertainment programmes, covering various aspects of Palestinian life in the Palestinian territories, inside Israel and abroad. It should also guide the Arab and Palestinian public toward a promising future by promoting a free, democratic, open and tolerant community, while at the same time advocating a culture of life, joy and promise, as opposed to a culture of death, tears and pain.

With 65% of the Palestinian population below the age of 25, a television channel should dedicate considerable programming time to a young audience. The youth factor is very important for every nation that looks towards a better future. This is why the Palestinian public needs programmes that address religious extremism and promote enlightened thinking, encouraging the youth to adopt a culture of open dialogue and acceptance of the other. Young Palestinians could also be encouraged to produce their own dramas and documentaries that address their interests and concerns which could then be aired on TV.

We have high hopes that our new private satellite channel, Palestine Tomorrow, will be capable of achieving these goals and attracting viewers from all over the world. For such a vision we require a self-sustaining and profitable business model that can generate revenues through the sale of advertising, public participation in television contests and other sponsorship, and sale of locally produced programmes and reports. Setting up the channel is indeed an expensive endeavour, but doable and well worth the effort.

*Elias Zananiri is the CEO of Palestine Tomorrow TV Satellite Channel in Ramallah, Palestine. +--<<<<<>>>>>--+

A MODEL FOR A REAL ECONOMIC PEACE

Taylor Dewey, "A model for a real economic peace"

This article was written for, and distributed by, the Common Ground News Service (CGNews), June 4, 2009, with permission for publication.

Prime Minister Netanyahu's economic peace plan is not a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but it is a step in the right direction. However, an economic peace plan should not merely aim to improve the per capita GDP of Palestinians in the occupied territories. In order to be an effective catalyst for peace, the plan must have as its ultimate goal the creation of economic interconnectedness between Israel and a sovereign Palestinian state.

The basic premise of economic interconnectedness is that two peoples with extensive and productive mutual trade will not become co-belligerents because they fear endangering their lucrative and mutually beneficial economic links. There are numerous examples and case studies that have demonstrated the efficacy of shared commercial interests, most popularly, the much discussed "McDonald's Peace" theory that posits no two countries having McDonald's have ever gone to war against each other. No one would expect the economically intertwined European Union to break out in armed conflict any time soon. Conversely, there are numerous instances where a lack of economic interconnectedness, and its commensurate linkages, has been identified as a possible catalyst for war.

Furthermore, economic interconnectedness fosters a stable base on which to build other constructive engagements. The aforementioned McDonald‚s peace has frequently been rationalised by sighting the normative values that countries with McDonald‚s share in common˜not only their taste for a Big Mac. Namely, open and liberal economies tend to develop open and liberal civil societies. These societies often prefer democratic forms of government which, in turn, create even more extensive ties. According to this view, economic linkages between Palestinians and Israelis would foster democratic institutions in the occupied territories because they would help to grease the wheels of mutually beneficial trade.

A welcome result of economic interconnectedness would be increased interaction and familiarity with the „other‰. If successful, it could also serve as a model for different forms of cooperation on myriad issues such as the environment and cross-border medical concerns. The problem with Netanyahu‚s plan so far is that it has been veiled in a context which presents the occupation only in economic terms˜avoiding the other aspects of the occupation that are equally or more destructive to the Palestinian people. So far Netanyahu‚s vision for economic peace does not include a sovereign Palestinian state. Without a 85 state, the Palestinians would be economically susceptible to the disparity of power imposed by the occupation. Simply put, the pacifying effects of economic interconnectedness will be much greater if between two sovereign states.

As a start, Netanyahu could lessen vague rhetoric and propose concrete ideas for enacting economic ties. I believe he should encourage joint ventures run by Palestinians by providing substantial incentives in the form of tax breaks, low interest start-up loans, and preference in government contracts for businesses that are mixed with Palestinians and Israelis. The United States has a successful track record with such endeavours that have been aimed at encouraging businesses owned by, or employing, certain numbers of historically underrepresented minorities or women.

The United States could assist by requiring that a percentage of its significant aid to Israel be earmarked for distribution to Palestinian business entrepreneurs in the occupied territories instead of for Israeli weapons procurement. It could also increase its own direct aid to the Palestinian Authority and provide low interest micro loans to fledgling businesses. Israel and the United States should increase the valuable resources available from international government organisation consultants and track two non governmental organisations specialising in development in the occupied territories.

Unfortunately, any economic progress will not immediately halt violence. It is a general consensus amongst scholars in the field of conflict studies that it is not only the poor who carry out acts of violence in the face of repression. Take for example the recent plot uncovered in Britain of doctors scheming to conduct terror bombings, or the fact that many terrorists have advanced degrees and come from middle class or highly privileged backgrounds. There will always be spoilers who aspire to derail any peace process. But they can be marginalised by increased economic interconnectedness. When Palestinians and Israelis rely significantly on each other for fiscal security, physical security will soon follow.

Ties created through trade, provided they are accompanied by a substantial political process, would lead to other constructive exchanges between Palestinians and Israelis, ultimately creating a platform from which to address the valid concerns of both parties in the conflict. Israeli anxiety over an unstable and hostile neighbour, as well as Palestinian concerns over lack of autonomy and freedom, would both be addressed and mitigated. Economic interconnectedness could offer many opportunities for Israelis and Palestinians to form personal relationships with each other, learn about each other‚s culture, and collaborate on other mutually beneficial projects˜all necessary steps towards creating a warm peace in the Levant.

*Taylor Dewey is an intern with Search for Common Ground (http://www.commongroundnews.org) in Jerusalem, a fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies (JIMS), a visiting graduate student at the Hebrew University and an MA candidate at Stanford University. ….:..:::..:…

VOTE FATEH (OR HAMAS)

Khalil Shikaki* Fateh (or Hamas)"

Source: International Herald Tribune (http://www.iht.com), May20, 2009. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission for republication.

The performance of the Palestinian Authority during the past 17 months has been impressive. It has managed against the odds to restore order in the West Bank to a degree not seen in many years. And it has confronted and disarmed nationalist and Islamist groups. Corruption is also not as rampant as it was a few years ago.

But this new stability comes at a cost. The Fateh faction, in the West Bank, controls the executive branch of government and the security services. Its political rival, Hamas, controls the Gaza Strip and the Parliament, but the Parliament is unable to exercise authority over the government. With no oversight, the government allows flagrant violations of law to go unpunished. Meanwhile, the security services have detained hundreds of people suspected of being a part of Hamas, often without charge or trial, and torture is sometimes used in their interrogation.

Nor is the Palestinian Authority able to translate its recent accomplishments into political gains in its negotiations with Israel. Israel is ignoring its own obligations under the US-backed peace proposal known as the road map, most notably to freeze settlement construction and to dismantle its widespread network of checkpoints in the West Bank. As a result, critics are accusing the Fateh government of collaborating with the Israeli occupation.

And the worst is yet to come. Soon, the Palestinian Authority will confront its biggest constitutional crisis since its inception in 1994. In January, President Mahmoud Abbas, the Fateh leader who was elected in 2005, and the Hamas-controlled Parliament, elected in 2006, will come to the end of their terms. Hamas and Fateh have not arranged for new elections. 86 This impending loss of legitimacy could have dangerous results.

Recall how, in 1999, when the interim arrangements of the Oslo agreements expired without an end to the occupation, younger nationalists led by Fateh leaders like Marwan Barghouti, in cooperation with Islamists, were emboldened to challenge the leadership of Yasser Arafat‚s old guard. Public demand for violence against Israelis grew considerably, leading to a bloody five-year intifada. Today, the level of Palestinian public support for armed attacks against Israeli civilians inside Israel is higher than it has been since 2005.

To pre-empt any return of the intifada, Palestinians need to return to the path they abandoned after the 2006 elections when the world refused to recognise a Hamas government, and fully embrace democratic rule. Fateh and Hamas must agree to organise national elections in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip by January. In resuming democracy, Palestinians will find that they can also resume national unity and present their Israeli neighbours with genuine choices of peace and security. But the Palestinians cannot do this alone. They need American support and understanding.

Talks between Fateh and Hamas during the past few months, sponsored by Egypt, have led to an agreement in principle on holding elections for Parliament and the president. Such elections would require that Fateh and Hamas be willing to share power for a short time, perhaps six months, and build a joint police force in Gaza to ensure a fair vote.

But most important, it will depend on the willingness of the international community, particularly the United States, to endorse the elections.

While the United States is clearly interested in strengthening Mr. Abbas‚s legitimacy and the Palestinian Authority‚s capacity, it probably fears the potential consequences of a Palestinian return to democracy. After all, Hamas could win the next elections, both for president and parliament.

Polls I have conducted indicate that while Hamas has lost about a quarter of its popular base since the last elections, in January 2006˜today it has the backing of only one-third of potential voters˜Fateh‚s support has remained stagnant, at a little over 40 percent. Clearly, those who abandoned Hamas have not shifted to Fateh. Most disturbing for Fateh is that its leader, President Abbas, could easily lose to Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas‚s most popular leader.

A Hamas victory, many would argue, would derail the peace process. But to many Palestinians, this statement misses the point; if the Palestinians don‚t speak with one voice, the peace process cannot go far.

Moreover, Fateh need not lose the elections. To win, it would need to overcome its internal weaknesses and fragmentation, hold its long-delayed Sixth Congress and reclaim the mantle of the Palestinian cause by showing progress in ending or at least containing Israeli occupation.

Recent student council elections, which are considered a barometer of factions‚ popularity in the West Bank, provide Fateh reason for some hope. At Birzeit University, for example, where Hamas had won elections handily in 2006 and 2007, Fateh won in 2008 by a 10 percentage point margin. This was 10 months after Hamas‚s violent takeover of the Gaza Strip. Last month, Fateh defeated Hamas in the student elections again, though, due to the Israeli offensive against Gaza and disappointment with the Palestinian Authority‚s performance, its winning margin dropped to 5 percentage points.

Today, Palestinians sorely miss three things: national unity, democracy and peace. With elections, they would have a chance to regain at least two. It is a risk worth taking.

*Khalil Shikaki is the director of the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research. +=>---+---<=+

CROSS-BORDER MEDICAL PRACTICES SERIES: A CALL FOR CULTURAL COMPETENCY IN JERUSALEM'S MEDICAL SERVICES

Dr. Hagai Agmon-Snir*

This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews, http://www.commongroundnews.org) in conjunction with the Jerusalem Post, and distributed by Common Ground News Service (CGNews), May21, 2009, with permission for publication

87 A few years ago, my mother underwent hip replacement surgery. Before she was discharged, the surgeon gave her quite a few instructions for the period following surgery. „If you don‚t follow the directions I gave you and you don‚t use the equipment,‰ said the surgeon, „your leg won‚t function the way it‚s supposed to and the effects of the excellent and expensive surgery will be wasted.‰ Today my mother traverses the country with her new hip and any memory of the fracture has been erased.

Lying next to my Jewish mother in the hospital were Palestinian mothers from East Jerusalem who had also fractured their hips and underwent hip replacement surgeries. Most of them, like my mother, were covered by the Israeli national health insurance, which made them luckier than their sisters from the West Bank and Gaza who are not entitled to these benefits. Yet there is good reason to suspect that, unlike my mother, many of them are limping today. Research carried out in hospitals in Jerusalem shows that about half of the Arabic-speaking patients do not understand the instructions they are given for post- treatment care because they are given in Hebrew.

One third of Jerusalem‚s residents are Arabic-speaking Palestinians, both Muslim and Christian. In times of need, these residents will almost always choose to go to hospitals in West Jerusalem. At some of these medical institutions more than half of the patients are Palestinian, yet none of them are provided interpretation services into Arabic or any other language. Occasionally, medical staff improvise and ask an Arab hospital worker or a visitor who speaks both Hebrew and Arabic to interpret, making them privy to the patient‚s personal medical details. It‚s not unheard of for the patient‚s child to act as an interpreter, telling his or her mother that the doctor recommends an abortion or that a suspicious lump was found in her breast.

In addition to the lack of language services, none of these establishments provide religious services to Muslims or Christians. Nurses complain about Muslim men washing their feet in sinks designated for hand washing. The simple solution˜low sinks for feet-washing before prayers˜cannot be found at any of these places. On the other hand, Jews may receive visits from a rabbi, have meals provided by various religious organisations according to their specific Kashrut needs, or pray in an in- hospital synagogue.

Recently, the Jerusalem Intercultural Center hosted senior directors from the Coney Island Hospital in New York City. In compliance with law, signs at the hospital appear in five languages, and anyone entering the hospital is entitled to receive hospital services in his or her own language. Sometimes an interpreter is present in the room and other times (with more obscure languages) interpretation is provided through a phone service, called tele-interpretation. The hospital has a synagogue, a Christian church, a mosque and a Hindu temple˜in accordance with the needs of the communities that this hospital serves. Kosher food is provided for Jews and Halal food for Muslims. In the case of Indians and Pakistanis, the food is prepared and spiced in a way that is suitable for their palette.

Is this hospital anomalous? Not at all. In the past fifteen years the „cultural competency‰ approach has become widely practiced in health systems in North America, Australia and Europe. It has simply skipped over Israel, despite much evidence showing that medical services adjusted to culture, religion and language improve the quality of care and the outcome of treatment. And, of course, such an approach is far more just and ethical as well.

Shocked by this state of affairs, the Jerusalem Inter-Cultural Center and the Jerusalem Foundation have launched an initiative to encourage cultural competency in Jerusalem. The need, by the way, exists not only for the Palestinian population in the city, but also for the Jewish Ultra Orthodox community (which comprises about one quarter of the city‚s residents and has special religious requirements), as well as people from a variety of other backgrounds who speak languages like Amharic, Russian, French and Spanish. We are only at the beginning of the road, but already there are medical institutions, such as the Alyn hospital (for paediatric rehabilitation) and the Clalit health services, that are now building up cultural competency in their facilities.

We hope that by introducing cultural competency into the medical services in Jerusalem we will help reduce the current inequality that exists in this field. Moreover, we believe that this is a way to teach the people of this city the value of accepting the other, being considerate of those who are different from us and to encourage people to think in terms of human rights even in a city as fraught with tensions as Jerusalem.

*Dr. Hagai Agmon-Snir is the director of the Jerusalem Intercultural Center (JICC, http://JICC.org.il) and can be reached at [email protected]>[email protected]. The project "Cultural Competency in Jerusalem" is sponsored by the Jerusalem Foundation. <><><><><>

88 WHAT WE READERS ARE ABOUT?

Please share with us what you are doing relating to nonviolent change. If you send us a short report of your doings, learnings, ideas, concerns, reactions, queries,... we will print them here. Responses can be published in the next issue.

Steve Sachs: I am quite concerned over the rise of incivility and violence in the U.S., of late, egged on by right wing commentators, and accompanied by a great deal of outright lying, serious misimplication and innuendo, primarily coming from people who call themselves conservatives, and allowed to continue by a corporate media that hopes to gain economically, both from the clash itself, and by their hope that it will undermine “liberal” policy agendas. These so called “conservatives,” are not that at all, but really “distructionists.” Since some of them (see above) wildly and shamelessly call their more progressive opponents “Nazis,” it is worth noting, that while, fortunately, the disruptions at town meetings, and the media propaganda, are still a long way from Mussolini’s Black Shirt, or Hitler’s Brown Shirt, hooligans, they are the ones moving dangerously in that direction. It is good to see that a number of organizations, and quite a number of people, are moving to restore and expand public dialogue, and overcome the tremendous outpouring of hate from some fearful extremists, propelled by the bad economy, some legitimate, but very misinformed, dissatisfaction with government – particularly prior to the current administration, and unhappiness with a Black President. Now that these feelings are out in the open, we have the opportunity and duty to work to transform them. =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+

ARTICLES

TOGETHER IN PAIN, TOGETHER IN HOPE

Dr. Maha El-Taji Daghash and Shiri Barr*

This article was written for, and distributed by, the Common Ground News Service (CGNews, http://www.commongroundnews.org), April 2,l 2009, with permission for publication. This article was written for, and distributed by, the Common Ground News Service (CGNews, http://www.commongroundnews.org), April 2,l 2009, with permission for publication.

Israel‚s Independence Day and the Palestinian Nakba are two sides of the same coin. For over 60 years, Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs have engaged in opposite activities on that day. Jews celebrate the establishment of the State of Israel, while Palestinian Arabs commemorate "Al-Nakba", the day of their catastrophe. By its very nature, „Independence Day‰ suggests nostalgic celebrations for the winners and disregards the defeated, thus intensifying feelings of separation and estrangement. In light of this drastic gap between the feelings of Jews and Arabs, a unique grassroots project has provided an alternative: a space where it is possible for Jews and Arabs to come together in an inclusive event.

The first „Independence Day-Nakba Day Event‰ took place in 2003, and has since become an annual tradition. The event, which attracted 160 participants last year, is a unique and genuine encounter, designed to honour and commemorate the pain and loss on both sides. The timing of the event is challenging: it is a two-day residential workshop that takes place on the official consecutive dates of the Israeli Memorial Day and Independence Day. This conscious choice of timing sets the tone for reciprocity and mutual respect and allows participants to heal the feelings of separation and alienation.

As organizers, we have encountered resistance from both sides. Many Jews and Arabs, even those who regularly engage in Arab-Jewish dialogue, are reluctant to participate in an event with 'Independence' and 'Nakba' in the same title. 'Invite me on any other day of the year,' is a common response. But it is exactly the challenge of holding these two opposites, and containing all the feelings they engender, which makes this event so important. It is exactly the specific timing of the encounter that makes it possible for participants to share their opposite narratives, bring their true feelings and participate fully.

Building on professional and grassroots experience, the workshop combines psychological, intellectual and experiential methodologies that allow participants to examine their personal and collective views and emotions regarding the conflict. It offers a supportive space to publicly share personal and family testimonies from both sides, and to grieve together for experiences of loss in a common, powerful memorial ceremony. People listen to a lecture given by a historian of the 'Nakba' narrative and participate in inter-religious prayer. Diverse workshops are offered simultaneously, where participants are able to share their pain and also take responsibility for their part in the continuation of the conflict.

89 The integration of all these experiences enables participants to explore and challenge the perceived essence of their national identities. What is created is a deep encounter between the identities as well as individual transformational processes that lead to new perceptions of the conflict and daily reality, and to a wish to act for change. In a past event, the sharing of the personal story of a Palestinian who grew up as a refugee deeply touched a Jew who did not know about the realities of refugees and what it meant for Palestinians to not have a home. 'Hearing this story from a Palestinian who, despite her difficult upbringing, had experienced a transformation in her relationship with Jews gave me hope and inspired me to continue in my peace work,' she said. A Palestinian participant was similarly moved by the story of a Jewish woman whose father lost his life while serving as an Israeli soldier when she was only five years old. 'The fact that this woman was able to commemorate her father‚s death by lighting a candle in his memory in a ceremony that also commemorated the loss of Palestinian lives filled me with respect and admiration,' said the Palestinian. In last year‚s event, a woman put it succinctly when she joyously shared, just before the closing ceremony the following insight: 'The true experience of Independence for me is that of being liberated from hatred and anger.'

'Independence' and 'Nakba' are two sides of the same coin, because both Arabs and Jews call this land home, and both need to do the internal work necessary to manage existential fears and feelings of oppression and victimization. Both need to think of alternatives that will allow for mutual respect, freedom and equality for both sides. What excites us as organizers is that we are creating an occasion that is broader than the limitations set by particular historic events: a celebration of partnership, responsibility and inclusion.

