Title: Iraqi refugees on the road to Damascus
Author: Sami Moubayed
Source: The Common Ground News Service, 04 October 2007
Word Count: 909
Title: Breaking barriers in Brooklyn
Author: Marcia Kannry and Khader El-Yateem with Stephanie Golden
Source: The Common Ground News Service, 04 October 2007
Word Count: 826
Common Ground News Service
**********
Iraqi refugees on the road to Damascus
Sami Moubayed
DAMASCUS – For the most part of nearly three decades, interaction between Syrians and Iraqis was minimal, to say the least—restricted to political fugitives from each country residing in Baghdad and Damascus. Anyone who is someone in Iraq today was a resident of the Syrian capital—Nuri al-Maliki, Jalal Talabani, Masoud al-Barzani, and Ibrahim al-Jaafari. But neither country had an embassy in the other's capital, there were no formal visits, no cultural exchanges, and no linking telephone lines. Syrians wanting a travel permit would get the words "All Arab countries except Iraq" stamped on their passports. The same was done by authorities in Baghdad. Restrictions were briefly lifted in the late 1970s when the two countries teamed up to oppose Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat's peace deal with Israel, and Iraqis poured into Syria for tourism, education and business.
Today, there are nearly 1.5 million Iraqis in Syria, but contrary to the case three decades ago, they are mostly refugees. They began arriving after the American invasion of March 2003 and are currently entering at a rate of 2000 per day. They now account for about 11% of Syria's 18 million residents. Syria—living up to its Arab nationalist history and convictions—is the only Arab country to allow Iraqis to come freely, obtain temporary residency permits, and own property on its territory.
Within Syria, the Iraqis have had a substantial impact. The affluent minority have caused real estate prices to skyrocket and contributed to growth of over 5%, but collectively the Iraqis have been a drain on an economy that has strained to provide them with basic services like clean drinking water, sanitation, medical care and education. Public schools in Syria are stretched to the limit, and so are government resources. Difficulties in obtaining proper school documentation from Iraq has caused many Iraqi students to drop-out of school in Syria, resorting to odd jobs on the streets. Despite that, the Syrians have promised to try and accommodate 100,000 Iraqi children at state-run schools, in addition to the 40,000 Iraqi college students enrolled at Syrian universities.
The rising number of Iraqi prostitutes has led the government to make it difficult for Iraqi women aged 15-40 to enter Syria unless accompanied by a male relative. According to Hana Ibrahim, the founder of Women's Will (an Iraqi NGO), 50,000 Iraqi women have turned to the sex business around the Arab world due to the unbearable conditions of their lives as refugees. Crime—which is very low in Syria—has also risen in recent years in the wild and uncontrolled neighbourhoods of the Iraqis, nicknamed Little Falluja.
Iraqi refugees are costing the Syrian state no less than $1 billion USD per year. To date, the only state-sponsored assistance received by Syria has come from the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation: $1 million USD. Although the US has pledged $153 million to all of Jordan, Syria and Lebanon to help deal with their refugee problem, nothing of that amount has been delivered to Damascus. UNHCR has provided aid of $10 million for health and education—from its 2007 budget of $123 million.
The bulk of the burden has been, and continues to be, shouldered by the Syrian government and tax-payers. Although, the US has given $700 million since 2003 "to help Jordan offset the economic dislocation it faces due to the conflict in Iraq," no comparable payments have been made to Syria. Other Western governments, which also bear responsibility for the chaos in Iraq, such as Australia, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Denmark, Japan and Great Britain, have also been unwilling to help Syria support its Iraqi refugees adequately.
The world must not forget that during the Israel-Hizbullah war last summer, Syria received hundreds of thousands of Lebanese refugees. It is also permanent home to 700,000 Palestinians from a much earlier conflict.
All of this explains why Syria announced that it would be placing strict restrictions on refugees coming from Iraq as of September 2007. The announcement, which had a high tone of regret, said that Syria "can no longer take in any more." Visas would only be given to those coming for educational, business or scientific reasons. Shortly after this went into effect, the al-Tanf border crossing was described as "virtually empty." International organisations, media and states called on Syria to reconsider, making claims that its restrictions would "prevent refugees from fleeing the violence in their country." This scared Iraqis and raised alarm in the international community, prompting the US to announce on September 21 that as of mid-October it would start receiving 1,000 Iraqis per month. By late September 2007, the US would have received 1,700 refugees—a measly number when compared to that of Syria's. Paul Rozenzweig, the Counsellor of the Department of Homeland Security, added, "Next year we're going to resettle 12,000 Iraqis out of a projected total of 70,000 worldwide." For their part, the Syrians changed course briefly by easing restrictions for 'humanitarian reasons' during the holy month of Ramadan (which began on September 13), claiming that this will last only until mid-October, when the fasting period ends.
If Syria were to push further with its measures, or close its borders to Iraqi refugees immigrants, however reluctantly, it would create far more serious problems for all in the region and, ultimately, for the West.
Irrespective of why or how the Iraqi war is being fought, Syria and the US share humanitarian interest in easing the plight of the refugees. On this, both countries certainly should be able to agree.
###
* Sami Moubayed, PhD is a Syrian political analyst and author of "Steel & Silk: Men and Women Who Shaped Syria 1900-2000" (Cune Press, 2005). He teaches at the Faculty of International Relations at al-Kalamoun University in Syria. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.
Source: Common Ground News Service, 04 October 2007, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.
**********
Breaking barriers in Brooklyn
Marcia Kannry and Khader El-Yateem with Stephanie Golden
BROOKLYN – We write this article on September 11, 2007—an anniversary with particular meaning for us. We are Father Khader El-Yateem and Marcia Kannry, board members of the Dialogue Project, an organisation that works with multi-ethnic and religiously diverse communities in the New York City area. In particular, we bring dialogue to communities where new Arab and Muslim immigrants live and work alongside long-term residents of various ethnicities. We use dialogue to help people learn to value diverse faiths and cultures, and address intergroup conflict.
For both of us—Marcia, a Jewish-Israeli American, and Father Khader, a Palestinian-Christian American—this article represents victory, for we did not allow the events of 9/11 and the continuing conflict in Palestine and Israel to divide us. Instead, we have used the safe environment of facilitated dialogue to address issues that cause agony and suffering, and to share stories that make us laugh. This willingness to tackle our differences in a positive, fruitful way brings us hope.
Marcia founded the Dialogue Project in spring 2001, aware of rising tensions between Jews and many Arabs and Muslims in Brooklyn. She organised an encounter program at a local synagogue, and over 200 community members attended, 85 of whom signed up for the first dialogue circle that May.
Meanwhile, Khader, pastor of Salam Arabic Lutheran church, was developing relationships with local Muslim and Jewish leaders in Bay Ridge—a neighbourhood with many Arab and Muslim immigrants. He helped create a task force that organised bridge-building events. We met at one of them, and Father Khader has since joined the Dialogue Project board.
The Dialogue Project now conducts six dialogue circles focused on the Middle East, plus Speaking Across Differences, a program that uses dialogue to break through barriers of suspicion in neighbourhoods where new Arab and Muslim populations mix with more established Italian, Anglo, Irish, Jewish, Norwegian, African American, Asian and Latino communities.
Our dialogue model emphasizes active, generous and reflective listening to create an environment where people feel free to express their ideas without fear of being judged. Most importantly, we do not invest in, nor expect a specific end result. This means that people who remain far apart politically can still develop warm relationships and trust, precisely because they are not pushed to come to a consensus. Groups ranging from 5 to 20 people meet once a month. Participants are asked to speak from the "I" and avoid claiming that their views represent their entire community. We attempt to really hear and understand the "other", whether we agree or not, and to speak honestly about hot issues, like the Palestinian right of return, Zionism and security concerns.
In these dialogues, Arabs and Muslims learn that they're not the only community that has been excluded or profiled in this country. Some participants discover that their next-door neighbour feels threatened because they wear a hijab, or pray at a mosque; others discover that their white skin has conferred them privileges of which they were previously unaware.
Father Khader was raised in Beit Jala, Palestine, and has found it difficult to speak of his life experiences there to people in the US. He thinks that people often view Israel's actions as justified and take its assertions at face value, while Palestinians must defend their statements. Friends back home in Palestine become upset when told that he meets with Jews and Israelis in New York. Yet despite such challenges, he values the opportunity to share his personal story of being arrested and tortured in Israeli prisons, and to see others in the circle taking in and understanding his feelings.
Marcia has also been changed through this kind of dialogue. She's a former regional director for the Jewish National Fund, but now relates differently to people in her Jewish community about Palestinians and their homeland, Palestine. She better understands the deep fear of both anti-Jewish and anti-Arab attitudes, and instead of arguing with others about the occupied territories, she tries to share what she has learned in dialogue about the reality of people's lives there.
In these ways, we, and other Dialogue Project participants, have seen how regular and sustained dialogue can produce transformation, not just within the circle but beyond—out into the world—as we bring our changed attitudes and insight into our respective communities. People who barely coexisted now move past fear and mistrust—some have created community projects, including interfaith teach-ins and educational forums on immigration.
We see our model as a path toward more joint ventures, perhaps eventually toward adult education programs and advocacy. And we hope to expand our dialogues to include a broader, conservative cross section of Jews and Palestinians—achieving deeper, richer conversations.
The ability to really listen, without making an automatic retort, requires practice. Once that skill is developed, dialogue shows us how to sit together with our differences, rather than storming out of the room. Often we are asked, "How can my one voice make any difference?" We answer, "Yours may be the voice that brings understanding to the other side."
###
* Marcia Kannry, president of the Dialogue Project board, is a Jewish American whose experience with Christian-Jewish dialogue in the United States and Palestinian-Israeli dialogue in Israel led her to found the Dialogue Project. Father Khader El Yateem, board member and treasurer of the Dialogue Project, is pastor of the Salam Arabic Lutheran Church in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.
Source: Common Ground News Service, 04 October 2007, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for republication.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Speech of Palestine President Mahmound Abbas to UN SEP 28, 2007
October 2, 2007
Subject: Speech of President Abbas at the United Nations
From: PLO Mission - Washington, DC
Statement by
H.E. Mr. Mahmoud Abbas
Chairman of the Executive Committee
of the Palestine Liberation Organization
President of the Palestinian National Authority
before the United Nations General Assembly
Sixty-second Session
New York, 28 September 2007
Mr. President
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is a pleasure for me, Mr. President, to congratulate you on your election to the presidency of this session. We are very hopeful that your work and efforts will be successful.
I would like also to convey through you our appreciation to H.E. Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa for the tremendous efforts she undertook during her presidency of the General Assembly in the previous session.
On this occasion I would like to express our full confidence in the role of the United Nations and all its specialized agencies, given its historic responsibility towards the question of Palestine until it is resolved in all its aspects, as it, for many decades, has continued to reaffirm the national and inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and to guarantee all kinds of support for our people in the political, economic and humanitarian fields.
We must refer to the exceptional work that has been done and continues to be done by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) in order to preserve the future for generations of Palestine refugees and to ensure them basic services. We must also refer to the efforts exerted by other institutions whether they defend the basic human rights of the Palestinian citizens, or extend support to us in educational and cultural fields and in enhancing the role of the Palestinian National Authority since its inception and contributing to the building of our national institutions.
I would also like to thank H.E. the Secretary-General, Mr. Ban Ki-moon, for placing the question of Palestine at the head of his work priorities and for the high attention he has given to seeking a solution for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and creatively contributing with us to securing the means that would lead to the re-launching of the peace process.
Mr. President,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Confrontations, wars and conflicts in our region and their dangerous and tragic repercussions on the peoples of the regions have become the primary threat to world peace. I call upon the conscience of the entire humanity and the international community to act urgently to radically address these situations without delay. Our experiences over the past years and decades have proven that the policy of delaying the settlement of the major conflicts in our region or partially addressing them just to contain them or to reduce the dangers of these conflicts or to manage them have only led to further complication of the situations and the threat of civil and regional wars and helping terrorism to grow in an environment conducive to it and to spread to regrettably become a global phenomenon.
However, this grim picture should not conceal from our eyes the reality that hope is still alive and that the will of the overwhelming majority of our peoples, supported by the international community, are capable of overcoming the tragic destiny which the forces of occupation, extremism and aggression and war and terrorism in our region want to force us into.
Indeed, there are vital and responsible forces in the Middle East which represent the conscience of their peoples and have a deep desire to move towards liberation, progress and democracy. Though these forces work and struggle in extreme difficulties, they are committed and have the strong will to overcome the current situations and to create a new future for the Middle East in which all of its peoples will enjoy freedom and equality.
There could be no doubt that defending Islam, this religion of moderation, love and human brotherhood, is the responsibility of these vital forces in our region to counter the attempts to defame this monotheistic religion or to portray it in an unfair and distorted manner contrary to its spirit and tenets. Islam is a religion of tolerance against terrorism, killing and assassination. It is a religion of enlightenment against ignorance, darkness and backwardness. It is the religion of openness to the world against closeness and extremism. We all must work together to preserve the mutual human values which we all realize are subject today to violation, aggression and defamation. We must seek broaden human understanding between different religions, cultures and civilizations, because the attempt to spread the spirit of animosity between them is one of the most dangerous means used by international terrorism in the present time. That is why the dialogue among cultures, religions and civilizations is necessary today, particularly since all wars, especially the world wars, were not wars between religions and cultures but rather wars of interests.
That reality constitutes only one fragment of the overall picture. Missing opportunities one after another to seriously address the issues of the peoples in the region and to reach fundamental and comprehensive solutions to them, with the question of Palestine at the forefront, will push our peoples towards the precipice of despair and frustration and make them easy prey to the forces of ignorance and extremism.
Is it not time for the international community to seize this opportunity which we have today to move towards re-launching the peace process? And to transform the idea of the international meeting, which has gained, not only the overwhelming support of the Palestinian and Israeli societies but also of the world at large, into a new beginning for negotiations that would lead to an end to the Israeli occupation of our Palestinian territory and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 and to the achievement of the vision of two States?
Is it not time to establish the independent Palestinian State with Al-Quds Al-Sharif as its capital and to find a just and agreed upon solution to the plight of Palestinian refugees in accordance with General Assembly resolution 194 in order to put an end to their anguish and suffering that had lasted for six decades?
Is it not time to put an end to the policies of colonial expansionism, the seizure of Palestinian lands under different pretexts, the building of the racist separation wall, the imposition of siege, the erection of checkpoints around cities, villages and refugee camps, the continued policies of collective punishment, and the imprisonment of more than 11,300 Palestinians in Israeli jails, some of them imprisoned for more than quarter of a century?
Is it not time for the city of Jerusalem to become a city of true peace for all peoples of faith from all religions, and for Israel, the occupying Power, to cease all actions aimed at altering the character of the sacred city, imposing siege on it and forcing its inhabitants to leave, and desecrating the Christian and Islamic holy places in the city?
Is it not time for Israel to cease its acts of killing, assassinations, dispersion and the destruction of homes and confiscation of lands and homes which are occurring daily?
Is it not time for our people to enjoy freedom and independence in equality with all other peoples and to build their peaceful future side by side with their neighbors, including Israel?
I hope I will not return to this podium next year asking the same questions as there is no obstacle to provide all means of success for the forthcoming peace meeting, particularly since the brotherly Arab countries have shown their true readiness, through the Arab Peace Initiative, to achieving a just, lasting and comprehensive peace, which will be beneficial and fruitful to all parties in the region through the development of normal and comprehensive relations when the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territory and the other occupied Arab territories has ended and the sovereign and independent Palestine State is established based on the 1967 borders.
It is in this spirit that we look forward to the substance of the proposed meeting and to an invitation for all concerned parties to attend.
Let me frankly state that there is no politician or responsible leader concerned with his people's interests who does not know well the solution between us and our Israeli neighbors that can be achieved and can last. This solution is embodied in the many resolutions adopted throughout the successive sessions of the General Assembly, the initiative of President Bush for the two-State solution - Palestine side by side with Israel, the Road Map which was endorsed in Security Council resolution 1515, the Arab Peace Initiative, and the outcome of negotiations and plans presented by many parties from 2000 and until now.
Hence, from this podium, I address the Israeli Government, with whose Prime Minister Mr. Olmert I had important and in-depth discussion and dialogue, so that we may end the spiraling of lost opportunities and to make the opportunity of the international conference real and substantive. We should go together to this conference holding in our hands clear, detailed and realistic bases to solve all the final status issues, especially Jerusalem, borders, refugees, water and security and other key issues.
From this podium, I wish to reiterate our people's full readiness to be involved in a true peace process that would lead to a comprehensive and complete agreement on all final status issues. We will present this agreement, as we promised, for a popular referendum to all of the Palestinian people - all segments and wherever they may be - so they can give their views and decision on what has been reached. Thus we can fully and strategically preserve the peace.
I would also like to affirm that we will continue to address, in accordance with our basic law and other laws, the coup d'etat that took place in the Gaza Strip, in order to preserve democracy in our country from the ventures of any group which wants to impose by force its control or its own dark ideas and through armed rebellion. Anyone who thinks that our people, who presented throughout decades the martyrs, the wounded and the prisoners for the sake of freedom and independence and the building of a free, progressive and democratic state, would follow those who want to impose by armed force upon them a closed and backward regime and society, is extremely wrong.
Some have attempted in the past to transform the question of Palestine into a card to be used to serve regional interests or to realize expansionist goals or to promote specific ideas and ideologies, disregarding the true interests of the Palestinian people.
But, we are the ones who struggled and devoted all of our lives for the independence of our national decision, for the protection of the interests and rights of our people, and the rejection of occupation and control from any side. We will not allow for the tragedy to happen one more time or for any attempt to manipulate our national destiny to achieve its goals.
Mr. President,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I came to this podium to convey the message of a tired people burdened with the wounds of occupation, dispersion, imprisonment and martyrdom. Yet they are also a people imbued with the spirit of human dignity and the faith that their future will be made by their own hands even though their past was determined by those who conspired against them and their rights.
I came to reiterate the words of our eternal leader Yasser Arafat, confident that the olive branch - the branch of peace - which does not fade or die, will not fall from my hand.
I came to convey the pain and suffering of every Palestinian man and woman, every one that lost a martyr or injured, everyone that awaits the freedom of a brother, father, sister or mother in prisons, and those stranded on the Iraqi-Syrian borders and the millions of Palestinians living in their homeland or in refugee camps, affirming that the message of peace delivered by the prophets and bearers of the Divine messages from our land will grow and flourish and that the voice of peace in our country will be louder than any other voice.
For all this, let us move forward hand in hand on the shining path of peace, without narrow agendas or temporary, short-term interests. In conclusion, allow me to address our Palestinian people in the homeland and in the diaspora to tell them that there is an important opportunity on the horizon. Let us together unit to make this a reality so that our people can regain their national, legitimate rights and achieve the peace, prosperity and stability for which we have so long aspired and which our steadfast and patient people so deserve.
We also must work so that peace will come to the peoples who suffer and bleed daily like the brotherly Iraqi people and to the peoples who deserve a secure and stable life within the framework of democracy such as the dear people of Lebanon.
Let us build a stable and cooperative world based on respect for life and the right of peoples to self-determination. I thank you, Mr. President, and I thank all of members of this international organization for their support and positions.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Contact Information
phone: (202) 974-6360
Fax: (202) 974-6278
Email: plomission1@aol.com
Website: http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=x9rcefcab.0.7hysjecab.5aedgecab.4303&ts=S0286&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.plomission.us%2F
Subject: Speech of President Abbas at the United Nations
From: PLO Mission - Washington, DC
Statement by
H.E. Mr. Mahmoud Abbas
Chairman of the Executive Committee
of the Palestine Liberation Organization
President of the Palestinian National Authority
before the United Nations General Assembly
Sixty-second Session
New York, 28 September 2007
Mr. President
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is a pleasure for me, Mr. President, to congratulate you on your election to the presidency of this session. We are very hopeful that your work and efforts will be successful.
I would like also to convey through you our appreciation to H.E. Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa for the tremendous efforts she undertook during her presidency of the General Assembly in the previous session.
On this occasion I would like to express our full confidence in the role of the United Nations and all its specialized agencies, given its historic responsibility towards the question of Palestine until it is resolved in all its aspects, as it, for many decades, has continued to reaffirm the national and inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and to guarantee all kinds of support for our people in the political, economic and humanitarian fields.
We must refer to the exceptional work that has been done and continues to be done by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) in order to preserve the future for generations of Palestine refugees and to ensure them basic services. We must also refer to the efforts exerted by other institutions whether they defend the basic human rights of the Palestinian citizens, or extend support to us in educational and cultural fields and in enhancing the role of the Palestinian National Authority since its inception and contributing to the building of our national institutions.
I would also like to thank H.E. the Secretary-General, Mr. Ban Ki-moon, for placing the question of Palestine at the head of his work priorities and for the high attention he has given to seeking a solution for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and creatively contributing with us to securing the means that would lead to the re-launching of the peace process.
Mr. President,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Confrontations, wars and conflicts in our region and their dangerous and tragic repercussions on the peoples of the regions have become the primary threat to world peace. I call upon the conscience of the entire humanity and the international community to act urgently to radically address these situations without delay. Our experiences over the past years and decades have proven that the policy of delaying the settlement of the major conflicts in our region or partially addressing them just to contain them or to reduce the dangers of these conflicts or to manage them have only led to further complication of the situations and the threat of civil and regional wars and helping terrorism to grow in an environment conducive to it and to spread to regrettably become a global phenomenon.
However, this grim picture should not conceal from our eyes the reality that hope is still alive and that the will of the overwhelming majority of our peoples, supported by the international community, are capable of overcoming the tragic destiny which the forces of occupation, extremism and aggression and war and terrorism in our region want to force us into.
Indeed, there are vital and responsible forces in the Middle East which represent the conscience of their peoples and have a deep desire to move towards liberation, progress and democracy. Though these forces work and struggle in extreme difficulties, they are committed and have the strong will to overcome the current situations and to create a new future for the Middle East in which all of its peoples will enjoy freedom and equality.
There could be no doubt that defending Islam, this religion of moderation, love and human brotherhood, is the responsibility of these vital forces in our region to counter the attempts to defame this monotheistic religion or to portray it in an unfair and distorted manner contrary to its spirit and tenets. Islam is a religion of tolerance against terrorism, killing and assassination. It is a religion of enlightenment against ignorance, darkness and backwardness. It is the religion of openness to the world against closeness and extremism. We all must work together to preserve the mutual human values which we all realize are subject today to violation, aggression and defamation. We must seek broaden human understanding between different religions, cultures and civilizations, because the attempt to spread the spirit of animosity between them is one of the most dangerous means used by international terrorism in the present time. That is why the dialogue among cultures, religions and civilizations is necessary today, particularly since all wars, especially the world wars, were not wars between religions and cultures but rather wars of interests.
That reality constitutes only one fragment of the overall picture. Missing opportunities one after another to seriously address the issues of the peoples in the region and to reach fundamental and comprehensive solutions to them, with the question of Palestine at the forefront, will push our peoples towards the precipice of despair and frustration and make them easy prey to the forces of ignorance and extremism.
Is it not time for the international community to seize this opportunity which we have today to move towards re-launching the peace process? And to transform the idea of the international meeting, which has gained, not only the overwhelming support of the Palestinian and Israeli societies but also of the world at large, into a new beginning for negotiations that would lead to an end to the Israeli occupation of our Palestinian territory and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 and to the achievement of the vision of two States?
Is it not time to establish the independent Palestinian State with Al-Quds Al-Sharif as its capital and to find a just and agreed upon solution to the plight of Palestinian refugees in accordance with General Assembly resolution 194 in order to put an end to their anguish and suffering that had lasted for six decades?
Is it not time to put an end to the policies of colonial expansionism, the seizure of Palestinian lands under different pretexts, the building of the racist separation wall, the imposition of siege, the erection of checkpoints around cities, villages and refugee camps, the continued policies of collective punishment, and the imprisonment of more than 11,300 Palestinians in Israeli jails, some of them imprisoned for more than quarter of a century?