*Dr. Maha El-Taji Daghash is a Post-Doctoral Fellow in the Political Science Department at Hebrew University and a certified Compassionate Listening facilitator. Shiri Barr is a Masters Degree Candidate in Conflict Transformation from the SIT Graduate Institute in Vermont and a facilitator in Jewish-Palestinian Dialogue. This year, the event will be held on April 28-29 at Beit Oren Hotel in the Carmel Mountain. For registration, call Sima Manor at 04-877-5063 and leave a message. For further information call Jamal Daghash at 050-276-0403, Yosi Kinar at 052-398-9243, or Rihab Bahous at 054-219-0541. =+------<>------+=

OBAMA'S PEACE OFFENSIVE

Alon Ben-Meir,* July 23, 2009

SUMMARY

With a significant majority of Israelis and Palestinians in favor of a two-state solution with peace and normal relations, why then there is no national drive in either camp to push for a solution? The United States cannot equivocate with the Israelis, the Palestinians or the Arab states as to what is required to forge a lasting peace. ...~+~...

On a recent trip to the Middle East I had the opportunity to meet with many Israelis and Palestinians from all walks of life including high government officials, settlers and members of the Peace Now movement. I also met with academics, poll takers, journalists, former military and intelligence personnel, and scores of other ordinary people. Paradoxically, while repeated polls confirm that a majority (between 68 and 72 percent) of Israelis and Palestinians seek peace based on a two-state solution, no such unity exists between the various groups and factions who continue to promote their own agenda regardless of the consensus of the majority. What I heard and saw simply reconfirmed the profound lack of political cohesiveness within both Israeli and Palestinian communities.

Political factionalism coupled with intense personal rivalry too often prevents majority support of one leader or party. This is the case for Netanyahu's coalition with Shas, Yisrael Betanu and other right wing elements just as it is for Mahmoud Abbas' support within Fatah and with Hamas. More alarming is that while disconnect within each community persists; there is still a misperception between Israelis and Palestinians about each other's national aspirations, requirements and ultimate intentions. Too many Arabs and Israelis remain highly suspicious and oblivious to each other‘s psychological dispositions. Yet with a significant majority of Israelis and Palestinians in favor of a two-state solution with peace and normal relations, why then there is no national drive in either camp to push for a solution? The answer may be attributed to the following:

First, both sides generally have little faith in their own leadership's ability to deliver peace with security and dignity anytime soon. Israelis and Palestinians lack determined, visionary and courageous leaders. In Israel, the nature of a coalition government often prevents the Prime Minister to rise above the fray and take decisive measures toward peace without risking the collapse of the government. While Netanyahu's coalition represents a majority within the Knesset, it by no means

90 represents the overwhelming number of Israelis who are ready for a leader who can maintain a united government and deliver peace.

The Palestinians, on the other hand, suffer from a chronic factionalism making it impossible for a leader to make the necessary concessions without risking his position of power. Mahmoud Abbas is meant to represent the moderates, although most moderates have a hard time fully backing him because he has been unable to achieve any significant gains for them. Hamas' charter-which calls for Israel's destruction-is both offensive and intolerable to Israel and much of the international community, yet they are far more organized and enjoy popular grassroots support in Gaza. Without reconciling the political agenda of these two groups, Israel and the US will not have a strong partner with which to negotiate. Moreover, both sides often use this internal division and lack of consensus as an excuse for inflexibility.

Second, many Israeli and Palestinian leaders still feel that more time may further improve their position and lead to more concessions, hence they argue against ‘rushing' into any agreement. This is coupled with strong rejectionist elements in both camps. In Israel there are those who still seek "Greater Israel" especially among the settlers. On the Palestinians side there are several groups, such as Islamic Jihad and Hamas, who want all of mandated Palestine including Israel. They believe if they cannot take it by force then they can wait and use demographics to overwhelm the Jewish majority; as the idea of a one state solution has began to gain some currency among Palestinian radicals.

Third, neither the Israeli nor Palestinian government has been preparing the public over the years for the inevitability of peaceful coexistence based on a two-state solution. Whereas Israeli officials talk about the lack of a worthy Palestinian interlocutor and complain about continued violence perpetrated against Israel, the Palestinian media and public condemnations of Israel continue to incite the public against Israel, often using venomous language that makes the possibility of coexistence seem beyond repair.

Fourth, both sides are wrapped up in a tit-for-tat process where neither party wants to show its cards first. Both remain internally conflicted as to how far they can go to accommodate each other while maintaining the upper hand in negotiations. For example, on the surface it appears that the Israeli government would not compromise on the future unity of Jerusalem as "Israel's eternal capital" while the Palestinians would presumably not compromise on the issue of the right of return of the refugees. In reality however, both sides have substantially modified their positions and reached agreements in principle on both of these critical issues in previous negotiations.

Lastly, there has not been consistent pressure exerted from the outside to prompt both Israelis and Palestinians to settle their differences. Although the United States has exerted some effort over many years, it was neither consistent nor did it display the leadership needed to bring parties together to forge peace. The Clinton and the Bush administrations focused on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict largely at the eleventh hour of their presidencies. The US has failed to assert itself as the most influential power, and has too often allowed excessive violence to severely undermine the peace process as happened during the second Intifada under the Bush administration's watch between years 2000 and 2006. The Arab states too have often used the Palestinian plight to cover for their domestic failures. It is only in the past few years that some Arab states have put forth a concerted effort to advance the Arab Peace Initiative that calls for a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace. Although historical in its dimensions and implications, the Initiative remains static because neither side is ready or willing to translate it into a real peace process.

Considering this paradoxical reality, both Israelis and Palestinians have shown that they are simply incapable of resolving this conflict on their own. This is why the Obama administration must pursue an aggressive political agenda with unwavering commitment to produce concessions from all sides to provide the basis for an agreement. The United States cannot equivocate with the Israelis, the Palestinians or the Arab states as to what is required to forge a lasting peace. But for peace to occur, the Obama administration must secure a number of prerequisites to avoid the pitfalls of previous administrations and capitalize on the changing political environment in the Middle East especially among the Arab states that favor peace with Israel.

Ending the Settlements Expansion:

Ending the settlements expansion is one of the most critical elements in changing the dynamic of the Israeli- Palestinian negotiations. More than anything else the settlements send a clear message that Israel has no intention of seriously relinquishing territory and that the idea of a two state solution is dead. If Israel were to stop expansion, it could strengthen Mahmoud Abbas' hand as he would be able to claim credit for an extraordinary Israeli concession. To resolve the conflict on this issue between the Obama administration and Israel, both sides must agree on a moratorium for a specific period of time (instead of an open-ended freeze) pending a resolution to the borders dispute. The expansion can then be resumed on the settlements that would be incorporated into Israel proper by agreement with the Palestinians. The Israeli government must 91 also control the settlers currently residing in the West Bank who have on a number of occasions resorted to violence against the Palestinians. In return for an Israeli cooperation and a moratorium on the settlements, the Obama administration must demand and receive from the Palestinian Authority an immediate cessation of all incitements against Israel in the Palestinian media, especially those in Arabic. This must include the revision of text books, as is being promoted by the Peace Research Institute in the Middle East. Moreover, although violent attacks against Israel have been reduced dramatically since the Gaza war, the PA must demonstrably continue to take whatever action needed to prevent future acts of violence. In addition, the PA must undertake a major public relations campaign to foster the virtues of peaceful coexistence with Israel.

Promoting a Palestinian Unity Government:

Establishing a unity government remains central to promoting a lasting Israeli-Palestinian peace. The Obama administration must exert tremendous pressure on Egypt and Saudi Arabia to do everything in their power to advance a unity government between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. Every effort must be made to pressure Hamas to accept the Arab Peace Initiative. It is unlikely that Hamas will abandon their charter and recognize Israel outright; therefore, accepting the Arab Peace Initiative as an act of solidarity with the 22 Arab states may allow its leadership to save face. It would also allow Israel and the US to come to an indirect agreement with Hamas should they start looking seriously at the Arab Peace Initiative as a viable framework for peace. Having been substantially weakened by the Israeli Gaza offensive late last year, the continuing closure of border crossings and the growing disenchantment of its policies by Palestinians in Gaza and other Arab states, Hamas may now be more inclined to forge a unity government than at any time before. Moreover, Hamas' leadership seems more open to discuss a two-state solution in order to have a say in the peace process. Otherwise, the growing chasm between Hamas and the PA will not serve the interest of any of the players in the conflict and will only perpetuate the possibility of large scale violence.

Reducing Tension in the Territories:

Although there has been significant progress in the West Bank and the Palestinians are enjoying greater freedom and relative economic prosperity, Israel can do considerably more to make the life for the Palestinians in the West Bank easier. Israel moreover, must further strengthen Mahmoud Abbas. Israel cannot weaken Abbas, and then blame him for being weak and inconsequential. Israel should continue to remove scores of road blocks, release thousands of prisoners and allow thousands more Palestinians to work in Israel. These concessions should be awarded to Mahmoud Abbas as a triumph and result of negotiations. Israel must also grant more construction tenders to Palestinians living in overcrowded housing that need to build schools and housing units. Between years 2000 and 2007 a meager 91 construction permits were given to Palestinians in West Bank while 18,472 housing units were built for Israeli settlers in the same area, which can only breed more resentment. Changing this status quo will first and foremost strengthen Abbas in the eyes of ordinary Palestinians and allow him to make important concessions to Israel especially in connection with border adjustments and the issue of Palestinian refugees. In addition, these efforts would further bolster Abbas in his negotiations with Hamas to form a unity government as he can demonstrate that he is the more effective interlocutor with the Israelis. Finally, Israeli concessions will help to create the contrast in the quality of life and personal freedoms for Palestinians in the West Bank, to demonstrate that moderation pays and is rewarded.

Translating the Arab Peace Initiative into Confidence-Building Measures:

The Obama administration must persuade the Arab states to translate the Arab Peace Initiative into confidence building measures. Such an historic document that calls on Israel to return territories captured in 1967 for peace while finding a just solution to the Palestinian refugees is not only momentous but provides the foundation for a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace. In a recent Op Ed in the Washington Post, The Crown Prince of Bahrain, Shaikh Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa expanded on the necessity for Arabs to back the Peace Initiative in a more robust way: "We must stop the small minded waiting game in which each side refuses to budge until the other side makes the first move, we've got to be bigger than that. All sides need to take simultaneous good-faith action if peace is to have a chance." The Arab states for example can take specific actions, however symbolic, such as allowing Israeli passengers and cargo aircraft to fly over Arab territory, opening trade offices in Arab states other than Jordan and Egypt, holding cultural exchanges and lifting the ban on Arab officials from meeting with their Israeli counterparts to demonstrate their sincerity behind the Initiative.

Jordan and Egypt, as designated by the Arab League to promote the Initiative, must also start to take greater gestures to garner support for it from the Israeli people. Their representatives should make it clear to the Israeli public that the Arab Peace Initiative is a framework for negotiations and a comprehensive peace, and is not simply a take-it-or-leave-it offer. Those Arab states who do not yet have diplomatic relations with Israel should back Jordan in Egypt in these efforts and be seen as publicly supporting a large-scale Arab effort to win over the Israeli public.

92 Israelis too need to be more proactive in their support for the Arab Peace Initiative to counter what has been seen as a tepid government response thus far. The academics, former military and intelligence officials and ex-ambassadors who discuss and support the Initiative in their offices and private meetings need to take on a more public presence to make this dialogue resonate with the Israeli street.

It should be noted that the Arab Sunni states including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan have a grave concern over Iran's nuclear program and want to put the Arab-Israeli conflict behind them in order to focus on Tehran's threat. They should be far more in tune to make important concessions to Israel at this juncture as they view Israel as ultimately the best defense against Iran's nuclear ambitions. To assuage the Israelis, US Secretary of Defense Bob Gates and the Obama administration will need to work closely with Israel on the Iranian threat and consequently be in a better position to coax the Israelis to embrace the Arab Peace Initiative.

Advancing the Israeli-Syrian Peace Process:

Advancing the Israeli-Syrian peace negotiations has to be part and parcel of Obama's peace offensive. Syria holds the key to regional stability and enjoys a very important geo-strategic position with far reaching regional implications. Although the Obama administration seems to be leaning toward an Israeli-Palestinian accommodation first, it must pursue the Israeli- Syrian track with the same tenacity. Peace between Israel and Syria will have serious ramifications on Damascus' influence over Hamas, Hezbollah and its relationship with Iran and consequently could facilitate an Israeli-Palestinian agreement. The current post-election domestic strife in Iran is of particular note, as Syria may reconsider its strategic alliance with Iran while it is in a state of turmoil. Israel's deep concerns over Iran's nuclear program should encourage its government to focus on Syria. Indeed, the way to distance Iran from the Mediterranean is to distance Syria from Iran, and that can happen only when Israel comes to the conclusion that peace with Syria is more valuable than the Golan Heights. Focus groups of settlers in the Golan Heights have stated their willingness to leave their homes if it would mean peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors, and yet Netanyahu and his advisors are still stalling on moving forward with the Syria track. Syria is willing to resume the negotiations with Israel from where it was left under Turkish mediation with the Olmert government. Israel, on the other hand wants to restart the talks unconditionally with no regard to any prior understanding. For these reasons, the Obama administration must bring whatever pressure necessary to bear on Israel to reach an accord with Syria. In return, Damascus must unequivocally demonstrate that peace with Israel remains Syria's strategic option and the leadership is prepared to fully embrace complete normalizations of relations with Israel.

Staying the Course:

The question now is will the Obama administration stay the course? This will be a key test in judging the US credibility on the ground, as this conflict has outlived countless US attempts at reconciliation that were too short lived or lacked the political capital necessary to reach an agreement. Having started his peace offensive on day one of his administration President Obama has shown his commitment to finding a solution. He must now demonstrate his resolve to stay the course. The Obama administration must expend tremendous political capital, at least initially, to achieve the tangible results that the 62-year-old intractable conflict will require. President Obama himself must remain relentless as both the Israelis and the Palestinians will continue to check and test his resolve. He must demonstrate evenhandedness in his demands from both Israelis and Palestinians without necessarily compromising America's commitment to Israel's national security. Moreover, President Obama must up the ante on his public relations offensive in Israel to extol the virtue of a two-state solution. He must explain why the administration is investing so much political capital behind its push for peace. Both the Israeli and Palestinian public must be made fully aware about what the enormous benefits are and what would be the price of failure. The Israeli public will not tolerate a government that alienates the United States, which they view as an indispensable guarantor for their national security. Orchestrated pressure on Netanyahu and Abbas will also provide both leaders the political cover they need to make the necessary concessions for peace.

The Obama administration cannot retreat in the face of Israeli or Arab resistance because the price of failure will be unacceptable in a region that is critical to America's strategic interests and President Obama's ability to lead. Deferring the peace process will not offer a respite for reassessment but a prelude for unimaginable violent escalation of the conflict from which only the detractors of peace can reap the greatest benefit.

Alon Ben-Meir is a professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He teaches courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies, (212)600-4267, [email protected], www.alonben-meir.com. <==+==>

93 A STRATEGIC NECESSITY

Alon Ben-Meir,* July 31, 2009

The Obama administration's push for a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace may have a much stronger likelihood of succeeding this time around because of the prevailing political and security dynamics. For an agreement to occur however, Israel must concede the inevitable by relinquishing territories captured in the 1967 war, and the United States must provide a new security umbrella to its regional allies. This would lead not only to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace, but it could seriously impede Iran's ambitions for regional hegemony with nuclear weapon capabilities.

The administration's ambitious agenda came to a focus this past week as Special Envoy George Mitchell, Secretary of Defense Bob Gates, National Security advisor Jim Jones, and Obama's Iran strategist Dennis Ross all converged in the region for a series of high level security meetings with Israeli officials. Subsequent visits by Mitchell to Ramallah, Cairo and Damascus are clear evidence of this administration's emphasis on a regional diplomatic push that goes well beyond the Israeli-Palestinian track.

With the international spotlight on Israel, it now must find a way to work harmoniously with the Obama administration if it wants to be viewed as a genuine partner in the peace process. The United States remains indispensable to Israel's national security and is ultimately the last line of defense against any threat-including Iran's, so for Israel to appear flippant to US pressure at this juncture is a dangerous gamble. The territorial concessions necessary to forge a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace could further cement Israel's relations with the United States by upgrading Israel's US strategic cooperation into a new security arrangement akin to a defense treaty. If Israel has full American backing in security and defense, it will have more flexibility to concede the occupied territories because ultimately ensuring Israel's security takes away its main rational for keeping Palestinian and Syrian territories.

Such a security agreement with Israel does not mean that the Obama administration has resigned itself to the inevitability of a nuclear Iran. Israeli Minster of Intelligence and Atomic Energy Dan Meridor recently alluded to this in an interview with Army Radio, noting that, "Now, we don't need to deal with the assumption that Iran will attain nuclear weapons but to prevent this." A US-Israel security agreement, and possibly a larger security umbrella that covers Arab allies as well would likely make Iran's nuclear ambitions less compelling. This agreement, combined with potentially crippling sanctions might provide enough deterrence for Iran to consider cooperating with the international community on its nuclear program. Moreover, since Iran never admitted to pursuing nuclear weapons, the US strategy might offer Iran a face saving way out. But if diplomacy nevertheless fails and Tehran continues with its refusal to settle the nuclear conflict through negotiations, then Israel will still have gained from the United States' full cooperation and security partnership, as long as the negotiations with Iran are not open-ended.

Israel's other significant advantage would be an opening to the rest of the Arab world. The Arab states led by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Morocco deeply dread the Iranian nuclear threat and many would be willing to work with Israel to mitigate their deep concerns. But they are loath to cooperate with Israel, and rightfully so, as long as Israel continues to occupy Arab land and expand the settlements which, symbolize to them an indefinite occupation. The Iranian nuclear menace has created a new power equation in the Middle East, where Israel and the Arab states share a common threat. Israel, which for decades has been seen as the enemy of the Arab world, could now become a potential ally through various cooperative defense deterrents against Iran. For Israel this represents not only an historic opportunity to forge a comprehensive peace, but to form a de-facto united Arab-Israeli front while working closely with the United States for a sustained regional security.

Finally, there is the international public opinion which is unified on the issue of occupation and sees Israel's intransigence as cause not only for regional instability, but as a threat to global energy resources. In case of a major conflagration between Israel and Iran, the effects of oil and gas volatility could be potentially devastating. As for the Israeli- Palestinian issue, much of the international community with the EU at the forefront has become far more forthcoming in its opposition to Israeli policies. Recently twenty-seven EU foreign ministers decided to put off the planned upgrading of EU-Israel relations to an "association agreement" which would have large trade benefits, until they can see a stronger commitment from Israel to a Palestinian state. No one should expect Israel to compromise its national security only to please the international community. That being said, Israel has made tremendous strides in becoming a respected member of the international community in terms of diplomatic and trade cooperation. But the scores of countries affected by the continuing turmoil in the Middle East are fed up with a conflict they believe can be resolved by ending the occupation. From their perspective, linking territory to national security no longer holds the weight it used to, not only because of Israel's technological superiority but because the Arab world has come full circle to accept Israel's reality. If Israel were to forfeit this opportunity, it will be blamed for many of the regional ills as well as the growing rift with the United States-which most Israelis will not tolerate. 94 The Obama administration is investing tremendous political capital in its effort to forge a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace. Moreover, for the Obama administration to restore its moral leadership, neutralize Iran's nuclear ambitions, and reach a major breakthrough in US-Middle East relations--following eight years of President Bush's disastrous policies--it has no alternative but to tackle the Arab-Israeli peace process head on. If these efforts require a regional security umbrella by the United States, as was suggested by Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, Israel can come out of this not only with a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace deal but with stronger security ties with the United States.