Is it not time for the city of Jerusalem to become a city of true peace for all peoples of faith from all religions, and for Israel, the occupying Power, to cease all actions aimed at altering the character of the sacred city, imposing siege on it and forcing its inhabitants to leave, and desecrating the Christian and Islamic holy places in the city?
Is it not time for Israel to cease its acts of killing, assassinations, dispersion and the destruction of homes and confiscation of lands and homes which are occurring daily?
Is it not time for our people to enjoy freedom and independence in equality with all other peoples and to build their peaceful future side by side with their neighbors, including Israel?
I hope I will not return to this podium next year asking the same questions as there is no obstacle to provide all means of success for the forthcoming peace meeting, particularly since the brotherly Arab countries have shown their true readiness, through the Arab Peace Initiative, to achieving a just, lasting and comprehensive peace, which will be beneficial and fruitful to all parties in the region through the development of normal and comprehensive relations when the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territory and the other occupied Arab territories has ended and the sovereign and independent Palestine State is established based on the 1967 borders.
It is in this spirit that we look forward to the substance of the proposed meeting and to an invitation for all concerned parties to attend.
Let me frankly state that there is no politician or responsible leader concerned with his people's interests who does not know well the solution between us and our Israeli neighbors that can be achieved and can last. This solution is embodied in the many resolutions adopted throughout the successive sessions of the General Assembly, the initiative of President Bush for the two-State solution - Palestine side by side with Israel, the Road Map which was endorsed in Security Council resolution 1515, the Arab Peace Initiative, and the outcome of negotiations and plans presented by many parties from 2000 and until now.
Hence, from this podium, I address the Israeli Government, with whose Prime Minister Mr. Olmert I had important and in-depth discussion and dialogue, so that we may end the spiraling of lost opportunities and to make the opportunity of the international conference real and substantive. We should go together to this conference holding in our hands clear, detailed and realistic bases to solve all the final status issues, especially Jerusalem, borders, refugees, water and security and other key issues.
From this podium, I wish to reiterate our people's full readiness to be involved in a true peace process that would lead to a comprehensive and complete agreement on all final status issues. We will present this agreement, as we promised, for a popular referendum to all of the Palestinian people - all segments and wherever they may be - so they can give their views and decision on what has been reached. Thus we can fully and strategically preserve the peace.
I would also like to affirm that we will continue to address, in accordance with our basic law and other laws, the coup d'etat that took place in the Gaza Strip, in order to preserve democracy in our country from the ventures of any group which wants to impose by force its control or its own dark ideas and through armed rebellion. Anyone who thinks that our people, who presented throughout decades the martyrs, the wounded and the prisoners for the sake of freedom and independence and the building of a free, progressive and democratic state, would follow those who want to impose by armed force upon them a closed and backward regime and society, is extremely wrong.
Some have attempted in the past to transform the question of Palestine into a card to be used to serve regional interests or to realize expansionist goals or to promote specific ideas and ideologies, disregarding the true interests of the Palestinian people.
But, we are the ones who struggled and devoted all of our lives for the independence of our national decision, for the protection of the interests and rights of our people, and the rejection of occupation and control from any side. We will not allow for the tragedy to happen one more time or for any attempt to manipulate our national destiny to achieve its goals.
Mr. President,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I came to this podium to convey the message of a tired people burdened with the wounds of occupation, dispersion, imprisonment and martyrdom. Yet they are also a people imbued with the spirit of human dignity and the faith that their future will be made by their own hands even though their past was determined by those who conspired against them and their rights.
I came to reiterate the words of our eternal leader Yasser Arafat, confident that the olive branch - the branch of peace - which does not fade or die, will not fall from my hand.
I came to convey the pain and suffering of every Palestinian man and woman, every one that lost a martyr or injured, everyone that awaits the freedom of a brother, father, sister or mother in prisons, and those stranded on the Iraqi-Syrian borders and the millions of Palestinians living in their homeland or in refugee camps, affirming that the message of peace delivered by the prophets and bearers of the Divine messages from our land will grow and flourish and that the voice of peace in our country will be louder than any other voice.
For all this, let us move forward hand in hand on the shining path of peace, without narrow agendas or temporary, short-term interests. In conclusion, allow me to address our Palestinian people in the homeland and in the diaspora to tell them that there is an important opportunity on the horizon. Let us together unit to make this a reality so that our people can regain their national, legitimate rights and achieve the peace, prosperity and stability for which we have so long aspired and which our steadfast and patient people so deserve.
We also must work so that peace will come to the peoples who suffer and bleed daily like the brotherly Iraqi people and to the peoples who deserve a secure and stable life within the framework of democracy such as the dear people of Lebanon.
Let us build a stable and cooperative world based on respect for life and the right of peoples to self-determination. I thank you, Mr. President, and I thank all of members of this international organization for their support and positions.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Contact Information
phone: (202) 974-6360
Fax: (202) 974-6278
Email: plomission1@aol.com
Website: http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=x9rcefcab.0.7hysjecab.5aedgecab.4303&ts=S0286&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.plomission.us%2F
Eliav-Sartawi Awards in Journalism Announced
2007 Middle East Journalism Awards Announced
Search for Common Ground has announced the recipients of this year's annual Eliav-Sartawi Awards for Middle Eastern Journalism.
These Awards are given annually to recognize and encourage journalism that contributes to better understanding between people in the Middle East. The winning articles provide insight into regional issues and debates, contribute to political dialogue, expose readers to new perspectives and help to lay the groundwork for peaceful solutions to Middle Eastern conflict.
The Awards will be presented on the afternoon of November 7th at a special event co-sponsored by Columbia University School of Journalism and School of International Affairs in New York City.
The 2007 recipients are: Akiva Eldar and Salameh Nematt, "Reaching Across the Divide," published simultaneously in Ha'aretz, Al Quds, and The Baltimore SunAkiva Eldar is Chief Political Columnist and an editorial writer at Ha'aretz. The Financial Times named him one of the most influential commentators in the world in 2006. He is the co-author of "Lords of the Land: The War Over Israel's Settlements in the Occupied Territories," recently published by Nation Books. Salameh Nematt is a Jordanian journalist with more than 20 years of experience covering political, security, and human rights issues. He is a frequent guest on TV and radio news and talk shows, and was a political analyst and Washington Bureau Chief for the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper and the LBC Arab satellite channel.
Bassam Aramin, "A Plea for Peace from a Bereaved Palestinian Father," originally published in The Jewish Daily ForwardBassam Aramin is head of the Al Quds Association for Democracy and Dialogue, and is one of the co-founders of Combatants for Peace, a group consisting of former Israeli soldiers and Palestinian fighters now working together to achieve a nonviolent end to the conflict.
Gershon Baskin, "When Will It All End," originally published in the Jerusalem Post Gershon Baskin is the Israeli Co-Director and Founder of the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information (IPCRI), a joint public policy think tank. Dr. Baskin's books and articles on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have been widely published and he has received numerous awards for his work.
The winning articles can be found on the Common Ground News Service website, here: http://www.commongroundnews.org/awards2007.php?lan=en&sid=0
The Awardees will join international journalists in a symposium on the impact of the media on the conflict in the Middle East.
In speaking about why common ground journalism is relevant and needed in the Middle East, Akiva Eldar said "as a Jew, as a human being, and as a commentator, my job is to protect my children. Peace is too important to leave to the politicians alone: It is everyone's job." Salameh Nematt reflected that "the beginnings of change begin with the media."
The Awards were conceived and are funded by J. Zel Lurie, veteran American journalist, who began reporting on the Middle East during the British Mandate in Palestine before 1948. Mr. Lurie sought to give recognition to journalists whose work promotes greater understanding between Arabs and Israelis.
The Awards are named after two courageous pioneers of the Israeli-Palestinian dialogue. Dr. Issam Sartawi, an advisor to Yassir Arafat, was assassinated in 1983 for his moderate stance. Lova Eliav was active in Israeli politics and diplomacy since the founding of the state. They both received the 1979 Kreisky Prize of Austria for their efforts in exploring a peaceful end to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
For information contact:Rebecca Polivy Search for Common Ground Jerusalem, Israel rpolivy@sfcg.org 972 (0)2-581-2049 Susan Koscis Search for Common Ground Washington DC skoscis@sfcg.org (202) 777-2215 http://www.sfcg.org/
Search for Common Ground has announced the recipients of this year's annual Eliav-Sartawi Awards for Middle Eastern Journalism.
These Awards are given annually to recognize and encourage journalism that contributes to better understanding between people in the Middle East. The winning articles provide insight into regional issues and debates, contribute to political dialogue, expose readers to new perspectives and help to lay the groundwork for peaceful solutions to Middle Eastern conflict.
The Awards will be presented on the afternoon of November 7th at a special event co-sponsored by Columbia University School of Journalism and School of International Affairs in New York City.
The 2007 recipients are: Akiva Eldar and Salameh Nematt, "Reaching Across the Divide," published simultaneously in Ha'aretz, Al Quds, and The Baltimore SunAkiva Eldar is Chief Political Columnist and an editorial writer at Ha'aretz. The Financial Times named him one of the most influential commentators in the world in 2006. He is the co-author of "Lords of the Land: The War Over Israel's Settlements in the Occupied Territories," recently published by Nation Books. Salameh Nematt is a Jordanian journalist with more than 20 years of experience covering political, security, and human rights issues. He is a frequent guest on TV and radio news and talk shows, and was a political analyst and Washington Bureau Chief for the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper and the LBC Arab satellite channel.
Bassam Aramin, "A Plea for Peace from a Bereaved Palestinian Father," originally published in The Jewish Daily ForwardBassam Aramin is head of the Al Quds Association for Democracy and Dialogue, and is one of the co-founders of Combatants for Peace, a group consisting of former Israeli soldiers and Palestinian fighters now working together to achieve a nonviolent end to the conflict.
Gershon Baskin, "When Will It All End," originally published in the Jerusalem Post Gershon Baskin is the Israeli Co-Director and Founder of the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information (IPCRI), a joint public policy think tank. Dr. Baskin's books and articles on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have been widely published and he has received numerous awards for his work.
The winning articles can be found on the Common Ground News Service website, here: http://www.commongroundnews.org/awards2007.php?lan=en&sid=0
The Awardees will join international journalists in a symposium on the impact of the media on the conflict in the Middle East.
In speaking about why common ground journalism is relevant and needed in the Middle East, Akiva Eldar said "as a Jew, as a human being, and as a commentator, my job is to protect my children. Peace is too important to leave to the politicians alone: It is everyone's job." Salameh Nematt reflected that "the beginnings of change begin with the media."
The Awards were conceived and are funded by J. Zel Lurie, veteran American journalist, who began reporting on the Middle East during the British Mandate in Palestine before 1948. Mr. Lurie sought to give recognition to journalists whose work promotes greater understanding between Arabs and Israelis.
The Awards are named after two courageous pioneers of the Israeli-Palestinian dialogue. Dr. Issam Sartawi, an advisor to Yassir Arafat, was assassinated in 1983 for his moderate stance. Lova Eliav was active in Israeli politics and diplomacy since the founding of the state. They both received the 1979 Kreisky Prize of Austria for their efforts in exploring a peaceful end to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
For information contact:Rebecca Polivy Search for Common Ground Jerusalem, Israel rpolivy@sfcg.org 972 (0)2-581-2049 Susan Koscis Search for Common Ground Washington DC skoscis@sfcg.org (202) 777-2215 http://www.sfcg.org/
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Common Ground News Opinion Columns
Title: Message from the Prophet is clear: coexist
Author: Hisham al-Zoubeir
Source: The Common Ground News Service, 25 September 2007
Word Count: 844
Title: The importance of meeting face-to-face
Author: Susan Harrison
Source: The Common Ground News Service, 25 September 2007
Word Count: 840
Title: Talk "Lebanon" first
Author: Michael Young
Source: The Common Ground News Service, 25 September 2007
Word Count: 692
Title: ~Youth Views~ Humanity doesn't change with geography
Author: Pensee Afifi and Jane Slusark
Source: The Common Ground News Service, 25 September 2007
Word Count: 691
**********
Message from the Prophet is clear: coexist
Hisham al-Zoubeir
Washington, DC – As the world watches the terrible eruption of violence between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq and is subjected to sporadic communiqués by vigilantes calling for violence against their opponents both within the Muslim community and without, many who are unfamiliar with Islam and Muslims may be forgiven for thinking the worst of both the religion and its followers. Yet in Islam and Muslim history, the precedent for religious co-existence is primordial.