This prospect offers what most Israelis yearn for--peace with security. Any Israeli government that refuses to see that will have forfeited its mandate to govern and should give way to a new Israeli government capable of delivering peace.

*Alon Ben-Meir is a professor of international relations at the Center forGlobal Affairs at NYU. He teaches courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies, and can be contacted at: [email protected], www.alonben- meir.com. ._.._.

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL-COGNATIVE BARRIERS TO PEACE

Ifat Ma‚oz*

This article was written for, and distributed by, the Common Ground News Service (CGNews, http://www.commongroundnews.org), July 23, 2009, with permission for publication.

"Yet there remains another wall. This wall constitutes a psychological barrier between us, a barrier of suspicion-of rejection-of fear-of deception...a barrier of distorted and eroded interpretation of every event and statement. Today, through my visit to you, I ask why don‚t we stretch out our hands with faith and sincerity so that together we might destroy this barrier?" (from the speech made by Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat to the Israeli Knesset, Jerusalem, 29 November 1977)

Sadat‚s famous words to the Israeli Parliament in 1977, which were part of his historical appeal for Israeli-Arab peace, still resonate today. As he so eloquently put it, the barriers to Israeli-Arab peace are to a large extent psychological-cognitive.

An important characteristic of intergroup conflict is the absence of rational thinking on both sides. The extreme tension that is associated with conflict diminishes intellectual resources for dealing with information and leads to perceptual distortions. Such distortions and biases can, in turn, perpetuate and escalate the conflict.

Representations and images that paint the opponents as having evil intentions, low morality, and inferior traits, constitute a fundamental cognitive bias common in situations of conflict. Israelis and Palestinians tend to develop simplistic black and white perceptions of „us versus them‰ in which one‚s own side is construed as good and just and the other side is delegitimised and dehumanised. These images and perceptions are further reinforced and disseminated through the educational system and the mass media.

Negative perceptions of the other side in conflict inform yet another important psychological-cognitive barrier to conflict resolution. It leads each side to devalue proposals made by the opponent in what is termed „reactive devaluation‰. The result is that a compromise or peace plan, when proposed by the opponent, has less value in the eyes of the receiver.

In a series of studies that my colleagues and I conducted about this phenomenon, we showed Israeli-Jews real compromise proposals that had been exchanged between the two sides during the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. In some of the cases, the proposals were presented as offered by the official Palestinian delegation to the negotiations. In other cases, the same peace plans were presented as offered by the official Israeli delegation to the negotiations.

Interestingly, Israeli-Jews evaluated compromise proposals as less fair, less effective, and less beneficial to Israel when presented as Palestinian proposals compared to when the same proposals were presented as coming from Israeli negotiators. Clearly, this bias constitutes a serious barrier to the ability of Israelis and Palestinians to agree on proposals aimed at resolving the conflict.

How can the parties' cognitions and perceptions of each other be modified to counteract negative images and evaluations? What can be done to bring about a shift towards understanding, agreement and peaceful relations?

95 Clearly, cultivating compassion towards the other is a most important step in overcoming the psychological barriers to conflict resolution and fostering reconciliation in disputes between religious, national and ethnic groups.

Thus, organised dialogue workshops in which both sides meet and discuss their experiences and opinions of the conflict can transform the negative images and perceptions that Palestinians and Israelis have of each other and encourage a more positive attitude towards the other and towards the possibility of resolving the conflict.

However, the question remaining is will this positive perceptual transformation last long? How can the effect of organised meetings between the sides be preserved after Israelis and Palestinians return to the harsh reality of the conflict?

Evidently, overcoming cognitive-psychological barriers to peace requires ˜ both on the Israeli and the Palestinian side ˜ a deeper and more extensive transformation in the messages communicated by the educational system and the media about the other side and about the importance of reaching peace and reconciliation. Such messages should focus on re-humanising and getting to know the other side better, and encourage each side to learn about the narratives and suffering of the other.

*Professor Ifat Ma‚oz from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem researches the psychology of the media in relation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as well as mechanisms for resolving this conflict and has published many articles on the subject. .:::.:::.

FEARS OF WAR AND FEARS OF PEACE IN THE PALESTINIAN AND ISRAELI RELATIONSHIP

Lucy Nusseibeh and Shelley Ostroff*

This article is part of a special series on the impact of fear on the Arab-Israeli conflict written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews, http://www.commongroundnews.org>www.commongroundnews.org), who distributed it, July 2, 2009, with permission for publication.

Fear permeates the Israeli Palestinian relationship. Both occupier and occupied experience profound fears regarding their identity, their safety and their very survival. But ironically there are also fears that arise from the prospect of ending the conflict and achieving peace.

One of the painful paradoxes of the Palestinian-Israeli dynamic is that some of the unconscious mechanisms we employ to deal with fear often tend to exacerbate it and thereby undermine moves towards peace. Recognising this, unmasking the rhetoric of fear, and also looking at the conflict as only one aspect of a relationship between two peoples bound together in one interdependent system, can help us overcome some of these fears.

Israelis and Palestinians often view each other in stark, polarised terms of „we are good, they are bad‰. This is actually an expression of a mechanism we use to cope with fear whereby we project unwanted aspects of ourselves or our own group onto the other. Each side tends to attribute all the violence, inhumanity and injustice to the other, while claiming complete moral authority for itself. While this mechanism may help people feel better because it generates a sense of moral strength and clarity in the face of danger and confusion, it does not necessarily have any bearing on reality and therefore does not help alleviate the fear. In fact the opposite is true; it reinforces the fear by making the other side seem worse than it is.

Both Israelis and Palestinians see themselves as victims, albeit for different historical and current reasons. Regardless of the immense inequalities of power and control, there is little acknowledgement by either side of their roles as persecutors in the conflict.

The victim role is more complicated than it seems. While the focus might be on suffering, it also generates a profound sense of self-righteousness and a justification for excessive amounts of violence and inhumanity towards the other. Just think, how much violence is committed in the name of self-defence or security?

Sometimes, the need to preserve the sense of self-righteousness that comes with victimhood can be even more important than safety. This need has brought Israelis and Palestinians in different ways to provoke each other into intensifying the role of persecutor. The violence that is consequently provoked reinforces the „evidence‰ of the monstrous and inhumane nature of the enemy. When this happens we can see how the fear of violent conflict is often better tolerated than the fear of a loss of one‚s moral bearings and the resulting guilt and shame that arise from an acknowledgement that one is not only a victim but also a persecutor.

96 Ultimately, these processes can be linked to a generally unacknowledged fear of peace. Continuing conflict where one‚s own side is totally good and the other is all bad can be less frightening than the complex world that is offered by the prospect of peace with one‚s neighbour. War is often recognised as a way to unite a people in fear around a common enemy. It is also a way to protect people from having to face their own dual role as persecutors and victims, and all the moral ambiguity and painful internal personal conflict that implies.

Continuing conflict also allows people to hold onto the comforting solipsistic fantasy of total control - shared by many Israelis and Palestinians alike - that if they persist enough, the enemy will disappear and they will be totally vindicated and everything will turn out exactly as they want it to.

Perhaps the prospect of peace also generates a fear of the unknown nature of the relationship that would develop within this new reality (although in different ways for the Israelis and the Palestinians), and the impact this might have on each side‚s identity. In any relationship, how it is perceived and how it is described affects how people feel within it.

By now the phrase „Israeli-Palestinian conflict‰ has become a synonym for the relationship between the two peoples. This imposes a perspective that the relationship, by its very nature, is and has to be one of conflict. What would happen if instead we used the phrase „the conflict within the Israeli Palestinian relationship‰? This phrase suggests that there could be more to the relationship between the two peoples than just conflict. Replacing „conflict‰ with „relationship‰ offers space for less hostile and less fearful mutual perceptions. Where „conflict‰ inspires fear, „relationship‰ implies the possibility of a different way of dealing with each other; it offers space for heightened discernment and creativity, and even an invitation towards openness and constructive possibilities.

For the fears to be overcome, it is important to take an eagle‚s-eye view and shift to a higher systemic perspective that acknowledges both Israelis and Palestinians as interdependent parts of a larger whole within which neither part can be eliminated, controlled or fully extricated from the other. Such a perspective would focus on how best to manage this relationship in its many dimensions and with real reciprocity. It would take the needs of all parties into account and would cultivate the well-being not only of both Israelis and Palestinians, but of the Israeli-Palestinian system as a whole.

This meta-perspective can render not only the conflict, but also the prospect of peace, less frightening. In focusing on the humanity and diversity of both interdependent parties, it calls for the exploration and discovery of new roles that each side can assume vis-à-vis the other as they work together towards creating their inevitably shared future.

*Lucy Nusseibeh lives and works in East Jerusalem. She is founder-director of Middle East Nonviolence and Democracy (MEND) and director of the Institute of Modern Media at Al-Quds University. Shelley Ostroff PhD is a consultant living in Jerusalem :...... :.:.:...... :

WHAT LIES BENEATH FEAR

Simon Lawson*

This article is part of a special series on the impact of fear on the Arab-Israeli conflict written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews, http://www.commongroundnews.org>www.commongroundnews.org), who distributed it, July2, 2009, with permission for publication.

"Let me tell you something Simon; people round here are kinda ignorant - ignorance breeds fear and fear breeds violence - so watch your ass." This was the parting shot from a kindly truck driver as he dropped me in a small Texas town, when hitchhiking from Houston to Austin 25 years ago. It was amusing at the time but the phrase stuck. As I began to travel in countries that had been torn apart by violent conflict I realised how profound this stranger‚s advice to a stranger in a strange land really was. Ignorance breeds fear and fear breeds violence - this is the first thought that came to me as I started to consider the impact of fear on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

I have made two working visits to Israel and the West Bank in recent years, to run production workshops for MAAN, a Palestinian television network. Through many conversations I had with Israelis and Palestinians the relationship between ignorance and fear was brought sharply into focus. I noticed a difference in attitudes to the other‚ expressed by both Palestinians and Israelis who had experienced adult life before the first Intifada and those who had been too young to remember much before then.

What was the difference? Most people over 40, had friends or business associates from the other side‚ before the Intifada. The very phrase ˆBefore Intifada or B.I. - came to seem to me like a modern equivalent of BC and AD. Sallah, a potter 97 in Hebron, said that B.I. he had exported pots to Europe with his Israeli friend Shlomo. They dined in each other‚s houses and did business together for years. But now his only contact with his old friend in Israel was the occasional telephone call. Sallah has no fear of Jews or Israelis as people; he knows the common ground between the two outweighs their differences ˆ but that the politicians have messed this up.

My Aunt Zelda in Tel Aviv emigrated from England 30 years ago. She told me that B.I. she enjoyed dining with Arab friends in Arab restaurants ˆ something unthinkable today. Zelda has no fear of Muslims or Palestinians, but she fears zealots of all persuasions, and for Israel if it stays on the same path.

These examples typify attitudes of the B.I. generation. They do not fear Œthe other‚; they know they share not just the common interests of humanity - but also much of their cultural heritage. Contrast this with the ignorance of the Post Intifada - P.I.- generation. Young Israelis and Palestinians, through no fault of their own, have little knowledge of Œthe other‚. If they encounter each other at all it is across a check-point or during a military operation - situations that don‚t illuminate their common humanity, but re-enforce ignorance, prejudice and fear.

There are hundreds of tourists at Mount Gerizim for the celebration of the Samaritan Passover, a joyous, largely family, affair. A group of young Israelis stands out amongst the mixed crowd. The young men are carrying machine guns. I ask one why he is carrying a weapon. "To protect ourselves", he says, "we have to drive through the West Bank to get here and you never know when these people (Palestinians) will attack us." He was fearful of people he didn't know or understand - his fear led him to carry a weapon and to be prepared for violence.

Students at the Al Aqsa University in Ramallah are campaigning vigorously for their student union elections. A Hamas supporter puts a garland around my neck declaring: "You love Hamas, you hate Israel, you hate Jews - yes!" It wasn't a question. "Well no, actually" was my response, as I took the garland from around my neck. This young man had never met a Jew before, not one that wasn't armed anyway, and certainly not a British half Jewish non-Zionist like me. All he knew of Jews was that Israel was the self-declared Jewish state that occupied his country. Like his Israeli counterpart he was fearful of people he didn't know and just as ready for violent retaliation. With these perspectives people do indeed have reason to be afraid of each other, because, as we know all too well, violence is the day-to-day outcome of these fears.

What hope then of a solution? Not much - unless some real change is brought about. Youth in Ramallah, Hebron, Tel Aviv or Jerusalem will never get to know the other‚ as individuals, and discover their commonalities, as long as the barriers between them continue to be built and re-enforced. I and some of my B.I. friends believe that the only viable solution will be one in which Muslims, Jews, Christians and others live together as equals, seeing each other as neighbours, acting on their commonalties and celebrating their differences. But one thing is certain, a sustainable solution necessitates continued efforts to dispel ignorance of the other‚ ˆ like this news service.

*Simon Lawson is the head of Nomad Productions (www.nomadproductions.co.uk) a London based Production Company that specialises in the use of media for education, development and peace-building. He is a former Country Director of Search for Common Ground in D.R. Congo. ~~~+~~~

CARTER'S VISIT TO NRVR DANIEL - A LESSON IN THE IMPORTANCE OF DIALOGUE

Chaim Landau*

This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews, http://www.commongroundnews.org>www.commongroundnews.org), and distributed by Common Ground News Service, July 2, 2009, with permission for publication.

Lost in the recent coverage of the Iranian election results and Obama‚s and Netanyahu‚s speeches was the visit by former US President Jimmy Carter to the Neve Daniel community in the settlement of Gush Etzion. Carter‚s visit was condemned both by those on the left, who were horrified to see him visit a settlement, and by many settlers who view him as an implacable enemy of Israel in general and of them specifically. Nonetheless, the visit has great significance which can perhaps best be summed up by Carter‚s parting words to his hosts: "I have been fortunate this afternoon in learning the perspectives that I did not have". The visit demonstrated, especially to the settlers, the power of dialogue to change perceptions between parties that seem so far apart.

This is all the more significant because, despite the former president‚s role in forging a peace agreement between Israel and Egypt, there has been much bad blood between Carter and supporters of the Jewish State. His book Palestine 98 Peace, Not Apartheid‚ laid blame for the continuing Palestinian-Israeli conflict on the shoulders of Israel. He used the politically explosive term apartheid‚ to describe the situation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, a term normally levelled at Israel only by its most severe critics or by those who seek to delegitimise it. The book provoked an intense backlash, exemplified by Yariv Nornberg, a former graduate assistant in conflict resolution at the Carter Center who, in an open letter to Carter, stated that the former president was certainly „no friend of Israel‰.

Carter‚s declared intention in visiting Neve Daniel was to "listen and let his views be known". His views on the settlements are well known. In fact they are considered so hostile by some that before his visit a petition was circulated among Gush Etzion residents calling upon local council head, Shaul Goldstein, not to meet with Carter as he is "a clear supporter of our enemies". "We cannot allow ourselves to be the instruments of his rehabilitation‰, continues the petition "We must tell him: 'You are working against the Jewish nation in its land, and you cannot be an honest broker‚."

During Carter‚s visit to Gush Etzion he saw a living, thriving, and prosperous community. He met with council head, Shaul Goldstein, who did not heed the petition, world renowned Yeshiva (Jewish seminary) head Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, local resident Sherri Mandel whose son Koby was bludgeoned to death with rocks, and Ruth Gillis, whose husband was killed by a Palestinian sniper as he drove home. After hearing their stories Carter declared: "I recognize that their suffering is taking place in an area where strife and misunderstanding and animosity exist."

All too often, Israeli settlers and their supporters fall into the trap of seeing the entire world as being against them including the United Nations, the international community, and the Israeli left. It becomes all too easy to preach solely to the choir ˆ those who already support the settlers such as many in the US evangelical community. However such disengagement from the broader Israeli public, and especially the international community, also makes it easy for the settlers to be typecast as villains, international pariahs and outlaws.

Yet, in the complex human mosaic that makes up the Arab-Israeli conflict, the settlers too deserve to be heard. Israeli settlers do have their own narratives to tell, consisting of dreams, aspirations, and stories. Many may even want peace ˆ and may be willing to make compromises in order to achieve it. Irrespective of one‚s views of the settlements, the voices of Israeli settlers need to be heard by those who want to make a positive difference in this conflict.

The visit certainly did not turn Carter into an admirer of settlements. However he did see another side of the Arab- Israeli conflict and upon leaving stated that "this particular settlement area is not one I ever envision being abandoned or changed over into Palestinian territory".

Carter‚s visit is evidence that engagement can make a real impact and is a worthy example of the type of calm and respectful dialogue that Israeli settlers and their supporters need to have with others who do not understand or appreciate their point of view. It is time to stop feeling that the whole world is against us anyways‚. Instead, it is time to begin a meaningful dialogue.

*Chaim Landau has a Post-graduate degree in International Relations from the London School of Economics. He is an American- Israeli Middle East analyst living in Jerusalem and has previously worked as a Legacy Heritage Fellow. Currently he is a PresenTense fellow developing Perspectives Israel.‚ <><><><><><>

RELIGION AS A LANGUAGUE OF COMMUNICATION AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION: REFLECTIONS ON PRESIDENT OBAMA'S SPEECH IN CAIRO

Rabbi David Rosen*

This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews, http://www.commongroundnews.org>www.commongroundnews.org), who distributed it, June 11, 2009, with permission for publication.

Of particular note in President Obama's impressive speech to the gathering jointly hosted by Cairo University and Al Azhar, was his use of religion as a language of communication. It was not just a matter of sprinkling his text with quotations from the Koran. Obama reflected a grasp and sensibility that has been woefully lacking in Western politicians who, more often than not, are either ignorant about the religious identity of their Muslim interlocutors, or just plain nervous (and sometimes even hostile) about touching on religion generally.

99 The issues the President addressed were political, strategic, civic and social. But as opposed to so many Westerners, he used religious language in addressing these topics. This is not an empty gesture. All too often Western politicians fail to understand that many peoples' identities are inextricably bound up with their religious culture, and this is especially the case in the Middle East.

When people are addressed in the language and context of their own cultural identity, they are not only shown genuine respect for that identity but a quality of engagement is facilitated that has a far greater chance of being heard and listened to˜even when it contains criticisms and challenges that may not in themselves be that easy for the audience to accept.

It appears clear that President Obama understands this profound truth that has eluded most politicians who have sought to overcome tensions and conflicts with the Muslim world. It is especially crucial that this truth become widely understood for a successful resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

This conflict is not in itself religious but territorial. For example, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser and Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol or his Defence Minister Moshe Dayan, did not go to war in 1967 over theology˜they were all atheists! However, the conflict involves peoples with identities that are deeply rooted in religious historical cultures. To try to resolve this conflict without addressing the psychological spiritual dimension is to try to heal deep wounds with Band-Aids. It has not worked and will not work.