The Qur'anic view of the carpenter from Nazareth is clear: Jesus is called the Spirit of God, and the Messiah. Moses is described as the prophet to whom God spoke directly, without any veil. Muslims still revere those men, and their followers are accorded special places within the book of Islam.
The Arabian Prophet, Muhammad, sent according to Islamic tradition as a "mercy to all the worlds", showed us how these theological abstractions were exemplified in practice in the first interfaith meeting between Muslims and Christians - held some 14 centuries ago.
A delegation of sixty Christians from a community about 450 miles south of the Prophet's city, Medina, visited him in the year 631. During this three-day meeting between representatives of one faith-community with the founder of another, the model of Muslim ethics vis-à-vis the religious "other" was made explicit for all time. There are many lessons to be drawn from this encounter, but three stand out.
The first is that neither the Christians nor the Muslims pretended to be other than what they were. The Christians insisted on Trinitarianism, and the Prophet rejected it as a matter of faith. Both sides believed that Christ was the Messiah, that he had been born without a father, and that he received revelation from God. There was no shying away from difference, but the search for common ground was primary. Remember the culture of the time - the Prophet held the upper hand as the leader of a powerful community - but he did not disrespect his guests, who were politically powerless.
The second was that difference was not a cause of religious conflict. When the Christians suggested they go out into the desert to perform mass, the Prophet invited them to carry out their rituals within his mosque. He did not partake of their rituals, but he invited them into his own place of worship to carry them out. This was not mere tolerance: this was respect, if not acceptance. He met them with what he considered to be absolute truths, but not as a bigot.
Later generations of Muslims took his practice very seriously: when he said that the rights of non-Muslims under the protection of the Islamic polity were sacrosanct, that he would be a witness for them on the Day of Judgement, Muslims listened. The millions of non-Muslims who are still very much a part of the Muslim world are testimony to that. The situation was not perfect, but non-Muslim historians record that it was the best model of its time.
The third lesson was that difference did not mean that co-existence on a social and political level was impossible. The Christians nonetheless accepted the Prophet as their guarantor in the political realm, and for 14 centuries other Christian communities have accepted Muslim rulers as their guarantors, with their lives, property and religion safeguarded in exchange for a tax, similar to the tax Muslims paid to their temporal authorities.
The above encounter with the Christians of Najran was by no means an isolated event in the life of the Prophet which points to ongoing interfaith relations. An earlier treaty, the documentation of which is still in existence, with Christians of Sinai bore this practice out:
"This is a message from Muhammad son of Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far: we are with them. Verily I, the servants, the helpers (people of Medina), and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by God! I hold out against anything that displeases them. No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate."
None of the above was a medieval call for syncretism, nor should it be understood to be a denial that Islam, a universal religion, did call for Muslims to be fully committed to their faith. Rather, this was placing into Muslim ethics the need to respect the religious other, by respectfully engaging this other.
The Prophet is known to have claimed that he was not sent "except to perfect good manners", and his display of respect and co-existence is a model that has become sorely lacking in many parts of the world. While some may have forgotten his example, his practice nonetheless established precedents that we would do well to heed today with renewed commitment.
###
* Hisham al-Zoubeir is a researcher of classical Islamic thought. He holds a Ph.D. in the history of European Muslims, and writes on Islam-West relations. This article is part of a series on apostasy and proselytism distributed by the Common Ground News Service and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 25 September 2007, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.
**********
The importance of meeting face-to-face
Susan Harrison
Toronto - Does it matter if we meet face-to-face?
In 2004 I went to Qom, Iran to participate in a conference called "Revelation and Authority", a dialogue between North American Christian Mennonite scholars and local Muslim Shiite scholars. A few months ago, we met again - this time in Waterloo in Ontario, Canada. It was a joyful, collegial reunion and, in addition, a nonverbal connection seemed to occur when we looked at each other again, face-to-face.
Each time we gather for dialogue, there is a kind of audible relief in realising that we both really exist, that we are dedicated to making this dialogue happen.
Face-to-face meetings are the moment when the research and media-informed opinions we hold are measured against the experience of the encounter with the other. There is something profound about meeting face-to-face: noticing that someone limps or has a hard time staying awake in a long lecture, seeing the way someone's eyes light up when they hear a new idea, or watching the quizzical looks on a Muslim's face when a Mennonite explains the worship of a triune God (a God in 3 forms).
People are like "living books", but unlike a published paperback, our plots are constantly changing. And, as living books, our stories interact with each other when we meet; they take account of the new characters, who in turn affect the plot line and the ensuing chapters.
However, these kinds of meetings are becoming increasingly more difficult to arrange these days because travel visas are regularly denied on both sides. Tense political relations in past months and tighter borders in the wake of 9/11 have resulted in stringent travel restrictions and have made such face-to-face visits more difficult.
The Mennonite Central Committee (MCC), a religion-based non-profit development organisation, first became involved in Iran following the 1990 earthquake. A friendship formed between Ed Martin, the then-director of MCC's Asia desk and the Director General of International Affairs in Iran, Sadreddin Sadr. Working together in disaster relief, they shared a vision to build relationships that would un-demonise Iranians for North Americans and vice versa. A student exchange program was proposed and Toronto, Canada, where a sizeable Mennonite graduate student community could be found, became the venue. The Imam Khomeini Education and Research Institute (IKERI) volunteered to host Christian Mennonite students in Qom.
In addition to the student exchange program, which began in 1998, the MCC developed "learning tours" that brought groups to Iran on itinerated programs. Two tours of 10 days each allowed Mennonites and Muslims to meet and learn about each other first hand.
An example of the power of first hand meetings is captured in the remark of an Iranian Muslim, attending a Canadian school: "meeting face-to-face works as a source of miraculous mutual understanding. I can say that people who are afraid of you, as a Muslim or as an Iranian, after 10 to 30 minutes of conversation begin to recognise you as a human being."
As I write this, I am aware that I had been planning on attending a conference, "One God of Abraham, Different Traditions", at Eastern Mennonite University in September 2007. The participants were Mennonite scholars and a guest delegation from the Islamic Republic of Iran led by Ayatollah Araqi, head of the Organization of Culture and Islamic Relations. The delegation included Iranian religious leaders and scholars, Morris Motamed, a Jewish member of Iran's Parliament and Archbishop Sarkissian of the Armenian Church in Iran.
One week before the guests were due to arrive, 4 out of 15 visas were refused for "security reasons", though the US State Department did not send this message in writing. Since Ayatollah Araqi was among those refused entry, the visit was unfortunately called off.
This is not only a US-specific problem. In May 2007, 15 North American Mennonites were denied entry into Iran for a fully itinerated learning tour. During this same time, the Western media accused the institute of having a direct line to President Ahmadinejad's government, and critics accused the MCC of therefore supporting Ahmadinejad's government by association with IKERI.
The notion that dialogue between people of different faiths poses a security risk to their home countries continues to be the underlying theme of this ongoing problem of blocked encounters. N. Gerald Shenk, a professor at Eastern Mennonite University, wonders "whether the freedom protected by 'security' overrides the freedom to build better understanding across these dangerous divides."
Face-to-face encounters, according to contact theories, will break down stereotypes and build the understanding and trust that is greatly needed between the West and Iran. Yet as Martin remarked when the visas were refused, "It is back to 'square one' to figure out how to develop relationships of understanding, trust and friendship between Iranians and Americans that will prevent war between our countries."
While people can criticise the MCC for engaging with IKERI as Muslim dialogue partners, the fact remains that a constructive relationship has developed between the two communities, and if allowed to grow it could influence the stories of those individuals who are touched by it.
###
* Susan Kennel Harrison is a PhD candidate at the Toronto School of Theology and has been coordinating the Toronto side of the MCC student exchange with Iran since 1998. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 25 September 2007, www.commongroundnews.org Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.
**********
Talk "Lebanon" first
Michael Young
Beirut - For many Lebanese, Syrian involvement in regional peace negotiations is only desirable if its practical outcome is increased respect for Lebanese sovereignty and independence.
However, the Lebanese are not that optimistic. They fear that once negotiations begin between Syria and Israel, the international community will have little mind to support the international court prosecuting those involved in the February 2005 assassination of the former Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafiq Hariri. Syria remains a prime suspect in that crime and has systematically sought to derail efforts to establish the tribunal in Lebanon. And though the UN Security Council approved the tribunal under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, Syria's peace talks with Israel could earn Damascus a reprieve.
Advocates of Syrian-Israeli talks have underlined the importance of a breakthrough, arguing that Syria and Israel are much closer to a settlement than the Palestinians and Israelis, thanks largely to negotiations throughout the 1990's and unofficial agreements reached in recent years. However, these advocates routinely fail to address the possibility that Syria may not be able to afford peace. President Assad's regime may benefit from a negotiating process, but not necessarily from a peace agreement. After all, peace with Israel would oblige the regime to largely dismantle the military and security apparatus used to prop up its authority. Could Assad, who heads a minority regime, accept a peace that would undermine his Arab nationalist credentials domestically and regionally, and also threaten his burgeoning strategic alliance with Iran?
While many maintain that Syria's interest in negotiations with Israel is to reclaim the Golan Heights, its leadership has shown in recent years that its true aim is to preserve control over Lebanon. As the late Yitzhak Rabin once put it, "Better Syrian troops in Lebanon than on the Golan." It was his indirect way of admitting that though Syria was negotiating a return of the Golan, the late Hafez Assad was also keen to ensure that Syria maintained its hold over Lebanon. And in fact, that was exactly what happened. Lebanon's negotiating track with Israel was fully absorbed into the Syrian track, a move approved by the Clinton administration and all of the main Arab and European states.
Lastly, the promoters of a Syrian-Israeli negotiating track have failed to provide options to protect Lebanon from persistent efforts by Damascus to re-impose its hegemony over its smaller neighbour. The Hariri tribunal remains a major obstacle, so that international conflict resolution institutions have offered convoluted solutions that respect the tribunal but also ensure the protection of Syria's leadership. Their casuistry has failed to take into consideration that a thorough and legitimate trial process might very well point the finger at the same Syrian leaders whom the promoters of negotiations want to spare.
Lebanon should not pay the price for a Syrian-Israeli dialogue, nor should Syria be denied an opportunity to talk to Israel in goodwill. That is why the international community should impose certain conditions on regional peace talks, which can test Syrian intentions while also guaranteeing Syria's respect for Lebanese sovereignty and independence.
The first condition for international backing for Syrian-Israeli talks has to be Syria's formal acceptance of all UN resolutions relating to Lebanon, particularly Resolutions 1559 and 1701, which Damascus has repeatedly violated. Syria must specifically agree to end its interference in Lebanon and its arming of Lebanese parties. It must also agree to open an embassy in Beirut, something it has never done on the grounds that Lebanese and Syrians are "one people in two countries", and it must agree on final borders with Lebanon.
Syria must also make a clear statement that it will collaborate with the Hariri tribunal and send any Syrian suspects to Holland, where the court is to be set up, not try them in Syrian courts, as Syrian officials have repeatedly insisted. These conditions are now part of international legislation, since Chapter VII authority obliges all parties to obey the tribunal's requests.
Once these conditions are met, a Syrian-Israeli peace track would be eminently desirable. But there is no reason for Lebanon to be Syria's ticket to a settlement. Until this issue is resolved, Syria and Israel are likely to tiptoe around without going very far.
###
* Michael Young is opinion editor of the Daily Star newspaper in Lebanon. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 25 September 2007, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.
**********
~Youth Views~ Humanity doesn't change with geography
Pensee Afifi and Jane Slusark
Cairo/Iowa City, Iowa - The Arab world and the West represent two sides of the same coin. Though we are from different parts of the globe, we are two parts that make up a whole: we live in the same world. In that respect, though we all have our distinct cultures, it is worth remembering — and strengthening — our universal culture.
The most basic roots of global culture are derived from the fact that we, as humans, experience the same basic feelings — pain, love, anger, fear, etc. We all aspire to avoid pain and maximise pleasure. It is the existence of fear that holds us back from forming relationships or trusting another person, especially one we perceive as different from us. Our mutual understanding of how death, life, war and tragedy affect a person should be a platform upon which we can foster respect and friendship. No one wants to lose a son, a mother or a grandfather, so we should all be able to see the insanity of needless violence.
We also understand the personal connection a person has with his or her home or village — it would pain us to see it destroyed. But the shared culture of the world can become clouded through dehumanisation. War is only possible when we perceive the enemy as being less than human. The rhetoric of politics and overzealous leaders allows the mass populous to forget that they have the same heart as the person they "hate" across the border. If you strip away the external factors, what you have left is the same basic individual with the same basic needs.
There are also values, morals and traditions that are respected and appreciated around the globe, such as the role of the family. The form may differ, but the relationship between family members is important in all communities and cultures. In the Arab world, the family represents the past, present and future. It is believed in the Arab world that individuals are not only educated in schools, but also in the home. With that belief, families exert tremendous effort in shaping their children's personalities. Kinship ties also often bring considerable responsibilities; an Arab individual would be considered less of a person without his or her family's ongoing support and guidance.
In the Western world, the independence of individuals plays a larger role in the development of family ties. In that regard, Western families provide education, guidance and support but also teach independence and responsibility to allow individuals to form their own lives outside the family boundaries.
In both cases, the importance of the family is apparent. Although Arab and American students sometimes argue over the level of responsibility and independence expected by the family in their respective cultures, it is easy to realise that though we differ, we still agree that the family plays an important role in education and support.
Countries define their culture by their history. But one may ask, "The history of what?" Most of what is found in schools' textbooks is the history of politics, the history of conflict. Yet, every country has a period they look back on as a darkened era, in which grave mistakes were made, or as "the good old days" when everything was simple and people were happy. Each has had its share of triumphs and trials. It is important to remember the histories, but it is also important not to read too much into them. The grudges of the past should not prevent two nations from respecting each other in the present, or from working together toward a common goal. By focusing on events, we forget the collective feelings, the human aspects that led to the eventual settlement of the conflict.
To achieve true respect and understanding on a global scale, we must interact and focus on our common human characteristics. We are all human beings, and share the same feelings, needs and values. What we forget most of the time is that even though we disagree, we can't separate ourselves from the other side of the coin; we all have something in common. At the very least, we can share in our thirst to understand one another.
###
* Pensee Afifi is a student at the American University in Cairo and Jane Slusark studies at the University of Iowa in Iowa City. They co-wrote this article as part of the Soliya Connect Program's West-Muslim World intercultural dialogue program. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 25 September 2007, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.
end
Author: Hisham al-Zoubeir
Source: The Common Ground News Service, 25 September 2007
Word Count: 844
Title: The importance of meeting face-to-face
Author: Susan Harrison
Source: The Common Ground News Service, 25 September 2007
Word Count: 840
Title: Talk "Lebanon" first
Author: Michael Young
Source: The Common Ground News Service, 25 September 2007
Word Count: 692
Title: ~Youth Views~ Humanity doesn't change with geography
Author: Pensee Afifi and Jane Slusark
Source: The Common Ground News Service, 25 September 2007
Word Count: 691
**********
Message from the Prophet is clear: coexist
Hisham al-Zoubeir
Washington, DC – As the world watches the terrible eruption of violence between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq and is subjected to sporadic communiqués by vigilantes calling for violence against their opponents both within the Muslim community and without, many who are unfamiliar with Islam and Muslims may be forgiven for thinking the worst of both the religion and its followers. Yet in Islam and Muslim history, the precedent for religious co-existence is primordial.
The Qur'anic view of the carpenter from Nazareth is clear: Jesus is called the Spirit of God, and the Messiah. Moses is described as the prophet to whom God spoke directly, without any veil. Muslims still revere those men, and their followers are accorded special places within the book of Islam.
The Arabian Prophet, Muhammad, sent according to Islamic tradition as a "mercy to all the worlds", showed us how these theological abstractions were exemplified in practice in the first interfaith meeting between Muslims and Christians - held some 14 centuries ago.
A delegation of sixty Christians from a community about 450 miles south of the Prophet's city, Medina, visited him in the year 631. During this three-day meeting between representatives of one faith-community with the founder of another, the model of Muslim ethics vis-à-vis the religious "other" was made explicit for all time. There are many lessons to be drawn from this encounter, but three stand out.
The first is that neither the Christians nor the Muslims pretended to be other than what they were. The Christians insisted on Trinitarianism, and the Prophet rejected it as a matter of faith. Both sides believed that Christ was the Messiah, that he had been born without a father, and that he received revelation from God. There was no shying away from difference, but the search for common ground was primary. Remember the culture of the time - the Prophet held the upper hand as the leader of a powerful community - but he did not disrespect his guests, who were politically powerless.
The second was that difference was not a cause of religious conflict. When the Christians suggested they go out into the desert to perform mass, the Prophet invited them to carry out their rituals within his mosque. He did not partake of their rituals, but he invited them into his own place of worship to carry them out. This was not mere tolerance: this was respect, if not acceptance. He met them with what he considered to be absolute truths, but not as a bigot.
Later generations of Muslims took his practice very seriously: when he said that the rights of non-Muslims under the protection of the Islamic polity were sacrosanct, that he would be a witness for them on the Day of Judgement, Muslims listened. The millions of non-Muslims who are still very much a part of the Muslim world are testimony to that. The situation was not perfect, but non-Muslim historians record that it was the best model of its time.
The third lesson was that difference did not mean that co-existence on a social and political level was impossible. The Christians nonetheless accepted the Prophet as their guarantor in the political realm, and for 14 centuries other Christian communities have accepted Muslim rulers as their guarantors, with their lives, property and religion safeguarded in exchange for a tax, similar to the tax Muslims paid to their temporal authorities.
The above encounter with the Christians of Najran was by no means an isolated event in the life of the Prophet which points to ongoing interfaith relations. An earlier treaty, the documentation of which is still in existence, with Christians of Sinai bore this practice out:
"This is a message from Muhammad son of Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far: we are with them. Verily I, the servants, the helpers (people of Medina), and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by God! I hold out against anything that displeases them. No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate."
None of the above was a medieval call for syncretism, nor should it be understood to be a denial that Islam, a universal religion, did call for Muslims to be fully committed to their faith. Rather, this was placing into Muslim ethics the need to respect the religious other, by respectfully engaging this other.
The Prophet is known to have claimed that he was not sent "except to perfect good manners", and his display of respect and co-existence is a model that has become sorely lacking in many parts of the world. While some may have forgotten his example, his practice nonetheless established precedents that we would do well to heed today with renewed commitment.
###
* Hisham al-Zoubeir is a researcher of classical Islamic thought. He holds a Ph.D. in the history of European Muslims, and writes on Islam-West relations. This article is part of a series on apostasy and proselytism distributed by the Common Ground News Service and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 25 September 2007, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.
**********
The importance of meeting face-to-face
Susan Harrison
Toronto - Does it matter if we meet face-to-face?
In 2004 I went to Qom, Iran to participate in a conference called "Revelation and Authority", a dialogue between North American Christian Mennonite scholars and local Muslim Shiite scholars. A few months ago, we met again - this time in Waterloo in Ontario, Canada. It was a joyful, collegial reunion and, in addition, a nonverbal connection seemed to occur when we looked at each other again, face-to-face.
Each time we gather for dialogue, there is a kind of audible relief in realising that we both really exist, that we are dedicated to making this dialogue happen.
Face-to-face meetings are the moment when the research and media-informed opinions we hold are measured against the experience of the encounter with the other. There is something profound about meeting face-to-face: noticing that someone limps or has a hard time staying awake in a long lecture, seeing the way someone's eyes light up when they hear a new idea, or watching the quizzical looks on a Muslim's face when a Mennonite explains the worship of a triune God (a God in 3 forms).
People are like "living books", but unlike a published paperback, our plots are constantly changing. And, as living books, our stories interact with each other when we meet; they take account of the new characters, who in turn affect the plot line and the ensuing chapters.
However, these kinds of meetings are becoming increasingly more difficult to arrange these days because travel visas are regularly denied on both sides. Tense political relations in past months and tighter borders in the wake of 9/11 have resulted in stringent travel restrictions and have made such face-to-face visits more difficult.
The Mennonite Central Committee (MCC), a religion-based non-profit development organisation, first became involved in Iran following the 1990 earthquake. A friendship formed between Ed Martin, the then-director of MCC's Asia desk and the Director General of International Affairs in Iran, Sadreddin Sadr. Working together in disaster relief, they shared a vision to build relationships that would un-demonise Iranians for North Americans and vice versa. A student exchange program was proposed and Toronto, Canada, where a sizeable Mennonite graduate student community could be found, became the venue. The Imam Khomeini Education and Research Institute (IKERI) volunteered to host Christian Mennonite students in Qom.
In addition to the student exchange program, which began in 1998, the MCC developed "learning tours" that brought groups to Iran on itinerated programs. Two tours of 10 days each allowed Mennonites and Muslims to meet and learn about each other first hand.
An example of the power of first hand meetings is captured in the remark of an Iranian Muslim, attending a Canadian school: "meeting face-to-face works as a source of miraculous mutual understanding. I can say that people who are afraid of you, as a Muslim or as an Iranian, after 10 to 30 minutes of conversation begin to recognise you as a human being."
As I write this, I am aware that I had been planning on attending a conference, "One God of Abraham, Different Traditions", at Eastern Mennonite University in September 2007. The participants were Mennonite scholars and a guest delegation from the Islamic Republic of Iran led by Ayatollah Araqi, head of the Organization of Culture and Islamic Relations. The delegation included Iranian religious leaders and scholars, Morris Motamed, a Jewish member of Iran's Parliament and Archbishop Sarkissian of the Armenian Church in Iran.
One week before the guests were due to arrive, 4 out of 15 visas were refused for "security reasons", though the US State Department did not send this message in writing. Since Ayatollah Araqi was among those refused entry, the visit was unfortunately called off.
This is not only a US-specific problem. In May 2007, 15 North American Mennonites were denied entry into Iran for a fully itinerated learning tour. During this same time, the Western media accused the institute of having a direct line to President Ahmadinejad's government, and critics accused the MCC of therefore supporting Ahmadinejad's government by association with IKERI.
The notion that dialogue between people of different faiths poses a security risk to their home countries continues to be the underlying theme of this ongoing problem of blocked encounters. N. Gerald Shenk, a professor at Eastern Mennonite University, wonders "whether the freedom protected by 'security' overrides the freedom to build better understanding across these dangerous divides."
Face-to-face encounters, according to contact theories, will break down stereotypes and build the understanding and trust that is greatly needed between the West and Iran. Yet as Martin remarked when the visas were refused, "It is back to 'square one' to figure out how to develop relationships of understanding, trust and friendship between Iranians and Americans that will prevent war between our countries."
While people can criticise the MCC for engaging with IKERI as Muslim dialogue partners, the fact remains that a constructive relationship has developed between the two communities, and if allowed to grow it could influence the stories of those individuals who are touched by it.
###
* Susan Kennel Harrison is a PhD candidate at the Toronto School of Theology and has been coordinating the Toronto side of the MCC student exchange with Iran since 1998. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 25 September 2007, www.commongroundnews.org Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.
**********
Talk "Lebanon" first
Michael Young
Beirut - For many Lebanese, Syrian involvement in regional peace negotiations is only desirable if its practical outcome is increased respect for Lebanese sovereignty and independence.
However, the Lebanese are not that optimistic. They fear that once negotiations begin between Syria and Israel, the international community will have little mind to support the international court prosecuting those involved in the February 2005 assassination of the former Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafiq Hariri. Syria remains a prime suspect in that crime and has systematically sought to derail efforts to establish the tribunal in Lebanon. And though the UN Security Council approved the tribunal under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, Syria's peace talks with Israel could earn Damascus a reprieve.