Of course not all those who strove to advance an Israeli-Palestinian peace process were wilfully ignorant of the religious dimensions involved. The problem is that all too often they were under the misconception that it is preferable to avoid those dimensions. One can understand this approach, especially when considering the numerous terrible deeds that have been done and continue to be done in the name of religion in our region and beyond. However it is a fallacy to assume that the way to prevent the violent abuse of religion is by ignoring it. The contrary is the case.

By ignoring the religious aspect, a message of disrespect is conveyed; a message that presents the attempt to resolve the conflict as incongruous with if not actually hostile to religion itself. Not surprisingly this just invites hostility from certain quarters where such a political process is perceived as inimical to their interests. This is what happened in the wake of the Oslo accords and it is precisely what has to be avoided if any peace process is to succeed.

Instead of increasing alienation among those with religious commitment, the latter need to be engaged and appealed to in religious terms in order for them to support a process which in fact embodies so many of the most noble teachings of their heritage, precisely as President Obama did in Cairo. Only an engagement that addresses the religious identities and attachments of the parties involved will have any chance of breaking through the cycle of violence and hostility.

Of all the insights that President Obama has both grasped and articulated as essential for peace and reconciliation, this may well be the most important of them all.

*Rabbi David Rosen is international director of inter-religious affairs for the American Jewish Committee and interfaith advisor to the Chief Rabbinate of Israel.

SOLVING THE PALESTINIAN REFUGEE PROBLEM: IS THE BALL IN THE ISRAELI COURT

Moshe Ma'oz*

This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews, http://www.commongroundnews.org), who distributed it, July 23, 2009, with permission for publication.

Over the decades, Israel has repeatedly asked the Arab countries to recognise it and form peaceful relations. Most of the Arab countries rejected this appeal, with the exception of Egypt, following the peace initiative led by Anwar Sadat in 1977, and Jordan in 1994.

However, in 2002 the Arab League, which is composed of 22 Arab nations, announced an unprecedented historical initiative for a comprehensive peace treaty with Israel at the centre of which was the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Successive Israeli governments, headed by Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert and Benjamin Netanyahu, either ignored or rejected this initiative even as a starting point for negotiations, thus missing a great opportunity for peace.

100 The governments of Israel and most of the Jewish-Israeli public were willing, of course, to accept the clauses in the Arab proposal that offered an end to the conflict, peace agreements, security arrangements and normal relations with Israel. But they weren‚t willing to make the necessary concessions in return: withdrawal to the 1967 borders in the West Bank, the Golan and South Lebanon; the establishment of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, and most significantly, a solution to the Palestinian refugee problem based on UN resolution 194 from December 1948.

It is true that the clause in the Arab League proposal dealing with the issue of the Palestinian refugees was made more rigid under pressure from Syria when it stated that Palestinian refugees will not be accepted as citizens in the Arab states where they have been living since 1948 (or 1967). The implication of this would seem to be that the only place where all the Palestinian refugees can currently live is in Israel. However, in practice we are primarily talking about the refugees in Syria and Lebanon, as Jordan already granted full citizenship to its Palestinian residents in 1949.

Moreover, many refugees, especially those living in Lebanon (about 300,000), could return to the future Palestinian state in the West Bank. It can also be assumed that in the context of a peace agreement, which would include the return of the Golan Heights, Syria could grant citizenship to the Palestinian refugees living within its borders (about 350,000).

The main point of contention regarding the Palestinian refugee issue has to do with the interpretations given to UN resolution 194. Many in Israel ˜ including political leaders, journalists and academics ˜ understand this resolution to be an affirmation of the „right of return‰ of all the Palestinian refugees to their homes in Israel: that is, a return of about four million Palestinians, which would destroy Israel‚s Jewish character.

It is important to understand that this interpretation is erroneous and is intended to frighten the Jewish-Israeli public and prevent a solution to the Palestinian problem. True, the PLO‚s traditional demand to realise the right of return (Haq El Awda) means a collective return for all Palestinian refugees to their homes in Israel. But UN Resolution 194, which was opposed by the Arab states and the Palestinians at the time, does not even mention the right of return. It states that refugees who wish to return to their homes (on an individual basis) „and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date‰, and those who do not wish to return should receive compensation. That is, Israel would be given the option to allow or disallow the return of refugees and there is also the alternative of financial compensation.

The Arab League initiative also does not mention the right of return but talks about „a just solution to the problem of the Palestinian refugees which will be agreed upon based on UN Resolution 194‰. That is, Israel must agree to absorb refugees or offer monetary compensation.

My colleagues and I have held long discussions about the subject with Palestinian academics who have adopted a pragmatic approach to solving the problem ˜ meaning they agreed to see the right of return realised within a future Palestinian state, to the absorption of 100,000 refugees inside Israel in the framework of family reunification, and to the paying of collective compensation to the PLO and the Arab countries who host Palestinians and personal compensation to refugees who choose not to return.

But these Palestinian professors have raised an unequivocal demand from their Israeli interlocutors ˜ to accept moral responsibility for the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem in the 1948 „Nakba‰. The Israelis on their part, who agreed to most of the compromise proposals, rejected this demand claiming that Israel did not attack, but was itself attacked in the war of 1948.

My suggestion at the time, and I will raise it again now, is that both sides - the Palestinians and the Israelis - should accept joint responsibility for the creation of the refugee problem, which was caused by a harsh war in which many Palestinians escaped or were expelled by the Israeli army.

It is doubtful whether the Netanyahu government would agree to such a gesture and to the absorption of tens of thousands of Palestinian refugees inside Israel. Indeed, just recently Netanyahu turned to the Palestinians with a public demand to give up the right of return as a precondition for the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. It is clear that this demand is designed to thwart negotiations for a permanent solution, as it is not possible to order the Palestinians to erase this right from their historical consciousness and hearts.

It would have been much more appropriate had he suggested that this right should be realised within a future Palestinian state and that an agreed number of Palestinian refugees could return to Israel in the framework of family reunification, while others would receive compensation for the great suffering caused to them. All this would be conditional on a Palestinian commitment to „conclude the refugee chapter‰ as part of a peace agreement with Israel. 101 *Moshe Ma'oz is Professor Emeritus of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies at The Hebrew University, and has published many works on the history and politics of Syria and Palestine, and on Arab-Israeli relations. <<fl---+---‡>>

BILIN'S CONFERENCE ON NON-VIOLENT RESISTENCE

Ghassan Bannoura*

This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews, http://www.commongroundnews.org), who distributed it April 30, 2009, with permission for publication.

The small Palestinian village of Bil‚in, located in the central West Bank, hosted its fourth annual conference on non- violent resistance to the Israeli separation barrier and West Bank settlements, from 22 - 24 April. Certainly, nonviolent, peaceful forms of resistance are not something new to Palestinian society. What makes Bil‚in a special story is that it‚s where Israelis and Palestinians began working together to fight against the separation barrier and settlement construction. Local and international protesters have been conducting weekly nonviolent demonstrations against the Israeli wall in Bil'in for four years.

Since the protests started, a large number of Israelis have joined the villagers in their attempt to protect their lands. Jonathon Polack, for example, is an Israeli who takes part in the Bil'in protest each week. He says he comes to Bil'in because he feels it‚s his duty. "What is being done here is being done in my name, as an Israeli. It's my duty to come and help the Palestinian farmers keep their lands. It‚s the minimum requirement for every Israeli."

Eyad Burnat, one of the conference organizers and the head of the village committee against the separation barrier and the Israeli settlements said that the fourth conference continued to uphold the values of non-violence. "150 people from different parts of the world took part in the conference today. Our objective is to support and expand non-violent popular resistance everywhere," he said.

Among those who took part in the conference were delegations from South Africa, the Catalan government and Luisa Morgantini, vice-president of the European parliament, in addition to Palestinian officials, including interim Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and Palestinian parliamentarian Mustafa Al Barghouthi. "So far the Bil'in struggle is something really that gives hope to everybody. We did not see the wall go down, we saw settlements grow up, but at the same time I think it's so important, the struggle that Bil'in is doing, because it's also an example of trying to be together in a bigger movement," Luisa Morgantini told the villagers and their supporters on the second day of the conference.

Abdullah Abu Rahmah, another conference organizer, told those gathered about the death of a Palestinian protestor, Bassem Abu Rahmah, who was killed a week before the conference during the weekly demonstration. "He was shouting, Stop shooting, you have injured an Israeli woman∑‚ (The injured woman turned out to be French.). The soldiers did not allow him to finish. They shot and killed him." Bassem was a 30-year-old farmer who had participated in the weekly village protest for the past four years.

In September 2007 the Israeli Supreme Court of Justice ruled that the construction of the wall around Bil‚in must stop. The court also ruled that the section of the wall currently built on the Palestinian villagers' land must be re-routed. But the military still refuses to adhere to the court ruling.

The lawyer for the village, Michael Sfard, met the villagers on the second day of the conference, as the delegates were touring the West Bank. He told the farmers, „Now two and a half years after the first decision, and after two attempts by the army to evade implementing the decision, finally the army has issued a new route. If implemented, it will restore something like 750 dunums out of 2,000 dunums that were taken in the first place.‰ (Four dunums is equal to one acre.)

The three-day conference ended with the weekly Friday nonviolent protest. It again erupted into violence when twenty-five of the demonstrators were injured after Israeli soldiers fired rubber-coated bullets and tear gas at them.

Even with these obstacles, the Bil‚in message of non-violence has become a model for other villages facing a similar loss of land. Ni‚lin, Ma‚sara, Al-Khader, Tulkarem, Tuwani, Beit Ummar are just some of the villages that are all now adopting the non-violent method of popular resistance that began in Bil‚in four years ago.

102 Despite the loss of life and the many who have been injured, the Palestinian, Israeli and international protestors have vowed to continue their non-violent resistance, which they believe is the best way to counter the Israeli separation barrier and the West Bank settlement construction.

*Ghassan Bannoura is a Palestinian journalist from Bethlehem. -<<<<<<+>>>>>>-

WHY RELIGION IS PART OF THE SOLUTIOH TO THE ARAB ISRAELI CONFLICT

Dr. Ben Mollov*

This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews, http://www.commongroundnews.org), who distributed it, May 21, 2009, with permission to republish..

It is frequently asserted that bringing religion into the Arab-Israeli conflict will undermine any potential for resolving it. While a limited secular political conflict can be resolved, so the logic goes, religion invariably involves non-negotiable ideologies that complicate matters exponentially. However, bringing religion into the Arab-Israeli conflict cannot be avoided. It already is part of the conflict and has been from its inception even if in the public discourse the deeper cultural and religious roots of the conflict are usually omitted.

The Arab-Israeli conflict is a function of a parallel renewal by both Jews and Arabs of an earlier 'heroic era' that has become central to the narratives of both sides. Both stories are steeped in religious and cultural significance and must, therefore, be made integral to any conflict resolution process.

The cultural and religious roots of the conflict

The Zionist movement was a reaction to two thousand years of exile and persecution. The solution it proposed was that the Jewish people had to undergo a process of renewal inspired by Jewish life in the Land of Israel in biblical times. Although many early Zionists rejected traditional Jewish practices which they associated with passivity, they were steeped in the ethos of the Bible which was at the foundation of their longing for the Land of Israel and motivated their efforts to revive the Hebrew language. An entirely new cultural paradigm was created of a proud Jew who could farm the land and, if necessary, defend it like in biblical times. The new Jews set out to develop a modern progressive society which at the same time harked back to the moral legacy of the Hebrew Prophets.

In parallel, the Arab awakening, also occurring in the 19th century, sought to inspire the Arab peoples with the memory of the Golden Age of the Arab-Islamic empire between the seventh to tenth centuries. It was intended to replace the more recent memories of subjugation by outside powers and counter the prevailing feeling that Arab-identity was no longer a source of pride. Central to this revival was an increased focus on Arabic language and literature inspired by the Golden Age which also has roots in the Islamic heritage. The Arab nationalist movement - the political expression of this deeper process - combined both religious and nationalist themes. It looked upon the nascent Zionist movement as an intrusion in a region which they perceived as exclusively theirs based on this historic memory of empire and previous control.

The two movements began to collide in the 20th century as their conflicting visions and narratives regarding the same land were made more acute by powerful demographic and political dynamics. In 2009 this same conflict of narratives ˆwhich I believe is motivated by religious identity - still lies at the basis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A purely secular discourse is unable to address these deeper roots. For any conflict resolution process to be meaningful it must address and somehow reconcile these conflicting narratives. Indeed, there is greater urgency to this approach especially in light of the fact that both the Jewish religious community of Israel and the Islamic communities in the Arab world have grown stronger and more self confident in recent years.

A religious and culturally-based strategy

I began my own work on Israeli-Palestinian dialogue in the 1990s by involving my students at Bar-Ilan, a Jewish religious university, in discussions with Palestinian students from the University of Hebron, an Islamic institution. For over five years students met on a regular basis and in a fascinating manner found religion as a basis for common ground. They discovered the very similar structure and practices of Islam and Judaism. Finding great similarities in the practice of prayer, mourning, even bioethics, for example helped 'humanise' each side to the other. Students then had the opportunity to discuss more divisive political issues but in a calmer, more thoughtful environment.

103 This approach was bolstered by research findings from a study with my colleague in social psychology, Dr. Chaim Lavie, conducted in Khan Younis, Gaza in 1999. The questionnaire-based data gathered during an inter-religious event devoted to the theme of prayer involving primarily Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arab Muslims showed that the inter-religious approach could have a favourable impact on the perceptions of those who were most religious and therefore presumably most hostile towards the other. Even today while teaching and speaking about these issues, I encounter fellow religious Jewish-Israelis who are eager to offer anecdotal evidence that demonstrates how religion has been a bridge to the Palestinian side.

Finding such commonalities, although worthwhile is only a first step to a deeper process. The second step, which the first facilitates, entails identifying the religious and cultural basis of each side‚s attachment to the same land. This realisation can lead to an escalation of conflict; but it can also open the door to an understanding that both sides will have to accommodate the existence of the other. This can happen despite the fact that in the earlier „heroic periods‰ the other side did not exist. The Jewish civilisation in the Land of Israel during the time of the Bible existed before the rise of Islam, and during the Arab-Islamic empire the Jews were no longer an active, independent political force in the region.

There is also a third step in the process, which involves the more elevated, transcendent hopes within religions such as the striving for human dignity, righteousness and peace. A discussion on this higher plane can encourage both Israelis and Palestinians, not to relinquish their respective narratives and aspirations, but to see the building of the Holy Land as a common animating theme that can be pursued collaboratively.

Thus a religiously based strategy works on several levels. It can encourage Israelis and Palestinians to identify cultural commonalities, which can, in turn, improve mutual perceptions. These could open the way to a deeper exploration of their ties to the same land. Finally, transcendent religious values can motivate a vision for a worthy life in the Holy Land, and serve as the underpinnings of a political process. Such an approach can reach places that purely secular conflict management approaches cannot and therefore must be taken seriously by policymakers engaged in the peace process.

*Dr. Ben Mollov is on the faculty of Bar-Ilan University in Israel teaching political science and conflict management. He also runs the university‚s project for the Study of Religion, Culture and Peace. *******

THE PALESTINIAN-ISRAELI TEXTBOOL WAR

Gershon Baskin*

This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews, http://www.commongroundnews.org), which distributed it, June 25, 2009, with permission for publication.

Over the years, significant criticisms have been levelled at Palestinian textbooks for carrying messages that are not conducive to creating a culture of peace. Much less attention has been paid to Jewish-Israeli textbooks but they too deserve in-depth analysis and criticism. In both Palestinian and Jewish-Israeli textbooks, the historical narratives presented contain strong elements of mutual non-recognition. The problem is compounded by the fact that officials from both sides, sensing that the „textbook war‰ is just another means for demonising the other, refuse to accept the criticism and tend to respond defensively rather than substantively.

Palestinian textbooks do not explicitly incite against Israel or Jews, just as Israeli textbooks do not explicitly incite against Palestinians or Islam. But both contain confused messages. It is easy to infer implied assumptions on both sides that the other nation should not exist and that this is essentially the political goal of the governments of the Palestinian Authority and the State of Israel. Assuming that this is not the case, the textbooks need to be revised.

Israel frequently calls upon the Palestinians to revise and reform their textbooks in the spirit of making peace. But shouldn‚t Israel look inside its own classrooms and do the same? Many Israeli textbooks include stereotypes against Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular. Maps in Israeli textbooks do not designate the Palestinian Authority areas or even the „Green Line‰. Moreover, history books in Israel do not cover the past 15 years, so Israeli students do not learn about the Israeli government‚s decision under former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin to recognise the political rights of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.

Israeli civics books provide some insights into the Palestinian citizens of Israel but almost nothing is taught about their history and even less about their national connection to their brothers and sisters in the Occupied Territories. Why shouldn‚t Israeli students read some modern Palestinian literature? Why don‚t Israeli textbooks teach anything about the Palestinian connection to the land? 104 In Palestinian textbooks, the collective historical narrative represents the creation of the State of Israel as a non- legitimate act of the international community. Zionism is understood as an extension of international imperialism and colonialism, and the State of Israel is viewed as having been born in „sin‰. Although this is a legitimate view of history from the Palestinian standpoint, it is also important to refer within the textbooks to the strategic decision by Palestinian leaders to make peace with Israel.

Palestine is embroiled in a struggle for national existence. But teaching students about the need to struggle for their just rights does not have to contradict the desire to live in peace with the people with whom they are fighting, a desire which should be encouraged and articulated. When showing a map of Palestine from the sea to the Jordan River without any indication of the State of Israel, what should the reader understand? Are these the desired and planned borders of the State of Palestine? Is the goal to eradicate Israel? Failing to answer these questions in a definitive way places doubt on the Palestinian Authority‚s intentions.

Teaching religion is another sensitive issue. Virtually all religions contain universal messages regarding love, dignity, honour, family, respect, the sanctity of life and other human values. All religions also contain aspects that are narrower in their outlook and generally pertain to the superiority of the particular faith above others. Islam is no different.

Concepts such as Jihad and martyrdom can be taught from different legitimate perspectives in full accordance with Islamic teachings. By necessity, Palestinian textbooks include the concept of Jihad as one of the foundations of Islamic belief. But the way it is expressed, in light of the political context in which we are living, forces the reader to relate to the violent connotations of the concept. By not placing Jihad in the broader context, one is led to conclude that the Palestinian Authority is encouraging Jihad in the narrow sense of a Holy War against Israel and the Jews as well as Christians.

The same is true for the concept of martyrdom. Palestinian textbooks do not clearly reject suicide bombing. In fact, some texts could lead the reader to admire suicide bombers who kill Israelis. Judging by the ambiguous messages found in its textbooks, it is not clear whether the Palestinian Authority has made a decision on this issue. Praise of martyrdom, without being specifically placed in a historical-religious context outside of the current conflict, transmits extremely problematic messages.

Islam is a religion of tolerance and acceptance and should not be construed as the opposite. It accepts Jews and Christians as 'Peoples of the Book'. These positive elements should be strengthened in the teaching of Islam in Palestinian schools. There is little chance that Israelis and Palestinians will share the same interpretation of the history of the land and the conflict between its peoples and both have a right to impart their version of history through their textbooks. But if both sides are truly interested in building partners for peace, it is time for them to work together to address the absence of positive content about the other side in both curricula. The time for building a culture of peace is now, and education is the primary arena for doing so.