Advocates of Syrian-Israeli talks have underlined the importance of a breakthrough, arguing that Syria and Israel are much closer to a settlement than the Palestinians and Israelis, thanks largely to negotiations throughout the 1990's and unofficial agreements reached in recent years. However, these advocates routinely fail to address the possibility that Syria may not be able to afford peace. President Assad's regime may benefit from a negotiating process, but not necessarily from a peace agreement. After all, peace with Israel would oblige the regime to largely dismantle the military and security apparatus used to prop up its authority. Could Assad, who heads a minority regime, accept a peace that would undermine his Arab nationalist credentials domestically and regionally, and also threaten his burgeoning strategic alliance with Iran?
While many maintain that Syria's interest in negotiations with Israel is to reclaim the Golan Heights, its leadership has shown in recent years that its true aim is to preserve control over Lebanon. As the late Yitzhak Rabin once put it, "Better Syrian troops in Lebanon than on the Golan." It was his indirect way of admitting that though Syria was negotiating a return of the Golan, the late Hafez Assad was also keen to ensure that Syria maintained its hold over Lebanon. And in fact, that was exactly what happened. Lebanon's negotiating track with Israel was fully absorbed into the Syrian track, a move approved by the Clinton administration and all of the main Arab and European states.
Lastly, the promoters of a Syrian-Israeli negotiating track have failed to provide options to protect Lebanon from persistent efforts by Damascus to re-impose its hegemony over its smaller neighbour. The Hariri tribunal remains a major obstacle, so that international conflict resolution institutions have offered convoluted solutions that respect the tribunal but also ensure the protection of Syria's leadership. Their casuistry has failed to take into consideration that a thorough and legitimate trial process might very well point the finger at the same Syrian leaders whom the promoters of negotiations want to spare.
Lebanon should not pay the price for a Syrian-Israeli dialogue, nor should Syria be denied an opportunity to talk to Israel in goodwill. That is why the international community should impose certain conditions on regional peace talks, which can test Syrian intentions while also guaranteeing Syria's respect for Lebanese sovereignty and independence.
The first condition for international backing for Syrian-Israeli talks has to be Syria's formal acceptance of all UN resolutions relating to Lebanon, particularly Resolutions 1559 and 1701, which Damascus has repeatedly violated. Syria must specifically agree to end its interference in Lebanon and its arming of Lebanese parties. It must also agree to open an embassy in Beirut, something it has never done on the grounds that Lebanese and Syrians are "one people in two countries", and it must agree on final borders with Lebanon.
Syria must also make a clear statement that it will collaborate with the Hariri tribunal and send any Syrian suspects to Holland, where the court is to be set up, not try them in Syrian courts, as Syrian officials have repeatedly insisted. These conditions are now part of international legislation, since Chapter VII authority obliges all parties to obey the tribunal's requests.
Once these conditions are met, a Syrian-Israeli peace track would be eminently desirable. But there is no reason for Lebanon to be Syria's ticket to a settlement. Until this issue is resolved, Syria and Israel are likely to tiptoe around without going very far.
###
* Michael Young is opinion editor of the Daily Star newspaper in Lebanon. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 25 September 2007, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.
**********
~Youth Views~ Humanity doesn't change with geography
Pensee Afifi and Jane Slusark
Cairo/Iowa City, Iowa - The Arab world and the West represent two sides of the same coin. Though we are from different parts of the globe, we are two parts that make up a whole: we live in the same world. In that respect, though we all have our distinct cultures, it is worth remembering — and strengthening — our universal culture.
The most basic roots of global culture are derived from the fact that we, as humans, experience the same basic feelings — pain, love, anger, fear, etc. We all aspire to avoid pain and maximise pleasure. It is the existence of fear that holds us back from forming relationships or trusting another person, especially one we perceive as different from us. Our mutual understanding of how death, life, war and tragedy affect a person should be a platform upon which we can foster respect and friendship. No one wants to lose a son, a mother or a grandfather, so we should all be able to see the insanity of needless violence.
We also understand the personal connection a person has with his or her home or village — it would pain us to see it destroyed. But the shared culture of the world can become clouded through dehumanisation. War is only possible when we perceive the enemy as being less than human. The rhetoric of politics and overzealous leaders allows the mass populous to forget that they have the same heart as the person they "hate" across the border. If you strip away the external factors, what you have left is the same basic individual with the same basic needs.
There are also values, morals and traditions that are respected and appreciated around the globe, such as the role of the family. The form may differ, but the relationship between family members is important in all communities and cultures. In the Arab world, the family represents the past, present and future. It is believed in the Arab world that individuals are not only educated in schools, but also in the home. With that belief, families exert tremendous effort in shaping their children's personalities. Kinship ties also often bring considerable responsibilities; an Arab individual would be considered less of a person without his or her family's ongoing support and guidance.
In the Western world, the independence of individuals plays a larger role in the development of family ties. In that regard, Western families provide education, guidance and support but also teach independence and responsibility to allow individuals to form their own lives outside the family boundaries.
In both cases, the importance of the family is apparent. Although Arab and American students sometimes argue over the level of responsibility and independence expected by the family in their respective cultures, it is easy to realise that though we differ, we still agree that the family plays an important role in education and support.
Countries define their culture by their history. But one may ask, "The history of what?" Most of what is found in schools' textbooks is the history of politics, the history of conflict. Yet, every country has a period they look back on as a darkened era, in which grave mistakes were made, or as "the good old days" when everything was simple and people were happy. Each has had its share of triumphs and trials. It is important to remember the histories, but it is also important not to read too much into them. The grudges of the past should not prevent two nations from respecting each other in the present, or from working together toward a common goal. By focusing on events, we forget the collective feelings, the human aspects that led to the eventual settlement of the conflict.
To achieve true respect and understanding on a global scale, we must interact and focus on our common human characteristics. We are all human beings, and share the same feelings, needs and values. What we forget most of the time is that even though we disagree, we can't separate ourselves from the other side of the coin; we all have something in common. At the very least, we can share in our thirst to understand one another.
###
* Pensee Afifi is a student at the American University in Cairo and Jane Slusark studies at the University of Iowa in Iowa City. They co-wrote this article as part of the Soliya Connect Program's West-Muslim World intercultural dialogue program. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 25 September 2007, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.
end
Common Ground News Opinion Columns
Title: Message from the Prophet is clear: coexist
Author: Hisham al-Zoubeir
Source: The Common Ground News Service, 25 September 2007
Word Count: 844
Title: The importance of meeting face-to-face
Author: Susan Harrison
Source: The Common Ground News Service, 25 September 2007
Word Count: 840
Title: Talk "Lebanon" first
Author: Michael Young
Source: The Common Ground News Service, 25 September 2007
Word Count: 692
Title: ~Youth Views~ Humanity doesn't change with geography
Author: Pensee Afifi and Jane Slusark
Source: The Common Ground News Service, 25 September 2007
Word Count: 691
**********
Message from the Prophet is clear: coexist
Hisham al-Zoubeir
Washington, DC – As the world watches the terrible eruption of violence between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq and is subjected to sporadic communiqués by vigilantes calling for violence against their opponents both within the Muslim community and without, many who are unfamiliar with Islam and Muslims may be forgiven for thinking the worst of both the religion and its followers. Yet in Islam and Muslim history, the precedent for religious co-existence is primordial.
The Qur'anic view of the carpenter from Nazareth is clear: Jesus is called the Spirit of God, and the Messiah. Moses is described as the prophet to whom God spoke directly, without any veil. Muslims still revere those men, and their followers are accorded special places within the book of Islam.
The Arabian Prophet, Muhammad, sent according to Islamic tradition as a "mercy to all the worlds", showed us how these theological abstractions were exemplified in practice in the first interfaith meeting between Muslims and Christians - held some 14 centuries ago.
A delegation of sixty Christians from a community about 450 miles south of the Prophet's city, Medina, visited him in the year 631. During this three-day meeting between representatives of one faith-community with the founder of another, the model of Muslim ethics vis-à-vis the religious "other" was made explicit for all time. There are many lessons to be drawn from this encounter, but three stand out.
The first is that neither the Christians nor the Muslims pretended to be other than what they were. The Christians insisted on Trinitarianism, and the Prophet rejected it as a matter of faith. Both sides believed that Christ was the Messiah, that he had been born without a father, and that he received revelation from God. There was no shying away from difference, but the search for common ground was primary. Remember the culture of the time - the Prophet held the upper hand as the leader of a powerful community - but he did not disrespect his guests, who were politically powerless.
The second was that difference was not a cause of religious conflict. When the Christians suggested they go out into the desert to perform mass, the Prophet invited them to carry out their rituals within his mosque. He did not partake of their rituals, but he invited them into his own place of worship to carry them out. This was not mere tolerance: this was respect, if not acceptance. He met them with what he considered to be absolute truths, but not as a bigot.
Later generations of Muslims took his practice very seriously: when he said that the rights of non-Muslims under the protection of the Islamic polity were sacrosanct, that he would be a witness for them on the Day of Judgement, Muslims listened. The millions of non-Muslims who are still very much a part of the Muslim world are testimony to that. The situation was not perfect, but non-Muslim historians record that it was the best model of its time.
The third lesson was that difference did not mean that co-existence on a social and political level was impossible. The Christians nonetheless accepted the Prophet as their guarantor in the political realm, and for 14 centuries other Christian communities have accepted Muslim rulers as their guarantors, with their lives, property and religion safeguarded in exchange for a tax, similar to the tax Muslims paid to their temporal authorities.
The above encounter with the Christians of Najran was by no means an isolated event in the life of the Prophet which points to ongoing interfaith relations. An earlier treaty, the documentation of which is still in existence, with Christians of Sinai bore this practice out:
"This is a message from Muhammad son of Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far: we are with them. Verily I, the servants, the helpers (people of Medina), and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by God! I hold out against anything that displeases them. No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate."
None of the above was a medieval call for syncretism, nor should it be understood to be a denial that Islam, a universal religion, did call for Muslims to be fully committed to their faith. Rather, this was placing into Muslim ethics the need to respect the religious other, by respectfully engaging this other.
The Prophet is known to have claimed that he was not sent "except to perfect good manners", and his display of respect and co-existence is a model that has become sorely lacking in many parts of the world. While some may have forgotten his example, his practice nonetheless established precedents that we would do well to heed today with renewed commitment.
###
* Hisham al-Zoubeir is a researcher of classical Islamic thought. He holds a Ph.D. in the history of European Muslims, and writes on Islam-West relations. This article is part of a series on apostasy and proselytism distributed by the Common Ground News Service and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 25 September 2007, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.
**********
The importance of meeting face-to-face
Susan Harrison
Toronto - Does it matter if we meet face-to-face?
In 2004 I went to Qom, Iran to participate in a conference called "Revelation and Authority", a dialogue between North American Christian Mennonite scholars and local Muslim Shiite scholars. A few months ago, we met again - this time in Waterloo in Ontario, Canada. It was a joyful, collegial reunion and, in addition, a nonverbal connection seemed to occur when we looked at each other again, face-to-face.
Each time we gather for dialogue, there is a kind of audible relief in realising that we both really exist, that we are dedicated to making this dialogue happen.
Face-to-face meetings are the moment when the research and media-informed opinions we hold are measured against the experience of the encounter with the other. There is something profound about meeting face-to-face: noticing that someone limps or has a hard time staying awake in a long lecture, seeing the way someone's eyes light up when they hear a new idea, or watching the quizzical looks on a Muslim's face when a Mennonite explains the worship of a triune God (a God in 3 forms).
People are like "living books", but unlike a published paperback, our plots are constantly changing. And, as living books, our stories interact with each other when we meet; they take account of the new characters, who in turn affect the plot line and the ensuing chapters.
However, these kinds of meetings are becoming increasingly more difficult to arrange these days because travel visas are regularly denied on both sides. Tense political relations in past months and tighter borders in the wake of 9/11 have resulted in stringent travel restrictions and have made such face-to-face visits more difficult.
The Mennonite Central Committee (MCC), a religion-based non-profit development organisation, first became involved in Iran following the 1990 earthquake. A friendship formed between Ed Martin, the then-director of MCC's Asia desk and the Director General of International Affairs in Iran, Sadreddin Sadr. Working together in disaster relief, they shared a vision to build relationships that would un-demonise Iranians for North Americans and vice versa. A student exchange program was proposed and Toronto, Canada, where a sizeable Mennonite graduate student community could be found, became the venue. The Imam Khomeini Education and Research Institute (IKERI) volunteered to host Christian Mennonite students in Qom.
In addition to the student exchange program, which began in 1998, the MCC developed "learning tours" that brought groups to Iran on itinerated programs. Two tours of 10 days each allowed Mennonites and Muslims to meet and learn about each other first hand.
An example of the power of first hand meetings is captured in the remark of an Iranian Muslim, attending a Canadian school: "meeting face-to-face works as a source of miraculous mutual understanding. I can say that people who are afraid of you, as a Muslim or as an Iranian, after 10 to 30 minutes of conversation begin to recognise you as a human being."
As I write this, I am aware that I had been planning on attending a conference, "One God of Abraham, Different Traditions", at Eastern Mennonite University in September 2007. The participants were Mennonite scholars and a guest delegation from the Islamic Republic of Iran led by Ayatollah Araqi, head of the Organization of Culture and Islamic Relations. The delegation included Iranian religious leaders and scholars, Morris Motamed, a Jewish member of Iran's Parliament and Archbishop Sarkissian of the Armenian Church in Iran.
One week before the guests were due to arrive, 4 out of 15 visas were refused for "security reasons", though the US State Department did not send this message in writing. Since Ayatollah Araqi was among those refused entry, the visit was unfortunately called off.
This is not only a US-specific problem. In May 2007, 15 North American Mennonites were denied entry into Iran for a fully itinerated learning tour. During this same time, the Western media accused the institute of having a direct line to President Ahmadinejad's government, and critics accused the MCC of therefore supporting Ahmadinejad's government by association with IKERI.
The notion that dialogue between people of different faiths poses a security risk to their home countries continues to be the underlying theme of this ongoing problem of blocked encounters. N. Gerald Shenk, a professor at Eastern Mennonite University, wonders "whether the freedom protected by 'security' overrides the freedom to build better understanding across these dangerous divides."
Face-to-face encounters, according to contact theories, will break down stereotypes and build the understanding and trust that is greatly needed between the West and Iran. Yet as Martin remarked when the visas were refused, "It is back to 'square one' to figure out how to develop relationships of understanding, trust and friendship between Iranians and Americans that will prevent war between our countries."
While people can criticise the MCC for engaging with IKERI as Muslim dialogue partners, the fact remains that a constructive relationship has developed between the two communities, and if allowed to grow it could influence the stories of those individuals who are touched by it.
###
* Susan Kennel Harrison is a PhD candidate at the Toronto School of Theology and has been coordinating the Toronto side of the MCC student exchange with Iran since 1998. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 25 September 2007, www.commongroundnews.org Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.
**********
Talk "Lebanon" first
Michael Young
Beirut - For many Lebanese, Syrian involvement in regional peace negotiations is only desirable if its practical outcome is increased respect for Lebanese sovereignty and independence.
However, the Lebanese are not that optimistic. They fear that once negotiations begin between Syria and Israel, the international community will have little mind to support the international court prosecuting those involved in the February 2005 assassination of the former Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafiq Hariri. Syria remains a prime suspect in that crime and has systematically sought to derail efforts to establish the tribunal in Lebanon. And though the UN Security Council approved the tribunal under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, Syria's peace talks with Israel could earn Damascus a reprieve.
Advocates of Syrian-Israeli talks have underlined the importance of a breakthrough, arguing that Syria and Israel are much closer to a settlement than the Palestinians and Israelis, thanks largely to negotiations throughout the 1990's and unofficial agreements reached in recent years. However, these advocates routinely fail to address the possibility that Syria may not be able to afford peace. President Assad's regime may benefit from a negotiating process, but not necessarily from a peace agreement. After all, peace with Israel would oblige the regime to largely dismantle the military and security apparatus used to prop up its authority. Could Assad, who heads a minority regime, accept a peace that would undermine his Arab nationalist credentials domestically and regionally, and also threaten his burgeoning strategic alliance with Iran?
While many maintain that Syria's interest in negotiations with Israel is to reclaim the Golan Heights, its leadership has shown in recent years that its true aim is to preserve control over Lebanon. As the late Yitzhak Rabin once put it, "Better Syrian troops in Lebanon than on the Golan." It was his indirect way of admitting that though Syria was negotiating a return of the Golan, the late Hafez Assad was also keen to ensure that Syria maintained its hold over Lebanon. And in fact, that was exactly what happened. Lebanon's negotiating track with Israel was fully absorbed into the Syrian track, a move approved by the Clinton administration and all of the main Arab and European states.
Lastly, the promoters of a Syrian-Israeli negotiating track have failed to provide options to protect Lebanon from persistent efforts by Damascus to re-impose its hegemony over its smaller neighbour. The Hariri tribunal remains a major obstacle, so that international conflict resolution institutions have offered convoluted solutions that respect the tribunal but also ensure the protection of Syria's leadership. Their casuistry has failed to take into consideration that a thorough and legitimate trial process might very well point the finger at the same Syrian leaders whom the promoters of negotiations want to spare.
Lebanon should not pay the price for a Syrian-Israeli dialogue, nor should Syria be denied an opportunity to talk to Israel in goodwill. That is why the international community should impose certain conditions on regional peace talks, which can test Syrian intentions while also guaranteeing Syria's respect for Lebanese sovereignty and independence.
The first condition for international backing for Syrian-Israeli talks has to be Syria's formal acceptance of all UN resolutions relating to Lebanon, particularly Resolutions 1559 and 1701, which Damascus has repeatedly violated. Syria must specifically agree to end its interference in Lebanon and its arming of Lebanese parties. It must also agree to open an embassy in Beirut, something it has never done on the grounds that Lebanese and Syrians are "one people in two countries", and it must agree on final borders with Lebanon.
Syria must also make a clear statement that it will collaborate with the Hariri tribunal and send any Syrian suspects to Holland, where the court is to be set up, not try them in Syrian courts, as Syrian officials have repeatedly insisted. These conditions are now part of international legislation, since Chapter VII authority obliges all parties to obey the tribunal's requests.
Once these conditions are met, a Syrian-Israeli peace track would be eminently desirable. But there is no reason for Lebanon to be Syria's ticket to a settlement. Until this issue is resolved, Syria and Israel are likely to tiptoe around without going very far.
###
* Michael Young is opinion editor of the Daily Star newspaper in Lebanon. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 25 September 2007, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.
**********
~Youth Views~ Humanity doesn't change with geography
Pensee Afifi and Jane Slusark
Cairo/Iowa City, Iowa - The Arab world and the West represent two sides of the same coin. Though we are from different parts of the globe, we are two parts that make up a whole: we live in the same world. In that respect, though we all have our distinct cultures, it is worth remembering — and strengthening — our universal culture.
The most basic roots of global culture are derived from the fact that we, as humans, experience the same basic feelings — pain, love, anger, fear, etc. We all aspire to avoid pain and maximise pleasure. It is the existence of fear that holds us back from forming relationships or trusting another person, especially one we perceive as different from us. Our mutual understanding of how death, life, war and tragedy affect a person should be a platform upon which we can foster respect and friendship. No one wants to lose a son, a mother or a grandfather, so we should all be able to see the insanity of needless violence.
We also understand the personal connection a person has with his or her home or village — it would pain us to see it destroyed. But the shared culture of the world can become clouded through dehumanisation. War is only possible when we perceive the enemy as being less than human. The rhetoric of politics and overzealous leaders allows the mass populous to forget that they have the same heart as the person they "hate" across the border. If you strip away the external factors, what you have left is the same basic individual with the same basic needs.
There are also values, morals and traditions that are respected and appreciated around the globe, such as the role of the family. The form may differ, but the relationship between family members is important in all communities and cultures. In the Arab world, the family represents the past, present and future. It is believed in the Arab world that individuals are not only educated in schools, but also in the home. With that belief, families exert tremendous effort in shaping their children's personalities. Kinship ties also often bring considerable responsibilities; an Arab individual would be considered less of a person without his or her family's ongoing support and guidance.
In the Western world, the independence of individuals plays a larger role in the development of family ties. In that regard, Western families provide education, guidance and support but also teach independence and responsibility to allow individuals to form their own lives outside the family boundaries.
In both cases, the importance of the family is apparent. Although Arab and American students sometimes argue over the level of responsibility and independence expected by the family in their respective cultures, it is easy to realise that though we differ, we still agree that the family plays an important role in education and support.
Countries define their culture by their history. But one may ask, "The history of what?" Most of what is found in schools' textbooks is the history of politics, the history of conflict. Yet, every country has a period they look back on as a darkened era, in which grave mistakes were made, or as "the good old days" when everything was simple and people were happy. Each has had its share of triumphs and trials. It is important to remember the histories, but it is also important not to read too much into them. The grudges of the past should not prevent two nations from respecting each other in the present, or from working together toward a common goal. By focusing on events, we forget the collective feelings, the human aspects that led to the eventual settlement of the conflict.
To achieve true respect and understanding on a global scale, we must interact and focus on our common human characteristics. We are all human beings, and share the same feelings, needs and values. What we forget most of the time is that even though we disagree, we can't separate ourselves from the other side of the coin; we all have something in common. At the very least, we can share in our thirst to understand one another.
###
* Pensee Afifi is a student at the American University in Cairo and Jane Slusark studies at the University of Iowa in Iowa City. They co-wrote this article as part of the Soliya Connect Program's West-Muslim World intercultural dialogue program. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 25 September 2007, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.
end
Author: Hisham al-Zoubeir
Source: The Common Ground News Service, 25 September 2007
Word Count: 844
Title: The importance of meeting face-to-face
Author: Susan Harrison
Source: The Common Ground News Service, 25 September 2007
Word Count: 840
Title: Talk "Lebanon" first
Author: Michael Young
Source: The Common Ground News Service, 25 September 2007
Word Count: 692
Title: ~Youth Views~ Humanity doesn't change with geography
Author: Pensee Afifi and Jane Slusark
Source: The Common Ground News Service, 25 September 2007
Word Count: 691
**********
Message from the Prophet is clear: coexist
Hisham al-Zoubeir
Washington, DC – As the world watches the terrible eruption of violence between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq and is subjected to sporadic communiqués by vigilantes calling for violence against their opponents both within the Muslim community and without, many who are unfamiliar with Islam and Muslims may be forgiven for thinking the worst of both the religion and its followers. Yet in Islam and Muslim history, the precedent for religious co-existence is primordial.
The Qur'anic view of the carpenter from Nazareth is clear: Jesus is called the Spirit of God, and the Messiah. Moses is described as the prophet to whom God spoke directly, without any veil. Muslims still revere those men, and their followers are accorded special places within the book of Islam.
The Arabian Prophet, Muhammad, sent according to Islamic tradition as a "mercy to all the worlds", showed us how these theological abstractions were exemplified in practice in the first interfaith meeting between Muslims and Christians - held some 14 centuries ago.
A delegation of sixty Christians from a community about 450 miles south of the Prophet's city, Medina, visited him in the year 631. During this three-day meeting between representatives of one faith-community with the founder of another, the model of Muslim ethics vis-à-vis the religious "other" was made explicit for all time. There are many lessons to be drawn from this encounter, but three stand out.
The first is that neither the Christians nor the Muslims pretended to be other than what they were. The Christians insisted on Trinitarianism, and the Prophet rejected it as a matter of faith. Both sides believed that Christ was the Messiah, that he had been born without a father, and that he received revelation from God. There was no shying away from difference, but the search for common ground was primary. Remember the culture of the time - the Prophet held the upper hand as the leader of a powerful community - but he did not disrespect his guests, who were politically powerless.
The second was that difference was not a cause of religious conflict. When the Christians suggested they go out into the desert to perform mass, the Prophet invited them to carry out their rituals within his mosque. He did not partake of their rituals, but he invited them into his own place of worship to carry them out. This was not mere tolerance: this was respect, if not acceptance. He met them with what he considered to be absolute truths, but not as a bigot.