*Gershon Baskin is co-CEO of the Israel Palestine Center for Research and Information (www.ipcri.org). /\/\/\/\

WHOSE ACRE

Uri Avnery, August 15, 2009

The ancient port of Acre is now the object of a fierce battle. The Arab inhabitants of the town want the port to bear the name of an Arab hero, Issa al Awam, a general under Saladin, the Muslim leader who defeated the Crusaders. The municipality of Acre, which of course is dominated by the Jewish inhabitants, has decided to give the port the name of an Israeli functionary.

The Arab citizens set up a monument for their hero. The municipality declared it to be an “illegal structure” and decided to destroy it. This could have been a small local conflict, one of many in this mixed and quarrelsome town, if it did not have such profound ideological and political implications.

I love old Acre. For me, it is the most beautiful and interesting town in the country, after East Jerusalem. It is one of the most ancient towns in the country, perhaps in the whole world. It is mentioned in the Bible In the first chapter of Judges (which, by the way, completely contradicts the genocidal Book of Joshua.) The chapter enumerates the Canaanite towns which were not conquered by the Children of Israel. It remained a Phoenician town, one of the port towns from which intrepid Hebrew-speaking sailors went forth and colonized the shores of the Mediterranean Sea, from Tyre to Carthage. 105 The fortunes of Acre reached their zenith during the times of the Crusaders. It was then the only port in the country that could be used during all the seasons of the year. The Crusaders succeeded in taking it after a stubborn defense. A hundred years later, when the great Salah-ad-Din (Saladin) put an end to the Crusaders’ rule in Jerusalem, he drove them out of Acre, too. The Knights of the Cross recaptured it, and for another hundred years it served as the capital of the reduced Crusader state. In 1291, when the remnants of the Crusader kingdom were wiped out, Acre was the last Crusader town to fall to the Muslims. The image of the last Crusaders and their women jumping from the quays of Acre has been engraved in the memory of the age and has given birth to the expression still current: “to throw into the sea”.

Later, too, the town had a checkered history. A Bedouin chieftain, Daher al-Omar, took it over and created a kind of independent semi-state of Galilee. Even Napoleon, one of the Great Captains of history, came from Egypt in 1799 and laid siege to it, but was roundly defeated by the Arabs, with the help of British sailors.

When the British became the lords of the land in 1917, they turned the imposing Crusader fortress of Acre into a prison, in which the leaders of the Hebrew underground organizations, among others, were incarcerated. In one of its most daring exploits, the Irgun broke into the fortress and freed its prisoners. In 1947, the Israeli army conquered the town, which was until then entirely Arab.

The ancient part of the town, with its beautiful minarets and Crusader fortifications, continued to be Arab. So did the port, which now serves fishermen. But around this quarter, Jewish neighborhoods have sprung up, faceless like many hundreds of such neighborhoods throughout Israel, and their inhabitants now constitute the majority. They do not like their Arab neighbors very much.

From time to time, quarrels break out between the two populations. The Arab inhabitants believe that Acre has been their town since ancient times and consider the Jews intruders. The Jews are convinced that the town belongs to them and that the Arabs are, at best, a tolerated minority that should shut up. The current dispute can well turn violent.

In everyconflict between Jews and Arabs in this country, the rather childish question arises: Who was here first? The Arabs conquered the country, which they then called Jund Filistin (military district Palestine) in 635 AD, and since then it has been under Muslim rule (apart from the Crusader period) until the arrival of the British. They claim “We were first”.

The Zionist version is different. In Biblical times, most of the country belonged to the kingdoms of Judea and Israel, even though the coast belonged to the Phoenicians in the North and the Philistines in the South. (In spite of all the frantic efforts of a hundred years, no archaeological evidence has been found that there ever was an exodus from Egypt, a conquest of Canaan by the Children of Israel or a kingdom of David and Solomon.) Since the kingdom of Ahab, around 870 BC, Israel has been on the well-attested historical map. After the Babylonian exile, the Jews dominated parts of the country, with constantly changing borders, until Roman times. Ergo: “We were first”.

If the Israelites were here before the Muslims, who was here before the Israelites? The Canaanites, of course. “They were first”. But who represents them? I once wrote a satirical piece about the “First Canaanite Congress” which takes place somewhere in the world. The participants declare that they are the descendents of the original inhabitants of the country and claim it for themselves.

That is not entirely a joke. In the first years of the last century Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, who was to become the second president of Israel, tried to harness the Canaanites to Zionism. He researched and found that the population of this country has not really changed from the earliest times. The Canaanites mixed with the Israelites, became Jews and Hellenists, and when the Byzantine empire, which then ruled this country, adopted Christianity, they too became Christians. After the Muslim conquest, they gradually became Arabs.

In other words, the same village was Canaanite, became Israelite, passed through all the stages and in the end, became Arab. Nowadays it is Palestinian, unless it was wiped out in 1948 and replaced by an Israeli settlement. Throughout, the population did not really change. Many of the place names did not change either. Every new conqueror brought with him a new set of beliefs and a new elite, but the population itself did not change much. No conqueror was interested in driving out the inhabitants, who provided him with food and revenue. In the opinion of Ben-Zvi, the Palestinian Arabs are really the descendents of the ancient Israelites. But when the Israeli-Palestinian conflict gathered momentum, this theory was forgotten.

Recently, some Palestinians adopted a rather similar theory. By the same historical logic, they claim that the Palestinian Arabs are the descendents of the ancient Canaanites, and therefore “they were first”, even before the Children of

106 Israel of Biblical times. It was only the Zionist conquest that, for the first time in history, radically changed the composition of the population.

The Canaanites and the ancient Israelites spoke different dialects of the same Semitic language, which is nowadays called Hebrew. Later on, Aramaic became the language of the country, and later on Arabic. Last week, new research was published, showing that the vernacular Syrian-Palestinian Arabic dialect includes many words that have their origin in ancient Hebrew and Aramaic, and which do not appear in the dialect of other Arab countries. Clearly, they were absorbed by the native Arab dialect many centuries ago. They are mainly day-to-day agricultural words, and it is logical to assume that they entered the Arabic language from the Aramaic that it replaced.

Why us that important? How does it affect the Acre dispute? Many years ago I read a book by the late American-Arab scholar, Philip Hitti, a Maronite Christian from Lebanon, entitled “History of Syria”. According to the Arab historical view, Syria (a-Sham in classical Arabic) includes today’s Syria as well as well as present-day Lebanon. Jordan, Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

The book made a lasting impression on me. It recounts the history of this country from prehistoric times to the present, with all its stages, as one continuous story, which includes Canaanites and Israelites, Phoenicians and Philistines, Aramaeans and Arabs, Crusaders and Mamluks, Turks and Britons, Muslims, Christians and Jews. They all belong to the history of the country, all of them contributed to its culture, language and architecture, palaces and fortresses, synagogues and churches, mosques and cemeteries. Anyone thinking about peace and reconciliation should absorb this picture.

What kindof history is taught now in the schools of the two peoples? Both have a mobile history which is wandering about the landscape. Jewish history starts with “Abraham Our Father” in present-day Iraq and the exodus from Egypt, the receiving of the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai in present-day Egypt, the Conquest of Canaan, King David and the other legends of the Bible, which are taught as actual history. It continues in the country until the destruction of the Temple by Titus and the Bar Kokhba rebellion against the Romans, when it goes into “exile”, concentrating on the chain of expulsions and persecutions, only returning to the country with the early Zionist settlers.

This history ignores not only all that happened in the country before the Israelite era, but also everything that happened during the 1747 years between the Bar Kokhba uprising in 135 AD and the start of the pre-Zionist settlement in 1882. An alumnus of the Israeli education system knows next to nothing about the country during these eras.

On the Arab side, things are no better. The Palestinian-Arab historical picture starts in the Arab peninsula with the advent of the Prophet Mohammad, mentioning the era of Jahiliyah (“ignorance”) before that, and comes to Palestine with the Muslim conquerors. What happened here before 635 AD does not interest it. The pupils of these two education systems – the Jewish-Israeli and the Palestinian-Arab – grow up with two entirely different historical narratives.

I dreamof the day when in every school in this country, in Israel and in Palestine, Jews and Arabs will learn not only these two histories, but also the complete history of the country which includes all the periods and cultures.

They will learn, for example, that when the crusaders invaded the country, Muslims and Jews stood together against the cruel invader and were massacred together. They will learn that in Haifa, the local Jews led the defense and were admired for their heroism, until they were slaughtered side by side with the Muslims. Such identification with the history of the country can serve as a solid basis for a reconciliation between the peoples.

A dozen years ago, inspired by the unforgettable Feisal al-Husseini, I drew up a Manifesto on Jerusalem for Gush Shalom. One of its paragraphs reads: “Our Jerusalem is a mosaic of all the cultures, all the religions and all the periods that enriched the city, from earliest antiquity to this very day – Canaanites and Jebusites and Israelites, Jews and Hellenes, Romans and Byzantines, Christians and Muslims, Arabs and Mamluks, Ottomans and Britons, Palestinians and Israelis. They and all the others who made their contribution to the city have a place in the spiritual and physical landscape of Jerusalem.”

In this list, the Crusaders are missing, and not by mistake. They were in our original text. But when I asked the renowned Arab-Israeli writer Emil Habibi to be the first to sign, he exclaimed: “I shall not sign any document that mentions these abominable murderers!”Almost everything that can be said about Jerusalem is true for Acre, too. Its history is also continuous from prehistoric times until today, and the Arab general Issa al Awam belongs to it as much as the English Crusader Richard the Lionheart and the Etzel fighters who broke the prison walls. WWWWWWW

107 TEACHER INTEGRATION FOR ATTITUDE CHANGE

Mike Prashker*

This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews, http://www.commongroundnews.org), who distributed it, June 25, 2009, permission for publication.

"Young children", concluded Iman Abu-Ziyad during her talk at a recent Merchavim and Lebach Institute conference at Tel Aviv University, "are innocent and clean slates - and I want to be the first person to write on them!" Iman is one of dozens of young Arab-Palestinian-Israeli teachers who have already been integrated into Jewish-Israeli schools in an initiative project led by Merchavim in partnership with Israel‚s Ministry of Education. Our aim is to change the attitudes of Jewish-Israelis and Arab-Palestinian-Israelis towards each other while at the same time improving teaching standards and addressing the high levels of unemployment among Arab-Palestinian-Israeli teachers.

Evaluation results to-date are encouraging, indicating high levels of teacher, school, community and Ministry of Education satisfaction. We have indicators of positive attitudinal change among students and very high teacher retention rates. Structural separation by nationality and religiosity is one of the basic characteristics of the Israeli school system which is divided into four separate streams: Jewish secular, religious, ultra-orthodox and Arab. Not surprisingly, in the context of the regional conflict, the separation of Jewish and Arab students is particularly worrying as it reinforces the deep mutual fears that characterise relations between Israel‚s 80% Jewish majority and 20% Arab-Palestinian ˆ largely Sunni-Muslim - minority.

Teacher integration to promote „shared citizenship‰ is possibly the best available but still largely under-utilised educational strategy to address this situation. While other „shared citizenship‰ educational strategies exist such as building integrated schools, positive representation of the „other‰ within curricula, student encounters and joint teacher-training programmes, all have serious limitations including scalability, cost and sustainable impact.

Theoretically, the idea of teacher integration to improve inter-group relations is grounded in various aspects of contact-theory which posits that appropriate interaction between conflicted parties will produce positive attitudinal change. When successful, the teachers act as ambassadors of the „other‰, building fruitful relations with faculty and a positive teaching and ambassadorial role with students and families. The symbolic importance of this role in the context of strained inter-communal relations is not lost on either the majority or minority community.

To be effective, however, teacher integration requires close consideration of and adherence to a number of important principles and strands of activity. Careful teacher selection, training and support are all critical. Teacher selection must be guided by rigorous professional and social-psychological criteria to maximise the likelihood that the teacher will both teach their subject successfully and proudly represent the „other community‰ in a way that will encourage positive attitude change. Once placed in schools, it is important that the teachers are supported by experienced teacher-support staff in regular group and individual sessions, to address both teaching and social integration issues.

The fact that we are achieving system-wide buy-in and partnership with all the key actors is also critical. These have included Israel‚s Ministry of Education, participating school principals and faculty, students and their families, and - no less important - Jewish and Arab public opinion.

There are many elements that are required for such a partnership to succeed. Of these, the process of cooperatively identifying the tangible and shared concerns and needs of all the parties is crucial. These have included: a shortfall of Jewish teachers in Jewish schools along with a large pool of unemployed Arab-Palestinian-Israeli teachers, a common commitment to increasing student performance through the initiative and a sensitivity to the critical need of the Arab school system to retain and recruit high-quality teachers.

One occasionally voiced false assumption is that native Arabic-speaking Israeli citizens can or should only teach Arabic in Jewish schools. This is, of course, a short-sited view grounded in prejudice. Knowledge of a first-language is no guarantee that anyone can teach it, be it as a first or a second language. Likewise, excellent Arab-Palestinian-Israeli teachers should not be „pigeon-holed‰ as Arabic teachers when they can teach a wide range of subjects in Jewish schools equally well. That said, it is realistic to acknowledge that in the current context of the regional conflict and the associated internal tensions, teaching math, English, or science are simpler propositions for Arab-Palestinian-Israeli teachers than teaching subjects which have a greater ideological slant such as history, Zionism or Jewish studies.

All being well, it is reasonable to expect that around 500 Arab-Palestinian-Israeli teachers will be integrated into Jewish-Israeli schools within the next few years teaching a growing range of subjects. We hope that this exciting prospect will 108 not only prove itself as an effective strategy for positive change in relations between Jewish and Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel but will also teach us a great deal about the potential for increased diversity amongst teaching faculty to improve inter- group relations along other axes of tension and in other conflicted and highly separated societies.

*Mike Prashker is founder and director of Merchavim, the Institute for the Advancement of Shared Citizenship in Israel. .:….:|:….:.

THE CULTURE OF PEACE IN THE PALESTINIAN CURRICULUM

Reem al-Shareef*

This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews, http://www.commongroundnews.org), who distributed it June 25, 2009, with permission for publication.

A school‚s curriculum is rooted in a country‚s ideology and philosophy. Every country in the world has a philosophy and a vision upon which it builds its objectives and which are clearly evident or implied in its school curriculum. With the exception of the „Independence Document‰, the Palestinian State does not have a tangible philosophy. Not having achieved actual independence, and the fact that we continue to consider ourselves under occupation, hinders the development of a clear philosophy on which the various ministries are able to build visions and objectives.

The Ministry of Education is the one that needs such a philosophy most of all, since it is entrusted with educating future generations who would serve their new nation. Perhaps the matter has been intentionally suspended until the features of the fledgling state acquire sharper focus. But the lack of clearly defined objectives at this critical stage places an additional burden on our teachers, who are already at a disadvantage from having had to develop their skills under occupation.

As it stands now, the Palestinian curriculum is a patchwork of separate segments of information in an array of fields. It is certainly far from a unified compendium that can contribute to the building of a nation. This fragmentation within the school programmes is also clearly reflected in children‚s behaviour, which often tends towards factionalism in relationships and political alliances, and reflects what they witness at home or among some teachers and educators. This leads to internal dilemmas and most probably plays a role in delaying the establishment of our much-desired state.

An in-depth look at the national educational curriculum for civics, covering grades seven to eleven, for instance, provokes a number of questions. This subject addresses the history of the Palestinian people from 1921 until after the Oslo agreement. To what extent do the textbooks increase a sense of national commitment to Palestinian rights and a Palestinian state? Also are peace and the sensibilities required to achieve it embedded in the set objectives?

It is evident that they are not. Students are not able to fluently articulate Palestinian history or the struggle for independence which may indicate that the textbooks have not imbued the children with a sense of patriotism for their country. Neither do these textbooks convey a peace-oriented mindset that regards peace agreements or their implementation in a favourable way. Not surprisingly, this series of textbooks in particular was rejected by the Quartet and donor countries refused to finance its printing and distribution in schools. This very series was also criticised by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who believed it contained an implied call for violence.

The situation is somewhat better when it comes to the subject of defending the national homeland. In textbooks for grades nine and ten the topic is presented in a manner which aims to promote national sentiments without the element of insurrection or violence. The concept of peace and tolerance is clearly evident even in some of the literary texts taught; poems which a reader may understand and explain in different ways. However, the message of defending the homeland in a non-violent manner, which is present in these poems, often gets lost when the teacher addresses them superficially, without delving into details.

Not infrequently, books that arouse an overwhelming national sentiment among students are reprinted with the offending sections taken out. For example, a poem by the Palestinian poet, Abu Salma, was removed by officials at the General Administration for Curricula because it was perceived to promote resistance. Perhaps they did this in order to appear as peace promoters to the world.

Within the two above-mentioned fields, the culture of peace is not presented in a direct and organised manner, but is, as we have seen, rather sporadic and inconsistent. The result is that the quality of peace-oriented teaching is largely determined by the human element, most notably the teacher, who has the power to impart what he or she pleases and in a 109 manner considered suitable.This places a lot of responsibility on teachers. The wide gap between what is printed and what is being implemented raises numerous questions and doubts regarding the potential for translating ideas into tangible realities within the education system.

As for Islamic education textbooks, the story is completely different. The material in these textbooks has been approved and funded for printing, and any reader with a critical approach can identify the concepts of peace and tolerance at different levels, presented in a simple yet well-conceived way.

The concept of Jihad, for instance, which has become an international obsession of mammoth proportions, is presented in grades eight and nine books as a religious method to stop aggression against the oppressed, only as a last resort after other peaceful methods have been tried first. For example, the Hudaybiyyah Pact, (a ten-year peace agreement between Muslims and the tribe of Quraish in 628 CE) points clearly to the potential for reaching peaceful reconciliation between Muslims and non-Muslims through compromise.

As for fighting and engaging the enemy in battle, the curriculum teaches students that Muslims have not resorted to the sword very frequently, citing the conquest of Mecca which was achieved without bloodshed. The section in the textbooks on Omar‚s Uhdah (guardianship), which describes the arrival of Muslims in Jerusalem, is another instructive lesson in interfaith tolerance. It tells the story of the local people‚s acceptance of Muslims after the second Caliph, Omar Ibn El Khattab, promised them safety and freedom to practice their faith and to respect their churches and crosses. This is also a powerful example of the acceptance of non-Muslims in Muslim societies.

It is clear that the Palestinian Authority is attempting to introduce books and curricula which accept and respect peace agreements with Israel but this is an ongoing process that takes time and cannot be achieved in the first, second or even third editions. Political circumstances are also changing continuously which is all the more reason why a nation must have its philosophy articulated loud and clear. I believe, though, that most important of all is the need for our free independent state.

*Reem Al Shareef is principal of the Qurtuba School in Hebron. -}}}}}}-{{{{{{-

ISRAELIS ARE SHOWN A GLIMPSE OF THE NAKBA

Omar Karmi*

. Source: The National (www.thenational.ae), 16 May 16, 2009, This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission from The National for republication.

Somewhere outside Tel Aviv yesterday two busloads of Israelis were taken on a tour of their history. It is a history many of them will have heard a version of before, but few will have heard the one presented to them on this trip through long- destroyed indigenous Palestinian villages in the greater Tel Aviv area.

The tour was organised by Zochrot, an Israeli non-governmental organisation whose mission is to teach Israeli Jews about the Palestinian Nakba, or catastrophe, when about 800,000 Palestinians fled or were forced to flee their homes and lands in 1948, never to be allowed to return. Organisers take Israelis the length and breadth of the country, mapping Palestinian villages destroyed by Israeli paramilitary units in the aftermath of 1948, planting signs in the appropriate places and advocating the right of return of Palestinian refugees.

To Palestinians, who marked the 61st anniversary of the Nakba on 15 May, the events of 1948 are deeply embedded in the national psyche. People still hold on to old keys for the front doors of long-destroyed homes, or faded ownership deeds. Indeed, it is impossible to understand the Palestinian-Israeli conflict without understanding what happened in 1948.

"The Palestinian Nakba is important to all Palestinians no matter where they live," Saeb Erekat, the senior Palestinian negotiator, said in a statement released on Nakba day. "It is a defining moment in the collective history of our people and seminal to the history of the Palestinian national movement." But to most Israelis, only one version of 1948 is known, that of a nation-state in the making fighting for its survival and beating back surrounding Arab armies before declaring victory and independence.

The director and founder of Zochrot, Eitan Bronstein says that although Israelis know quite a lot about 1948, they learn about it only from a Zionist perspective. "From any other perspective, of the tragedy, of the expulsions and the 110 refugees, they actually know very little," he said. Mr. Bronstein said there are two layers of knowledge concerning the Nakba in Israel.

"At a certain level, many thousands of Israelis know a lot because they were there, they saw the refugees leaving, maybe they even participated in the expulsions. But this layer is quite suppressed. The main layer is what people are taught in the curriculum and what we hear on Independence Day; that we were attacked."

That main layer is the one that Zochrot seeks to reach and change through education. But if Yisrael Beiteinu, the party of Avigdor Lieberman, the far-right Israeli foreign minister, gets its way, it is an education that will never reach the masses. On 15 May, the day of the Nakba commemorations, a spokesman said the party was seeking legislation to bar citizens of Israel from commemorating the Nakba or even using the term.

If successful, the legislation would seek to punish violators with prison sentences of up to three years. "The draft law is intended to strengthen unity in the state of Israel and to ban marking Independence Day as a day of mourning," said a party spokesman, Tal Nahum.

Mr. Bronstein, who served in the Israeli army but was imprisoned twice when he refused to engage in combat in Lebanon during the first Lebanon invasion and in the occupied territories during the first intifada, said the proposal and the general unwillingness of Israelis to learn about the Nakba proves that "there is something there to know".

"In a way [the Yisrael Beiteinu proposal] is very good. It really puts very clearly on the agenda what we are talking about. It is not about two states; it is not the 1967 occupation. It‚s the Nakba: it‚s the refugee issue." Today, the number of Palestinian refugees, including the descendants of the 250,000 Palestinians made homeless in 1967, runs to well over six million, nearly five million of whom are registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). It is believed to be the world‚s largest and longest-existing refugee population.

UN General Assembly Resolution 194, passed in 1948, asserted the right of Palestinian refugees wishing to return to their lands to be able to do so, while international humanitarian law on refugees similarly asserts a right of return for all refugees who were displaced for reasons of conflict. Yet successive Israeli governments have refused to countenance any kind of return of Palestinian refugees to land inside the 1948 borders. The furthest Israeli leaders have been prepared to go has been to agree to a right of return to a future Palestinian state.

It was reported that the 2001 Taba negotiations between Yasser Arafat, when he was Palestinian leader, and Ehud Barak, then prime minister, came to an agreement on a largely symbolic return of a few hundred thousand refugees, predominantly from Lebanon. But those were non-binding talks, and Mr. Barak himself has long ago stepped back from expressing any similar position. The current Israeli government, in which Mr. Barak is defence minister, has a very clear position on the matter, as recently expressed by Mr. Lieberman. "„I am not ready to even discuss the right of return‚ of a single Palestinian refugee," Mr. Lieberman said in late April.

Mr. Bronstein said the rhetoric of Mr. Lieberman, Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister, and Tzipi Livni, the former foreign minister, who have all addressed the issue directly in recent years, is an indication that Israeli leaders are beginning to take the issue seriously, even if in a "dangerous direction". "A few years ago nobody cared," he said. Mr. Bronstein said taking the issue of Palestinian refugees seriously was a necessary first step, even if the initial reaction might be "very dangerous and very violent". Ultimately, he said, without a proper understanding of the Nakba, there could be no peace.

*Omar Karmi is a foreign correspondent for The National (www.thenational.ae) and can be reached at [email protected]. |~~~~+~~~~|

BANANAS

Uri Avnery, July 4, 2007, [email protected]

Not every day, and not even every decade, does the Supreme Court rebuke the Military Advocate General. The last time this happened was 20 years ago, when the Advocate General refused to issue a proper indictment against an officer who ordered his men to break the arms and legs of a bound Palestinian. The officer argued that he considered this to be his duty, after the Minister of Defense, Yitzhak Rabin, had called for “breaking their bones”.

Well, this week it happened again. The Supreme Court made a decision that was tantamount to a slap in the face of the army’s current chief legal officer, Brigadier Avichai Mendelblit. The incident in question took place in Ni’alin, a village which 111 has been robbed of a great part of its land by the Separation Fence. Like their neighbors in Bilin, the villagers demonstrate every week against the Fence. Generally, the army’s reactions in Ni’alin are even more violent than in Bilin. Four protesters have already been killed there.

In this particular incident, Lieutenant Colonel Omri Borberg took a Palestinian demonstrator, who was sitting on the ground, handcuffed and blindfolded, and suggested to one of his soldiers “let’s go aside and give him a rubber”. He ordered the soldier to shoot a rubber bullet, point blank.

For those who do not know: “rubber bullets” are steel bullets coated with rubber. From a distance, they cause painful injuries. At short range, they can be fatal. Officially, soldiers are allowed to use them at a minimum range of 40 meters. Without hesitating, the soldier shot the prisoner in the foot, although this was a “manifestly illegal order”, which a soldier is obliged by army law to disobey. According to the classic definition of Judge Binyamin Halevy in the 1957 Kafr Kassem massacre case, the “black flag of illegality” is waving over such orders. The prisoner, Ashraf Abu-Rakhma, was hit and fell on the ground.

Veterans of the Ni’alin and Bilin demonstrations know that such and similar incidents happen all the time. But the Abu- Rakhma case was special for one reason: it was documented by a young local woman from a balcony near the crime scene with one of the cameras provided to villagers by B’tselem, an Israeli human rights organization.

Thus the Lt. Col. committed an unforgivable sin: he was photographed in the act. Generally, when peace activists disclose such misdeeds, the army spokesman reaches into his bag of lies and comes up with some mendacious statement or other (“Attacked the soldier”, “Tried to grab his weapon”, “Resisted arrest”). But even a talented spokesman has difficulties denying something that is clearly seen on film.

When the Military Advocate General decided to prosecute the officer and the soldier for “conduct unbecoming”, Abu- Rakhma and some Israeli human rights organizations applied to the Supreme Court. The judges advised the Advocate to change the indictment. He refused, and so the matter reached the court again.

This week, in a decision unusual for its severe language, the three justices (including a female judge and a religious one) found the “conduct unbecoming” charge itself unbecoming. They ordered the indictment of both officer and soldier on a far more serious criminal charge, in order to make it clear to all military personnel that mistreating a prisoner “is contrary to the spirit of the state and the army” After such a slap in the face, any decent person would have resigned in shame. But not Mendelblit. The bearded and kippa-wearing brigadier is a personal friend of the Chief of Staff, Gabi Ashkenazi, and is expecting promotion to Major General at any moment.

Recently, the Advocate General refused to indict a senior officer who asserted in court, while testifying on behalf of a subordinate, that it is right to abuse Palestinians physically. Ashkenazi owes a lot to his Advocate General, and for other reasons. Mendelblit has made a huge effort to cover up war crimes committed during the recent Gaza War, from Ashkenazi’s war plan itself to the crimes of individual soldiers. Nobody has been put on trial, nobody even seriously investigated.

On the day the Supreme Court decision concerning Mendelblit was published, another brigadier also made the headlines. Curiously enough, his first name is also Avichai (not a very common name), he is also bearded and wears a kippa. In a speech before religious female soldiers, the Chief Rabbi of the army, Brigadier Avichai Rontzky, expressed the opinion that the army service of women is forbidden by the Jewish religion.

Since every Jewish young woman in Israel is bound by law to serve for two years, and women perform many essential jobs in the army, this was a seditious statement. But nobody was really surprised by this Rabbi. Rontzky was chosen for this post by the former Chief of Staff, Dan Halutz. He knew what he was doing.

The Rabbi was not born into a religious family. Indeed, he was quite “secular”, a member of an elite army unit, when he saw the light and was “reborn”. Like many of this kind, he did not stop halfway but went to the furthest extreme, becoming a settler and setting up a Yeshiva (religious seminary) in one of the most fanatical settlements.

Rontzky is a man in the spirit of the person who appointed him. It will be remembered that, when asked what he felt when dropping a one-ton bomb on a residential area, Air Force General Halutz answered: “a slight bump on the wing”. In a discussion about whether to treat a wounded Palestinian on the Shabbat, Rontzky wrote that “the life of a goy is certainly valuable…but the Shabbat is more important.” Meaning: a dying goy should not be treated on Shabbat. Later he retracted. (In modern colloquial Hebrew, a goy is a non-Jew. The term has distinctly derogatory connotations.)

112 The Israeli army has something that is called the “Ethical Code”. True, the spiritual father of the Code, Professor Asa Kasher, did defend the atrocities of the “Molten Lead” operation, but Rontzky went much further: he stated unequivocally that “When there is a clash between…the Ethical Code and the Halakha (religious law), certainly the Halakha must be followed.”

In a publication distributed by him, it was said that “the Bible prohibits us from giving up even one millimeter of Eretz Israel”. In other words, the Chief Rabbi of the army, a Brigadier of the IDF, asserts that the official policy of the Israeli government – from Ariel Sharon’s “Separation” to the recent speech by Binyamin Netanyahu on a “demilitarized Palestinian State” – is a mortal sin.

But the peak was reached in a brochure that the army rabbinate distributed to soldiers during the Gaza War: “Exercising mercy towards a cruel enemy means being cruel towards innocent and honest soldiers. In war as in war.” That was a clear incitement to brutality. It can be seen as a call for acts that constitute war crimes – the very same acts that his colleague, the Military Advocate General, has done everything possible to cover up.

Neither of the two bearded brigadiers would have remained in office for a single day had they not enjoyed the full support of the Chief of Staff. The army is a hierarchical institution, and full responsibility for everything that happens falls squarely and entirely on the Chief. Unlike his predecessors, Gaby Ashkenazi does not show off and does not speak in public frequently. If he has political ambitions, he is hiding them well. But during his term in office, the army has assumed a certain character, which is perfectly represented by these two officers.

This did not start, of course, with Ashkenazi. He is continuing – and perhaps intensifying – a tendency that started long ago, and that has been changing the Israeli army beyond recognition. The founder of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, famously wrote in his book “Der Judenstaat”, the founding document of the movement: “We shall know how to keep our clerics in the temples, as we shall know how to keep our regular army in the barracks…they will not be allowed to interfere in the affairs of the state.”

Now the very opposite is happening: the rabbis have penetrated the army, the army officers come from the synagogues. The hard core of the fanatical settlers, which is almost entirely composed of religious people (many of whom are “reborn Jews”) decided long ago to gain control of the army from within. In a systematic campaign, which is in full swing, they penetrate the officers’ corps from below - from the junior ranks to the middle to the senior ones. One can see their success in statistics: from year to year the number of kippa-wearing officers is growing.

When the Israeli army came into being, the officers’ corps was full of kibbutz members. Not only were kibbutzniks considered the elite of the new Hebrew society, which was based on values of morality and culture, and not only were they the first to volunteer for every national task, but there were also inbuilt “technical” reasons.

The nucleus of the army came from the pre-state Palmach. The Palmach companies constituted a fully-mobilized regular army, part of the underground military organization, the Haganah. They could exist and operate freely only in the kibbutzim, where their identity could be camouflaged. As a result, almost all the outstanding commanders in the 1948 war were from the Palmach, kibbutz members or close to them.

These did everything to imbue the new Defense Forces with the spirit of a pioneering, moral and humanist citizens army, the very opposite of an occupation army. True, the reality was always different, but the ideal was important as an aim to strive for. As I showed in my 1950 book, “The Other Side of the Coin”, our “purity of arms” has always been a myth. But the aspiration to be an army with humanist values was important. Atrocities were hidden or denied, because they were considered shameful and dishonoring our camp.

Nothing has remained of all this, except phrases. Since the beginning of the occupation in 1967, the character of the army has changed completely. The army that was founded in order to protect the state from external dangers has become an army of occupation, whose task is to oppress another people, crush their resistance, expropriate land, protect land robbers called settlers, man roadblocks, humiliate human beings every day. Of course, it is not the army alone that has changed, but also the state that gives the army its orders as well as its ongoing brainwashing.

In such an army, a process of natural selection takes place. People of discrimination, with a high moral standard, who detest such actions, leave sooner or later. Their place is taken by other types, people of different values or no values at all, “professional soldiers” who “just follow orders”.

Of course, one must beware of generalizing. In today’s army there are not a few people who believe that they are fulfilling a mission, for whom the Ethical Code is more than just a compilation of sanctimonious phrases. These people are 113 disgusted by what they see. From time to time we hear their protests and see their disclosures. However, it is not they who set the tone, but types like Rontzky and Mendelblit.

That should worry us very much. We cannot treat the army as if it was a foreign realm that does not concern us. We cannot tell ourselves: “we don’t want to have anything to do with the army of a Moshe Ya’alon, a Shaul Mofaz, a Dan Halutz or a Gabi Ashkenazi.” We cannot turn our back on the problem. We must face it, because it is our problem.

The state needs an army. Even after achieving peace, we shall need a strong and effective army in order to protect the state until peace strikes deep roots and we can set up a regional body along the lines of the European Union, perhaps. The army is us. Its character has an impact on all our lives, on the life of our state itself. It has already been said: “Israel is not a banana republic. It is a republic that slips on bananas.” And what bananas! ->>>>>>+<<<<<<-

THE SETTLEMENTS: OBAMA'S DEMANDS AND NETANYAHU'S OPTIONS

Alon Ben-Meir,* June 8, 2009

Amidst the whirlwind of activity surrounding President Obama's diplomatic efforts to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict, one issue has stood out among others as particularly contentious. The renewed statements by President Obama, Secretary Clinton and the rest of the US administration on ending Israeli settlement activity has caused considerable discord on how to find common ground in this controversial issue. The Obama administration's demand that Israel end all settlement activity, including natural growth, has been deemed unacceptable by Netanyahu's government, which insists that a total freeze will severely aggravate normal life and engender internal political rift. Mr. Obama reaffirmed his position in his address to the Muslim world from Cairo when he stated: "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements; this construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop." It is unlikely after such a statement that the US administration will retreat from this position. This will undoubtedly compel Netanyahu to revise his stance on settlements and a two-state solution as he addresses his countrymen on Sunday.

A close review of the Israeli point of view suggests that putting an immediate stop to natural growth on settlements, especially those which have become full fledged cities like Ma'ale Adumim, will be extraordinarily difficult to implement both politically and practically. Not only would the settler's movement rattle the government, but violence might inadvertently erupt, creating a scene that the Netanyahu government would want to avoid at all costs. The question is, what can be done to resolve this problem which has such potential to strain US-Israeli relations and undermine the Israeli-Palestinian peace process?

To understand the serious nature of the problem it first must be put in its proper context: More than any thing else, the existence of the settlements reminds every Palestinian of the Israeli occupation, and the expansion of these settlements not only reinforces that painful feeling and humiliation, but suggests that Israel is intent on maintaining the occupation indefinitely. The fact that Prime Minister Netanyahu has refused thus far to accept the idea of a two-state solution further strengthens the Palestinian argument that Israel has no intention of relinquishing the occupied territories. President Obama must insist on stopping the expansion of the settlements as a prerequisite to instilling some confidence and integrity into the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. Mr. Netanyahu has thus far been against the freeze partially because it would imply an early concession on one of his main bargaining chips: the idea of the two-state solution.

To resolve this quandary it seems unlikely that President Obama will settle for less than a ‘moratorium' on further expansion. Changing the semantics from a freeze to a temporary moratorium could initially provide some maneuvering room to agree on a workable formula. A temporary moratorium would mean a halt on the expansion of all settlements and settlement related activity during a set negotiating process, likely between three to six months. This might well work if it were done with the understanding that Israel and the Palestinians would enter immediately into negotiations with direct and active American involvement to determine the future borders of the two states. Once the borders have been agreed upon, Israel can expand settlement activity within them and will be prohibited from any development outside these borders. Whether the objective of the negotiations from Netanyahu's perspective would be a Palestinian state or not, he has already conceded as much when he stated that the Palestinians have the right to self-rule living side by side Israel in peace. Netanyahu may be able to sell the moratorium idea to his centre-right coalition partners because the alternative will be a direct confrontation with the United States, which could bring his government down. This may explain his likely change of heart,especially when recent polls show a majority of Israelis support the freeze.

During these negotiations, Israelis and Palestinians can agree within a few months as to which of the settlements will 114 be incorporated into Israel proper under a peace agreement, and what contiguous land of equal size and quality can be swapped with the Palestinians in its place, which should be enforced under American monitoring. The two sides have negotiated in the past (at Camp David and in Taba in 2000-2001) and agreed in principle about the status of these settlements. Although the Palestinian Authority will want all issues on the table to reach a final status agreement-including the Palestinian refugees and Jerusalem-it appears that they are willing to discuss borders first once Israel accepts the moratorium. Mahmoud Abbas, along with Jordan's King Abdullah has publicly agreed that borders would be the first order of business. Throughout the duration of these negotiations, the Palestinian camp would be expected to make discernable progress on security and ending incitement, in keeping with the mission of the US security coordinator for Israel and the Palestinian Authority General Keith Dayton.

It should be noted that historically the Israeli public has not tolerated and will not support any Israeli government that alienates the United States Moreover, no Israeli Prime Minister could hold a government together should the United States decide to exert direct pressure-which the Obama administration appears to be willing to wield. The Wye River negotiations between Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Clinton in 1998 over Hebron clearly indicate that Netanyahu is capable of surpassing expectations. The idea here is to start the negotiations with a significant concession, and then let momentum and American pressure move the process forward.

To provide some practical suggestions, it is necessary to break down the settlers' movement into its three basic constituencies. In doing so, some interim solutions can realistically be made to satisfy the American demands, meet the Palestinian and Arab requirements for resuming negotiations, and to provide Netanyahu with a face saving way out that he can bring to his coalition.

The quality-of-life settlers are those who moved to the West Bank primarily for economic reasons, the majority of whom live in the block of settlements located closer to the green line. According to Peace Now statistics, there are about 196,000 residents in these settlements, several of which are no longer considered settlements and resemble large cities, home to more than 30,000 people each including Ma'ale Adumim, Modi'in and Beitar Illit. The routing of the security fence leaves most of these settlements on the Israeli side of the fence, though some deep inside the West Bank may not be included into Israel proper. The pressure on the government to allow for natural growth in these settlements is enormous and it is here where the Netanyahu government will experience the greatest difficulty in trying to implement the moratorium. This can be done however, because American overt pressure offers a high degree of political cover and limited options.

The second group consists of ideological settlers who use religious arguments to justify their presence in the West Bank. They view the return of the Jews to the land of "greater Israel" as a fulfillment of God's will. They occupy settlements located for the most part deep inside the West Bank and often in the heart of Palestinian populated areas. It is quite evident however that the public support for these settlements is declining. A growing majority of Israelis accept the fact that Israel will need to evacuate most of these nearly 100 settlements that dot the West Bank. The pressure to expand these settlements is minimal and it can be denied without considerable cost in political capital.

The third group is made up of Ultra-orthodox settlers in the West Bank who are a function almost exclusively of cheap and segregated housing close to the Green Line. They are descendents of devoutly religious Jews who oppose change and modernization. They have historically rejected active Zionism and continue to believe that the path to Jewish redemption is through religious rather than secular activity. There are eight ultra orthodox settlements that were built in the eighties and nineties with roughly 80,000 residents, all of whom are located within the settlement blocs that Israel wants to incorporate into Israel proper.These settlements are currently expanding more rapidly than others due primarily to a higher birth rate. Here-once an agreement on the borders is achieved-the expansion can then be quickly resumed within Israeli lines.

Based on the settlers' ideological leanings and location of the settlements, and considering the political constraints under which Netanyahu's coalition government operates, the Obama administration should focus on four possible areas where it can persuade the Israeli government to take action. First, the US should push for the dismantling of all illegal outposts-which the government has already begun-but must also insist that no new outposts be allowed to rise under any circumstances.

Second, the United States should focus on removing small clusters of settlements occupied by ideological activist settlers in places such as Nablus and Hebron that are troublesome and heavily tax Israel's security forces. All of these settlements are deep in the West Bank and most Israelis agree that they must eventually be evacuated for any peace deal as soon as there is an agreement.

Third, Israel must create a program of diminishing incentive that will provide settlers who are willing to relocate voluntarily with equal housing an extra incentive if they leave within the first year from the initiation of the program. The incentive will then be reduced every few months thereafter. The idea is to create reverse migrations to Israel proper while 115 psychologically preparing the Israeli public and the Palestinians for the inevitability of ending the occupation.

While many settlers will not accept the compensation and try to hold out for a better deal, the government must be resolute and not give into blackmail. There have been some discussions about the fate of a few thousand Israeli settlers who simply refuse to relocate to Israel proper. Some suggest that they may continue to live in their homes under Palestinian authority, though neither side hasreached an understanding on this issue in previous negotiations. This idea remains a viable one as a matter of principle, and can be worked out between both governments. Finally, as difficult as a complete moratorium on expansion of settlements will be, the United States must still exert sufficient pressure on Israel to be sensitive to Palestinian and Arab sensibilities and stop major development projects in and around East Jerusalem.

The Obama administration is likely to intensify the pressure on Netanyahu to make meaningful concessions for advancing peace. Although Netanyahu as a Prime Minister will be a tough negotiator and will demand full compliance in return from the Palestinians for any concession he makes, he may also prove to be the more worthy interlocutor and more trusted by the public. It should be noted thatthe largest territorial concessions-the Sinai, Hebron and Gaza were all made by Likud leaders Begin, Netanyahu and Sharon respectively.

Special envoy George Mitchell, who is now President Obama's Arab-Israeli point man, concluded his report of the Sharm el-Sheikh Fact-Finding Committee with the following words, "Israelis and Palestinians have to live, work, and prosper together. History and geography have destined them to be neighbors. That cannot be changed. Only when their actions are guided by this awareness will they be able to develop the vision and reality of peace and shared prosperity."

No American president has taken such a keen and immediate commitment to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict this early in his term as President Obama. And no agreement between Israel and the Arab states has been achieved without direct American involvement. If time, resolve and visionary leadership matter, there may not be a better time to push for a solution than now.

Alon Ben-Meir is a professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He teaches courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies. [email protected] Web: www.alonben-meir.com. ((((((0))))))

SERBIA 1O YEARSLATER

Stephen Zunes*

Reprinted from Foreign Policy In Focus, June 17, 2009, www.fpif.org.

Since the end of the U.S.-led war against Serbia, the country is slowly emerging from the wars of the 1990s. Despite lingering problems, Serbs appear to be more optimistic about their country's future than they have for decades. The United States deserves little credit for the positive developments, however, and a fair amount of blame for the country's remaining problems.

There have been elements of both the left and the right who have perpetuated a myth of American omnipotence, that the United States is somehow responsible for virtually all the good or evil in the world and that the millions of people who engage in political struggle, legitimate or otherwise, are simply pawns of great powers who have no role in their own destiny. Such myths in relation to what was Yugoslavia are still heard today. In reality, the U.S. role in the recent political history of Serbia, like the recent political history of the Balkans overall, is more complicated than it first appears.

While Serbian war-crimes against the ethnic Albanian majority in Kosovo in the late 1990s were all too real, the 11- week NATO bombing campaign was immoral, illegal, and unnecessary . The most serious atrocities, such as the ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of Kosovar Albanians, took place only after the bombing began. The United States and other Western powers could have pursued diplomatic options that likely would have ended the repression without resorting to war.

Among the many misleading statements of the Clinton administration and its supporters before, during, and after the war, the most absurd was that the U.S.-led NATO bombing campaign made possible Serbia's nonviolent democratic revolution a year-and-a-half later. In fact, a large and active nonviolent movement challenged Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic and his alliance with right-wing ultra-nationalists on several occasions during the 1990s. This movement, led by young people whose lives were shattered by the Serbian regime's endless wars, supported a more pluralistic and democratic Yugoslavia, and an end to human rights abuses against both Serbs and non-Serbs. In the winter of 1996-97, for example, a mass nonviolent

116 movement almost succeeded in overthrowing Milosevic, but it got no help or encouragement from Western government. Indeed, Richard Holbrooke, the Clinton administration's point man for the Balkans and architect for the Dayton Accords, was among those who pressured Clinton to back Milosevic as a stabilizing influence in the region. The Serbian government crushed the pro-democracy movement (ironically, Holbrooke , who is now Obama's special emissary to Afghanistan and Pakistan, later became one of the most virulent supporters of the war two years later).

In 1999, a re-energized student-led pro-democracy movement, coalescing around a group called Otpor ("Resistance"), had emerged. Despite efforts by Milosevic to depict the opposition as Western agents, the vast majority of students involved were actually left-of-center nationalists, motivated by opposition to their government's increasing corruption and authoritarianism. Once the United States launched airstrikes against their country, however, they suspended their anti-government activities and joined their compatriots in opposing the NATO bombing.

The U.S.-led war gave the Milosevic regime an excuse to jail, drive underground, or force into exile many leading pro- democracy activists, shutting down their independent media and seriously curtailing their public activities. Journalists were not exempt: Milosevic's secret police murdered Slavko Curuvija, publisher of the independent Dnevni Telegraf , soon after the bombing campaign began. Most of the population, meanwhile, rallied around the flag.

Ironically, NATO bombs targeted urban areas that were mostly anti-Milosevic. Air raids struck parts of northern Serbia in the autonomous region of Vojvodina, including areas where ethnic Serbs were a minority. NATO planes also struck the Republic of Montenegro, the junior partner in the Yugoslavia federation, setting back its efforts at becoming closer to the West and more independent from Serbia. Though U.S. officials claimed that the bombing would encourage defections in the military and possibly help bring down the regime, NATO members refused to grant even temporary asylum to Serbian draft resisters and deserters.

Fortunately, a year and half later, pro-democracy forces led by Otpor was able to regroup and — when Milosovic tried to steal the election in October 2000 — a massive wave of nonviolent action succeeded in driving him from power. The people of Serbia were able to do nonviolently what 11 weeks of NATO bombs could not. As with the democratic revolutions that swept Eastern Europe in 1989, it wasn't the military prowess of the western alliance bringing freedom to an Eastern European country, but the power of nonviolent action by the subjugated peoples themselves.

Unfortunately, through both appeasement and war, the United States allowed Milosevic to remain in power far longer than he would have otherwise. As Milosevic's nationalist successor Vojislav Kostunica put it , "The Americans assisted Milosevic not only when they supported him, but also when they attacked him.! In a way, Milosevic is an American creation."

U.S.!Role in Serbia's Political Transition

The Serbian opposition, on the other hand, was not an American creation. Rather than being American puppets, the Otpor leadership, as well as the political parties that have dominated Serbia subsequently, protested against the 1999 bombing of their country. They have stridently opposed Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence and carry enormous resentment over U.S. policy in the region over the past couple of decades.

A number of Western NGOs, some of which received some funding from the U.S. State Department and Western European governments, provided a limited amount of financial support for Otpor and other opposition groups. These funds helped them purchase computers, fax machines, and other equipment, and covered costs for printing and other necessities. The limited contact Otpor leaders had with U.S. officials both before and after the overthrow of Milosevic, however, revealed to them an incredible lack of understanding of the dynamics of nonviolent action and the nature of their particular struggle. While they were willing to accept some Western funds during that period, they doggedly kept to their own agenda and priorities, rejecting offers of advice or more direct assistance.

Western governments also helped fund poll-watchers to observe the presidential elections. When official counts of these elections proved fraudulent, an unarmed revolt erupted that forced Milosevic out of power within days.

While such Western aid was certainly useful in Otpor's growth and development and in helping to expose the election fraud, it wasn't critical to the movement's success. Rather, it was Otpor's message — developed by the young student leaders at its helm — that captured the imagination of a Serbian population angered by years of war, corruption, oppression, and international isolation. And there was no outside support or facilitation for the October uprising itself, which actually took Western leaders by surprise.

117 Indeed, Otpor's leaders tended to be decidedly left-of-center Serbian nationalists who opposed the policies not only of the Milosevic regime and the U.S. government but of the traditional opposition parties as well. The success of the populist groundswell they generated forced the once-feuding opposition groups to unite behind a single opposition candidate, a move that made Milosevic's defeat in the election possible. When the incumbent tried to steal the election, they were able to organize the successful uprising that forced the election results to be honored. As the Times of Great Britain describes it , rather than being part of some kind of Western plot, Otpor was inspired by the "situationists of 1968 Paris, Martin Luther King, the writings of the nonviolent resistance guru Gene Sharp and Monty Python's Flying Circus."

Echoing those who insisted that Ronald Reagan was somehow responsible for the democratic revolutions that swept Eastern Europe in 1989, some supporters of the 1999 war on Yugoslavia have tried to claim that Bill Clinton deserves credit for Milosevic's ouster 18 months later. Neither the U.S. president's leadership nor NATO's vast arsenal was responsible for Serbia's dramatic transition. Credit belongs solely to the people who faced down the tanks with the bare hands — in Serbia as well as elsewhere in the region.

Strongly nationalist parties dominated the Serbian government in the years immediately after the ouster of Milosevic and immediately clashed with Washington over extradition requests, economic issues and the status of Kosovo. Despite the recent election of a government dominated by more liberal parties, relations between Serbia and the United States remain tense, particularly over the U.S. recognition of Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence last year. The Socialist Party — descendents of Marshall Tito's partisans who established communist rule in Yugoslavia 65 years ago — has kicked out the remaining Milosevic supporters from its leadership, split with the right-wing ultra-nationalists with whom Milosevic had allied, and is now part of the current coalition government.

With the success of the democratic revolution, Otpor was unable to sustain itself as an independent movement and eventually dissolved. In 2002, some of Otpor's former leaders founded the Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies (CANVAS). This independent NGO disseminated the lessons learned from their successful nonviolent struggle through scores of trainings and workshops for pro-democracy activists and others around the world, including Egypt, Palestine, Western Sahara, West Papua, Eritrea, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Tonga, Burma and Zimbabwe as well as labor, anti-war, and immigration rights activists in the United States.

CANVAS leaders such as Srdja Popovic and Ivan Marovic have advised pro-democracy activists against taking money from U.S.-funded agencies such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), as they did while in Otpor. Recognizing how autocratic regimes can use such funding to discredit opposition movements, Popovic and Marovic have criticized NED and similar groups as undermining pro-democracy struggles around the world, due to what they see as its political agenda on behalf of the U.S. government. They remain harsh critics of U.S. imperialism, repeatedly denouncing U.S military intervention in Serbia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, as well as U.S. support for armed rebel groups around the world. Popovic — whose mother narrowly escaped death when U.S. forces bombed her building in 1999 — was among the CANVAS trainers for the pro- democracy movement in the Maldives prior to their victorious struggle against the autocratic U.S.-backed regime of Mahmoud Gayoom. He recently returned to the archipelago to support an effort to rescind the government's recognition of Kosovo, during which it was revealed that government's decision had been influenced by a $2 million bribe.

Ironically, scores of leftist websites have posted articles insisting that Popovic, Marovic, and their comrades in Otpor were simply tools of the CIA, and that their subsequent work with human rights activists through CANVAS was part of a sinister Bush administration effort at "regime change." Along with the ongoing rationalizations for Serbian repression in Kosovo during the 1990s, such arguments revealed a profound ignorance of the complex realities of Serbian politics.

The U.S. Role in Serbia's Economic Transition

Though the U.S. role in Serbia's political transition was quite limited, U.S. pressure on Serbia to complete its economic transition was more direct.

The initial wave of privatization of Yugoslavia's socialist economy, which commenced in 1990 under the leadership of Yugoslav Prime Minister Ante Markovic, largely divided shares among the workers rather than simply selling them off to private capitalists. These efforts ground to a halt within a couple years, as Milosevic and his clique realized they had little to gain. The imposition of Western sanctions in 1992 in reaction to the outbreak of war did little to limit the war-making ability of Serb forces or the material comfort of Milosevic and allied elites. The sanctions did, however, enrich his coterie of wealthy supporters who profited from the resulting black market. During the sanctions period, Milosevic initiated a second wave of privatization that essentially transferred public wealth to a small group of his cronies, allowing management of enterprises still under formal state ownerships to divert much of their capital and assets to parallel private enterprises. Some of the beneficiaries of this massive scam remain among the richest people in Serbia. 118 During the war 10 years ago, Clinton and other NATO leaders were clear that a major goal in the war was ending what they saw as one of the last holdouts in Europe to the neo-liberal economic order. As a former banker, Milosevic had been backed by the West earlier in his political career as someone who could guide Yugoslavia in that direction, but it was clear by 1999 that he was unwilling to play by the West's rules. In his book Collision Course: NATO, Russia, and Kosovo (Praeger 2005), John Norris, who served as communications director for Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott during the war, wrote, "It was Yugoslavia's resistance to the broader trends of political and economic reform — not the plight of the Kosovar Albanians — that best explains NATO's war."

The third wave of privatization took place after the fall of Milosevic in 2000. Serbia's new democratic government found itself under enormous foreign debt, with much of its industrial infrastructure in ruins. The United States and its allies bombed more than 300 state-owned factories and other publicly controlled industrial facilities, but didn't target a single privately owned enterprise. Under pressure from the United States and international financial institutions, Serbia sold off most of the damaged factories for far less than their actual worth to local tycoons and foreign corporations.

Resistance to the Western model of globalization in most parts of the world has been led by progressive forces demanding a new more democratic and egalitarian order. In Serbia, however, resistance to the West was led by right-wing nationalists, reactionary clerics, corrupt magnates and bureaucrats unwilling to subject their ill-gotten gains to regulatory oversight. As a result, many Serbs were not prepared to resist this kind of encroachment. Many on the Serbian left welcomed the rise of liberal capitalism as an improvement over the crony capitalism under Milosevic. Similarly, whatever the limits of the Western European model, most Serbs viewed it as far more progressive than the reactionary ultra-nationalism of Milosevic and his allies. Still, the country is plagued by corruption, high unemployment, and growing inequality. Many Serbs on the left see integration into the European Union as perhaps the best they can realistically hope for at this point, and have allied themselves with pro-Europe liberals against the nationalist right.

And while privatization of the public enterprises was not the goal of Otpor and most of the pro-democracy activists, the democratic governments that they helped bring to power were given little choice. Western governments, the World Bank, and other Western-dominated international financial institutions offered desperately needed international aid and trade to revive the war-battered economy but at a price: namely, the country's financial independence. The people of Serbia had found that the departing dictatorship and the damage from a two-and-a-half-month bombing campaign had left their country in such desperate financial shape that the trade-off of political freedom was economic dependency.

As with many other new democracies that have emerged elsewhere in recent decades, Serbs could now freely elect their own leaders.! But these leaders would be subjected to the dictates of Western capital. Still, the Serbs' history of resistance against both the forces of Western imperialism and reactionary ultra-nationalism leaves hope that a more progressive and democratic Serbia will emerge.

*Stephen Zunes , a senior analyst of Foreign Policy in Focus, is a professor of politics and international studies at the University of San Francisco. This past October, he served as a visiting professor in the Political Science Faculty of the University of Belgrade. }---->>>------+++<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<==+++==>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>+++------<<<----{

MEDIA NOTES

María Isabel Manzur, Geogina Catacora, Maria Isabel Carcamo, Elizabeth Bravo and Miguel Altieri, Latin America The Transgenis of a Content: A critical View of an Uncontrolled Expansion, in Spanish, is a collection of essays about the state of the art of transgenic crops in most Latin American countries, documenting how the expansion of these crops has been achieved, particularly soybeans and corn. The book reveals the environmental and socioeconomic impacts that this expansion has resulted in a continent which has the greatest surface area of transgenic crops in the world, but ironically, most agrobiodiversity. Most Latin American governments have promoted agricultural policies based on the authorization of GMOs, they have developed limited and incomplete regulations that are not attached to the principle of precaution and serve to facilitate rather than regulate seriously the introduction of this technology. Moreover, research on ecological impacts and health is almost nil in the region. The book also addresses the issue of biofuels and how the modern biotechnology industry is using the current energy fever to spread their transgenic seeds in Latin American countries. The development of this material meets the need to disseminate and create awareness on the situation of transgenic crops in Latin America. The book includes a profile of each country in a common format and an overview of the region, noting the difficulties and future trends. The 110 page volume is available as a PDF file, or in print for the cost of shipping, from María Isabel Manzur, [email protected].

119 South End Press offerings include: George Monbiot, Heat: How to Stop the Planet From Burning ($18 paper); Vandana Shiva, Soil Not Oil: Environmental Justice in an Age of Climate Crisis ($15 paper); Vandana Shiva (Editor), Carlo Petrini (Contributor), and Michael Pollan (Contributor)Manifestos on the Future of Food and Seed ($10); Vandana Shiva, Earth Democracy: Justice, Sustainability, and Peace, describes what earth democracy could look like, outlining the bedrock principles for building living economies, living cultures, and living democracies. ($15.00 paper,$40.00 cloth); and Vijay Prashad and Teo Ballvé, Eds., Dispatches from Latin America: On the Frontlines Against Neoliberalism ($19.00 paper), all from South End Press: http://www.southendpress.org/latest.

Val Plumwood, Environmental Culture: The ecological crisis of reason, proposes that our greatest challenge is to replace hierarchical, human centered and mechanistic models of change with more mutually communicative and responsive models that clearly honor an affiliation with the whole earth family.

The Responsible Purchasing Network (RPN) - a project of the Center for a New American Dream - and Carbonfund.org have published a purchasing guide to carbon offsets. The guide is a comprehensive source of information that is particularly useful for businesses and institutions looking to offset their carbon footprint. Fro more information or to view the guide go to: "http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102663197389&s=8585&e=001s8Ca13KqSMkzd6CVlxpRnKe_LUt- mNbDbQQDkXfaYrnSp1rF4fCkRCP9m-oAl9Pd73kjsgXMi_Jx-ZlnlFkKR0aJyuwAv4Slrjl- Ae0U2WiATwSbJJenZEqz_gCnesWIBCiZd0kMkMU3zagNjvhWmyokLy58b45O8YhjfRV- PuTnq6ShevpLSRP5RWxRp0LcXXYYULLMnDM.

Jon Calame and Esther Charlesworth, Divided Cities, a study of ethnically and politically divided cities and areas such as Nicosia, Jerusalem, Beirut, Mostar and Belfast is published by the University of Pennsylvania Press, http://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/.

Nathan C. Funk and Abdul Aziz Said, “Islam and Peacemaking in the Middle East,” is 303 pages for $65 cloth from Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1800 30th Street, Suite 314. Boulder, CO 80301 (303)444-6684, [email protected], www.rienner.com.

Craig Zelizer , Robert A. Rubinstein, Eds., Building Peace: Practical Reflections from the Field is Published by Kumarian Press: http://www.styluspub.com/Books/BookDetail.aspx?productID=208798.

Howard Clark. People Power: Unarmed Resistance and Global Solidarity is published by Pluto Press, and information on obtaining it is available at us.macmillan.com/peoplepower.

Antony Adolf, Peace: A World History is $27.95 paper, $69.95 cloth, from Polity Press, Wiley distributor, http://www.polity.co.uk/book.asp?ref=9780745641256.

UNESCO Education and Reconciliation Research Report, Education and Reconciliation: The Perspectives of Children and Young People in Northern Ireland and Bosnia and Herzegovina, on, Does education have a role in the reconciliation process in Northern Ireland? How can educators work together to help successive generations of children and young people understand the nature and causes of the conflict here? can be downloaded as a136 pp. PDF at: http://unesco.ulster.ac.uk/news/news.html.

Democratic Dialogue: a Handbook for Practitioners, designed to reflect current practice in the field of dialogue and to draw on concrete experiences of practitioners in various regions and of various actors involved in these processes, can be downloaded in English, Spanish and Frenceh at no cost as a PDF from: http://www.democraticdialoguenetwork.org/index.pl.

Jimmy Carter, We Can Have Peace In the Holy Land: A Plan That Will Work is 256 pp. for $27 cloth from Simon and Schuster: http://www.simonandschuster.com.

Marc Ellis, Judaism Does Not Equal Israel, is published by the New Press.

Mike McGrath from the National Civic League, "The New Laboratories of Democracy:! How Local Government is Reinventing Civic Engagement." has been produced by Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement (PACE). The report, which can be downloaded from the PACE website at http://pacefunders.org/publications/NewLaboratoriesofDemocracy.pdf. Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement (PACE)

Style Matters: The Kraybill (KCSI) Conflict Style Inventory, a five-styles-of-conflict inventory based on the Mouton- Blake Axis, with a Additional features including extensive tips for bringing out the best in each style, differentiation between 120 “Calm” and “Storm” and differing instructions for users from individualist and collectivist cultural backgrounds, can be requested as a free PDF download by sending an email to: [email protected]/ For more information go to: http://www.riverhouseepress.com/.

The new!Caritas Peacebuilding:!Web Toolkit for Trainers offers peacebuilders a comprehensive tool for designing peacebuilding training workshops. The 200 plus page web toolkit for trainers, facilitators, learning designers and other practitioners engaged in peace building, including aid workers engaged in contexts of conflict, containing everything a community trainer needs to run effective workshops in their local context, is available via: http://peacebuilding.caritas.org/index.php/Peacebuilding:About.

Common Ground News Service has been caring a series of on line videos for peace in the Middle East at: http://www.commongroundnews.org/video.php?sid=0&lan=en. The week of June 25 video, Playing for Peace, features Jewish and Arab boys from around Israel who come together to play on the same football team with the help of "Bridge to Peace."!!!

USEFULL WEB SITES

UN NGO Climate Change Caucus, with numerous task forces, is at: http://climatecaucus.net.

On the Frontlines of Climate Change: A global forum for indigenous peoples, small islands and vulnerable communities can be subscribed to at: http://www.climatefrontlines.org/lists/?p=subscribe. See postings on the website at: http://www.climatefrontlines.org/en-GB/node/148.

Earth Policy Institute, dedicated to building a sustainable future as well as providing a plan of how to get from here to there: www.earthpolicy.org.

Wiser Earth lists more than 10,700 environmental and environmental justice organizations at: http://www.wiserearth.org/organization/

Earthwatch, the world’s largest environmental volunteer organization, founded in 1971, works globally to help the people of the planet volunteer realize a sustainable environment: http://www.earthwatch.org/.

Avaaz.org works internationally on environmental and peace and justice issues: http://www.avaaz.org.

The Environmental Defense Fund works on environmental issues and policy, primarily in the U.S.: http://edf.org.

Earthjustice focuses on environmental issues and action: http://action.earthjustice.org.

The Sierra Club works on environmental issues in the United States: http://action.sierraclub.org.

SaveOurEnvironemnt.org, a coalition of environmental organizations acting politically in the U.S.: http://ga3.org/campaign/0908_endangered_species/xuninw84p7m8mxxm.

The National Resources Defense Council works on a variety of environmental issues in the U.S.: NRhttp://www.nrdconline.org/

Care 2 is concerned about a variety of issues, including the environment: http://www.care2.com/.

Rainmakers Ozeania studies possibilities for restoring the natural environment and humanity's rightful place in it, at: http://rainmakers-ozeania.com/0annexanchorc/about-rainmakers.html.

Green Ships, in fall 2008, was is asking Congress to act to speed the development of new energy efficient ships that can take thousands of trucks off Atlantic and Pacific Coast highways, moving freight up and down the costs with far less carbon emissions and more cheaply: http://www.greenships.org.

Carbon Fund Blog carries climate change news, links to green blogs, and a green resource list, at: http://carbonfund.blogspot.com/2008/03/sky-is-falling.html. Carbon Fund is certifying carbon free products at: http://www.carbonfund.org/site/pages/businesses/category/CarbonFree.

121 Grist carries environmental news and commentary: http://www.grist.org/news/,

Green Inc. is a new blog from The New York Times devoted to energy and the environment at: greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com.

Planting Peace is, "A Resource Center for news and activities that seek to build a powerful coalition to bring about cooperation and synergy between the peace movement, the climate crisis movement, and the organic community." Their web site includes extensive links to organizations, articles, videos and books that make the connections, at: http://organicconsumers.org/plantingpeace/index.cfm, Planting Peace is sponsored by the Organic Consumers Association: http://organicconsumers.org/.

The Global Climate Change Campaign: http://www.globalclimatecampaign.org/.

The center for defense information now carries regular reports on Global Warming & International Security at: http://www.cdi.org.

Georgetown University’s Conflict Resolution Program and the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) have created an online database of multimedia resources related to conflict management, as well as best practices for designing and using them at: Peace Media http://peacemedia.usip.org. For information, contact: Dr. Craig Zelizer,!Associate Director, Master of Arts in Conflict Resolution, Department of Government, Georgetown University, 3240 Prospect Street, Washington, DC 20007, (202)687-0512, [email protected], http://conflictresolution.georgetown.edu, http://internationalpeaceandconflict.org.

Global Beat, has been an excellent source of information and further sources for Nonviolent Change, at: http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat. Global Beat also has an E-mail list serve.

The International Crisis Group (ICG) carries regular reports and sets of recommendations about difficult developing situations around the globe, and has been an extremely helpful source of information and ideas for this journal: http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm. ICG also has a regular E-mail report circulation service that can be subscribed to on its web site. The International Crisis Group (ICG) has launched a frequently updated website on “the nexus of issues surrounding Cyprus, Turkey and the European Union,” at: http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=5908&l=1

The International Relations Center (IRC): http://www.irc-online.org/.

IMRA – Middle East News and Analysis: http://www.imra.org.il/.

Transcend Africa, provides reports from across Africa at: www.transcendafrica.net.

The Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO): http://www.unpo.org/.

Europa World Plus: Europa World/Regional Surveys of the World On Line is at: www.europaworld.com.

The Pulitzer Center, whose mission is to promote in-depth coverage of international affairs, focusing on topics that have been under-reported, mis-reported - or not reported at all: http://www.pulitzercenter.org/.

Association for Conflict Resolution (ACR): www.acr.net.

Peace Voice, a source for thoughtful articles on the world today by Peace Professionals including members of academia and the non-profit sector, Home page is: http://www.peacevoice.info.. To view abstracts of unpublished current offerings, which are available at no charge, go to www.Abstracts.PeaceVoice.info. To view pieces that have been published and are also available for reprint at no charge: http://www.peacevoice.info.

Peace Media publishes a monthly web magazine at: http://peacejournalism.com/ReadArticle.asp?ArticleID=6086

The Open society Institute and the Soros Foundation: http://www.soros.org/

Conciliation Resources (CR) has re-launched its website http://www.c-r.org.

Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue: http://www.hdcentre.org/. 122 International Peace Bureau (IPB): http://www.ipb.org

The Institute for Strategic Studies: http://www.iiss.org/publications/armed-conflict-database/

World Security Institute and the Center for Defense Information: www.worldsecurityinstitute.org. The World Security Institute (WSI) offers audio podcast programming in its list of interactive communication features at the iTunes Music Store, WSI’s podcasts will include audio recordings of press conferences, panel discussions, and interviews with WSI experts hosted by WSI or in collaboration with other media outlets. Download iTunes at www.apple.com/itunes. Find WSI podcasts by searching for “World Security Institute” under the podcast section of the iTunes Music Store, or by clicking this link: http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=215717216, The WSI Brussels Security Blog aims to continue and expand the efforts of the World Security Institute, Brussels, to inform, stimulate, and shape the debate around the security and defense dilemmas facing Europe and the world, with a view to formulating effective and lasting solutions, posting regular commentary related to: Afghanistan, the Balkans, Darfur, ESDP, Iran, Iraq, Missile Defence, NATO, OSCE, Peace Support Operations, and Terrorism, at: http://wsibrusselsblog.org/.

The Universal Human Rights Index Website is a database for finding information and documents produced by the various components of the UN human rights system. It can easily do searches, by keywords and other methods on inquiry, at: http://www.universalhumanrightsindex.org/.

The Peace and Justice Studies Association (PJSA): http://www.peacejusticestudies.org/.

Psychologists for Social Responsibility (PsySR): http://www.psysr.org.

The International Peace Research Association has a new website, ass of November, 2007: http://www.ipraweb.org.

The International Peace and Conflict Resolution (IPCR) Program a American University web site, including bi-monthly newsletters, is at: newsletter at www.aupeace.org.

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC): http://www.hrc.org/.

Nonviolent Peaceforce (NP): www.nonviolentpeaceforce.org.

The Boston Research Center has a new website at: www.brc21.org.

The Network of Spiritual Progressives: http://www.spiritualprogressives.org/.

The Baha'i International Community's journal, One Country: www.onecountry.org.

The Stanley Foundation, “brings fresh voices and original ideas to debates on global and regional problems. The foundation seeks a secure peace with freedom and justice, built on world citizenship and effective global governance,” is at: www.stanleyfoundation.org.

Global Peace Hut: http://www.globalpeacehut.org/

Awakening the Dreamer, Changing the Dream runs on line discussions of “the most critical issue and greatest opportunity of our time and what you can do about it,” at: http://www.awakeningthedreamer.org/.

The America’s Program is at: http://www.americaspolicy.org/, with detailed news of Mexico at: www.americasmexico.blogspot.com.

Peace and Collaborative Development Network is at: http://internationalpeaceandconflict.org).

The International Journal of Conflict and Violence focuses on one specific topic in each semi-annual on line issue while also including articles on other, unrelated subjects. In the Fall 2007 issue the focus will be on terrorism. The Journal is at: http://www.ijcv.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=27.

Culture of Peace Online Journal is at: http://www.copoj.ca/.

123 The Journal of Stellar Peacemaking is at: http://www.jsp.st>http://www.jsp.st.

Peacework Magazine, "Global Thought and Local Action for Nonviolent Social Change" (also in print), published by the American Friends Service Committee - New England, 2161 Mass. Ave., Cambridge, MA 02140 (617)661.6130, [email protected], is at: www.peaceworkmagazine.org.

Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy is at: http://www.bepress.com/peps.

Jewish Voice for Peace and Jewish Peace News: www.jewishpeacenews.net.

Peace Research: The Canadian Journal of Peace and Conflict Studies is at: http://www.peaceresearch.ca/index.html.

The Canadian Journal of Peace and Conflict Studies is at: http://www.peaceresearch.ca.

Nonviolent Social Change: the Bulletin of the Manchester College Peace Studies Institute, Nonviolent Social Change: the Bulletin of the Manchester College Peace Studies Institute: http://www.manchester.edu/Academics/departments/Peace_Studies/bulletin/index.ht.

Journal of Globalization for The Common Good, dedicated to global cooperation and dialogue, is at: www.commongoodjournal.com.

Globalisation for the Common Good Initiative (GCGI): www.globalisationforthecommongood.info. Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy (PEPS), is at http://www.bepress.com/peps.

The UN Chronicle: United Nations in a United World is at: www.un.org/chronicle.

Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy is at: http://www.bepress.com/peps.

The Muslim World Journal of Human Rights (MWJHR) is at: http://www.bepress.com/mwjhr.

The Journal of Religion, Conflict, and Peace is at www.religionconflictpeace.org.

Caucasus Context is at: http://www.worldsecurityinstitute.org/showarticle.cfm?id=218. The National Conference on Dialogue and Deliberation (NCDD)'s Learning Exchange, as of August 2007 included over 2200 resources, is at: www.thataway.org/exchange/.

The Africa Peace and Conflict Network (APCN) offers open-access publications, including full research papers, Briefings, and a photo journal, at: www.africaworkinggroup.org/publications.

The Global Development Briefing, the largest circulation publication designed specifically for international development professionals, is at: www.DevelopmentEx.com.

UN Millennium Development Goals, indicators of levels of success on ending poverty: http://www.mdgmonitor.org/.

Peace and Collaborative Development Networking at: http://internationalpeaceandconflict.ning.com/, is a free professional networking site to encourage interaction between individuals and organizations worldwide involved in development, peace, conflict resolution and related fields.

International Society for Universal Dialogue: www.isud.org.

Ideologies of War and Terrorism Web Site is at: http://www.ideologiesofwar.com/.

H-Net-Peace carries announcements, etc., relating to peace at: http://www.h-net.org/~peace/.

The Peace Education Center, IIPE, and Global Campaign for Peace Education invite have a global online initiative “the Peace Education Online Communities,” at: www.c-i-p-e.org/forum.!The Peace Education Online Community is an interactive website that enables members of the global community to communicate and interact with each 124 other through a number of tools including: online discussions, collaborative working spaces, an updatable calendar of events, member profiles, reports of institutes, the sharing of files and papers including sample curricula and best practices from local communities, and much, much more. This web-based initiative was developed to support the members and participants of the International Institute on Peace Education, Community-based Institutes on Peace Education, and the Global Campaign for Peace Education, and other concerned educators.!For more information contact: [email protected]. The Global Campaign for Peace Education Newsletter is usually published as a list serve monthly, with subscription and back issues at: www.tc.edu/PeaceEd/newsletter.

The Global Campaign for Peace Education (GCPE) e-newsletter provides a monthly bulletin of GCPE news, events, action alerts and reports of peace education activities and developments from around the world. Back issues of the newsletter are archived online at www.tc.edu/PeaceEd/newsletter. To subscribe via E-mail go to: http://c-i-p- e.org/elist/?p=subscribe&id=2.

The online Encyclopedia of Peace Education is at: http://www.tc.edu/centers/epe/.

The Plowshares site has on it a section for Syllabi from Courses Related to Peace Studies (from various sources) at: http://www.plowsharesproject.org/php/resources/index.php.

L'Escola de Cultura Pau (School for a Culture of Peace) – Teacher Resource offers an interactive resource targeted to teachers interested in promoting conflict transformation and peace education at school at: http://www.escolapau.org/castellano/convivencia/index.htm.

The Organization Development Institute is a nonprofit educational association organized in 1968 to promote a better understanding of and to disseminate information about organization development, at: http://www.odinstitute.org/. ||||||||||-}}}}}}}}++++\,,,,,,,,,,@,,,,,,,,,,/++++{{{{{{{{-||||||||||

ANNOUNCEMENTS

CALL FOR PAPERS, June 12, 2009

Book Prospectus for publication of a volume of papers in Sudan Studies

SUDAN’S WARS AND PEACE AGREEMENTS

The Sudan has suffered from chronic conflict since its independence in 1956, with only eleven years of relative peace between 1972 and 1983. Sudan is home to diverse communities whose traditions, beliefs and preferred modes of livelihood differ one from another. It enjoys one of the world’s oldest recorded histories, over the course of which the terms of peaceful co-existence among its constituent communities have repeatedly become strained to the breaking point. Although serious conflict is one of the major themes in Sudanese history, so is the countervailing theme of settlement through compromise and accommodation. The patterns of conflict and settlement deeply rooted in history have rarely been as conspicuous as they are today in Sudan‘s recent history of wars and peace agreements since 1983, and after the al-Bashir regime seized power in 1989. In addition to difficulties and opportunities generated through indigenous processes, the contemporary Sudan must also respond to economic, political and cultural influences that derive from its participation in an increasingly complex wider world, especially its unpopular allies, such as Iran and its vulnerable friends, such as Egypt.

The Sudan Studies Association (founded in 1981) dedicated its 2008 annual conference in Tallahassee, FL to examination of the “Sudan’s Wars and Peace Agreements” from both historical and contemporary analytical perspectives. The papers read at the conference itself inspired a new round of studies offered in supportive elaboration and critical response. Given the timeliness and exceptional quality of the discussion these studies cumulatively bear, the SSA leadership has assembled an editorial team to organize them and offer them to the world of scholarship within a sensitive and appropriate interpretive setting.

Having now obtained a contractual agreement with Cambridge University Press, the editors are soliciting a final round of submissions for consideration for inclusion. Chapter-length studies pertinent to the theme of the volume may be submitted to: Stephanie Beswick, PH.D, Associate Professor, Director African History, President Sudan Studies Association, Book review Editor Sudan , Studies Association Bulletin, Ball state University, Department of History, Muncie, Indiana 47306, (765)285- 8710, [email protected].

125 Submissions will be accepted through 30 January 2010. The decision of the editors concerning acceptance of submissions is final.

******************************************************************************

The Effectiveness of Nonviolent Civic Action

NOTE: ESSAYS MUST BE RECEIVED BY FEBRUARY 1, 2010

The United States Institute of Peace (USIP) is proud to announce the topic for the 2009-10 National Peace Essay Contest: 'The Effectiveness of Nonviolent Civic Action.' Students will examine cases where nonviolent methods have been used and discuss under what conditions nonviolent civic actions are most likely to achieve justice, end conflict, or lead to positive political and social change. For details go to: http://www.usip.org/programs/projects/2009-2010-contest

-+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+-

Nonviolent Change First Class Mail Stephen M. Sachs 1916 San Pedro, NE Albuquerque, NM 87110

First Class Mail

FIRST CLASS MAIL

First Class Mail 126