Later generations of Muslims took his practice very seriously: when he said that the rights of non-Muslims under the protection of the Islamic polity were sacrosanct, that he would be a witness for them on the Day of Judgement, Muslims listened. The millions of non-Muslims who are still very much a part of the Muslim world are testimony to that. The situation was not perfect, but non-Muslim historians record that it was the best model of its time.
The third lesson was that difference did not mean that co-existence on a social and political level was impossible. The Christians nonetheless accepted the Prophet as their guarantor in the political realm, and for 14 centuries other Christian communities have accepted Muslim rulers as their guarantors, with their lives, property and religion safeguarded in exchange for a tax, similar to the tax Muslims paid to their temporal authorities.
The above encounter with the Christians of Najran was by no means an isolated event in the life of the Prophet which points to ongoing interfaith relations. An earlier treaty, the documentation of which is still in existence, with Christians of Sinai bore this practice out:
"This is a message from Muhammad son of Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far: we are with them. Verily I, the servants, the helpers (people of Medina), and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by God! I hold out against anything that displeases them. No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate."
None of the above was a medieval call for syncretism, nor should it be understood to be a denial that Islam, a universal religion, did call for Muslims to be fully committed to their faith. Rather, this was placing into Muslim ethics the need to respect the religious other, by respectfully engaging this other.
The Prophet is known to have claimed that he was not sent "except to perfect good manners", and his display of respect and co-existence is a model that has become sorely lacking in many parts of the world. While some may have forgotten his example, his practice nonetheless established precedents that we would do well to heed today with renewed commitment.
###
* Hisham al-Zoubeir is a researcher of classical Islamic thought. He holds a Ph.D. in the history of European Muslims, and writes on Islam-West relations. This article is part of a series on apostasy and proselytism distributed by the Common Ground News Service and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 25 September 2007, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.
**********
The importance of meeting face-to-face
Susan Harrison
Toronto - Does it matter if we meet face-to-face?
In 2004 I went to Qom, Iran to participate in a conference called "Revelation and Authority", a dialogue between North American Christian Mennonite scholars and local Muslim Shiite scholars. A few months ago, we met again - this time in Waterloo in Ontario, Canada. It was a joyful, collegial reunion and, in addition, a nonverbal connection seemed to occur when we looked at each other again, face-to-face.
Each time we gather for dialogue, there is a kind of audible relief in realising that we both really exist, that we are dedicated to making this dialogue happen.
Face-to-face meetings are the moment when the research and media-informed opinions we hold are measured against the experience of the encounter with the other. There is something profound about meeting face-to-face: noticing that someone limps or has a hard time staying awake in a long lecture, seeing the way someone's eyes light up when they hear a new idea, or watching the quizzical looks on a Muslim's face when a Mennonite explains the worship of a triune God (a God in 3 forms).
People are like "living books", but unlike a published paperback, our plots are constantly changing. And, as living books, our stories interact with each other when we meet; they take account of the new characters, who in turn affect the plot line and the ensuing chapters.
However, these kinds of meetings are becoming increasingly more difficult to arrange these days because travel visas are regularly denied on both sides. Tense political relations in past months and tighter borders in the wake of 9/11 have resulted in stringent travel restrictions and have made such face-to-face visits more difficult.
The Mennonite Central Committee (MCC), a religion-based non-profit development organisation, first became involved in Iran following the 1990 earthquake. A friendship formed between Ed Martin, the then-director of MCC's Asia desk and the Director General of International Affairs in Iran, Sadreddin Sadr. Working together in disaster relief, they shared a vision to build relationships that would un-demonise Iranians for North Americans and vice versa. A student exchange program was proposed and Toronto, Canada, where a sizeable Mennonite graduate student community could be found, became the venue. The Imam Khomeini Education and Research Institute (IKERI) volunteered to host Christian Mennonite students in Qom.
In addition to the student exchange program, which began in 1998, the MCC developed "learning tours" that brought groups to Iran on itinerated programs. Two tours of 10 days each allowed Mennonites and Muslims to meet and learn about each other first hand.
An example of the power of first hand meetings is captured in the remark of an Iranian Muslim, attending a Canadian school: "meeting face-to-face works as a source of miraculous mutual understanding. I can say that people who are afraid of you, as a Muslim or as an Iranian, after 10 to 30 minutes of conversation begin to recognise you as a human being."
As I write this, I am aware that I had been planning on attending a conference, "One God of Abraham, Different Traditions", at Eastern Mennonite University in September 2007. The participants were Mennonite scholars and a guest delegation from the Islamic Republic of Iran led by Ayatollah Araqi, head of the Organization of Culture and Islamic Relations. The delegation included Iranian religious leaders and scholars, Morris Motamed, a Jewish member of Iran's Parliament and Archbishop Sarkissian of the Armenian Church in Iran.
One week before the guests were due to arrive, 4 out of 15 visas were refused for "security reasons", though the US State Department did not send this message in writing. Since Ayatollah Araqi was among those refused entry, the visit was unfortunately called off.
This is not only a US-specific problem. In May 2007, 15 North American Mennonites were denied entry into Iran for a fully itinerated learning tour. During this same time, the Western media accused the institute of having a direct line to President Ahmadinejad's government, and critics accused the MCC of therefore supporting Ahmadinejad's government by association with IKERI.
The notion that dialogue between people of different faiths poses a security risk to their home countries continues to be the underlying theme of this ongoing problem of blocked encounters. N. Gerald Shenk, a professor at Eastern Mennonite University, wonders "whether the freedom protected by 'security' overrides the freedom to build better understanding across these dangerous divides."
Face-to-face encounters, according to contact theories, will break down stereotypes and build the understanding and trust that is greatly needed between the West and Iran. Yet as Martin remarked when the visas were refused, "It is back to 'square one' to figure out how to develop relationships of understanding, trust and friendship between Iranians and Americans that will prevent war between our countries."
While people can criticise the MCC for engaging with IKERI as Muslim dialogue partners, the fact remains that a constructive relationship has developed between the two communities, and if allowed to grow it could influence the stories of those individuals who are touched by it.
###
* Susan Kennel Harrison is a PhD candidate at the Toronto School of Theology and has been coordinating the Toronto side of the MCC student exchange with Iran since 1998. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 25 September 2007, www.commongroundnews.org Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.
**********
Talk "Lebanon" first
Michael Young
Beirut - For many Lebanese, Syrian involvement in regional peace negotiations is only desirable if its practical outcome is increased respect for Lebanese sovereignty and independence.
However, the Lebanese are not that optimistic. They fear that once negotiations begin between Syria and Israel, the international community will have little mind to support the international court prosecuting those involved in the February 2005 assassination of the former Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafiq Hariri. Syria remains a prime suspect in that crime and has systematically sought to derail efforts to establish the tribunal in Lebanon. And though the UN Security Council approved the tribunal under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, Syria's peace talks with Israel could earn Damascus a reprieve.
Advocates of Syrian-Israeli talks have underlined the importance of a breakthrough, arguing that Syria and Israel are much closer to a settlement than the Palestinians and Israelis, thanks largely to negotiations throughout the 1990's and unofficial agreements reached in recent years. However, these advocates routinely fail to address the possibility that Syria may not be able to afford peace. President Assad's regime may benefit from a negotiating process, but not necessarily from a peace agreement. After all, peace with Israel would oblige the regime to largely dismantle the military and security apparatus used to prop up its authority. Could Assad, who heads a minority regime, accept a peace that would undermine his Arab nationalist credentials domestically and regionally, and also threaten his burgeoning strategic alliance with Iran?
While many maintain that Syria's interest in negotiations with Israel is to reclaim the Golan Heights, its leadership has shown in recent years that its true aim is to preserve control over Lebanon. As the late Yitzhak Rabin once put it, "Better Syrian troops in Lebanon than on the Golan." It was his indirect way of admitting that though Syria was negotiating a return of the Golan, the late Hafez Assad was also keen to ensure that Syria maintained its hold over Lebanon. And in fact, that was exactly what happened. Lebanon's negotiating track with Israel was fully absorbed into the Syrian track, a move approved by the Clinton administration and all of the main Arab and European states.
Lastly, the promoters of a Syrian-Israeli negotiating track have failed to provide options to protect Lebanon from persistent efforts by Damascus to re-impose its hegemony over its smaller neighbour. The Hariri tribunal remains a major obstacle, so that international conflict resolution institutions have offered convoluted solutions that respect the tribunal but also ensure the protection of Syria's leadership. Their casuistry has failed to take into consideration that a thorough and legitimate trial process might very well point the finger at the same Syrian leaders whom the promoters of negotiations want to spare.
Lebanon should not pay the price for a Syrian-Israeli dialogue, nor should Syria be denied an opportunity to talk to Israel in goodwill. That is why the international community should impose certain conditions on regional peace talks, which can test Syrian intentions while also guaranteeing Syria's respect for Lebanese sovereignty and independence.
The first condition for international backing for Syrian-Israeli talks has to be Syria's formal acceptance of all UN resolutions relating to Lebanon, particularly Resolutions 1559 and 1701, which Damascus has repeatedly violated. Syria must specifically agree to end its interference in Lebanon and its arming of Lebanese parties. It must also agree to open an embassy in Beirut, something it has never done on the grounds that Lebanese and Syrians are "one people in two countries", and it must agree on final borders with Lebanon.
Syria must also make a clear statement that it will collaborate with the Hariri tribunal and send any Syrian suspects to Holland, where the court is to be set up, not try them in Syrian courts, as Syrian officials have repeatedly insisted. These conditions are now part of international legislation, since Chapter VII authority obliges all parties to obey the tribunal's requests.
Once these conditions are met, a Syrian-Israeli peace track would be eminently desirable. But there is no reason for Lebanon to be Syria's ticket to a settlement. Until this issue is resolved, Syria and Israel are likely to tiptoe around without going very far.
###
* Michael Young is opinion editor of the Daily Star newspaper in Lebanon. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 25 September 2007, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.
**********
~Youth Views~ Humanity doesn't change with geography
Pensee Afifi and Jane Slusark
Cairo/Iowa City, Iowa - The Arab world and the West represent two sides of the same coin. Though we are from different parts of the globe, we are two parts that make up a whole: we live in the same world. In that respect, though we all have our distinct cultures, it is worth remembering — and strengthening — our universal culture.
The most basic roots of global culture are derived from the fact that we, as humans, experience the same basic feelings — pain, love, anger, fear, etc. We all aspire to avoid pain and maximise pleasure. It is the existence of fear that holds us back from forming relationships or trusting another person, especially one we perceive as different from us. Our mutual understanding of how death, life, war and tragedy affect a person should be a platform upon which we can foster respect and friendship. No one wants to lose a son, a mother or a grandfather, so we should all be able to see the insanity of needless violence.
We also understand the personal connection a person has with his or her home or village — it would pain us to see it destroyed. But the shared culture of the world can become clouded through dehumanisation. War is only possible when we perceive the enemy as being less than human. The rhetoric of politics and overzealous leaders allows the mass populous to forget that they have the same heart as the person they "hate" across the border. If you strip away the external factors, what you have left is the same basic individual with the same basic needs.
There are also values, morals and traditions that are respected and appreciated around the globe, such as the role of the family. The form may differ, but the relationship between family members is important in all communities and cultures. In the Arab world, the family represents the past, present and future. It is believed in the Arab world that individuals are not only educated in schools, but also in the home. With that belief, families exert tremendous effort in shaping their children's personalities. Kinship ties also often bring considerable responsibilities; an Arab individual would be considered less of a person without his or her family's ongoing support and guidance.
In the Western world, the independence of individuals plays a larger role in the development of family ties. In that regard, Western families provide education, guidance and support but also teach independence and responsibility to allow individuals to form their own lives outside the family boundaries.
In both cases, the importance of the family is apparent. Although Arab and American students sometimes argue over the level of responsibility and independence expected by the family in their respective cultures, it is easy to realise that though we differ, we still agree that the family plays an important role in education and support.
Countries define their culture by their history. But one may ask, "The history of what?" Most of what is found in schools' textbooks is the history of politics, the history of conflict. Yet, every country has a period they look back on as a darkened era, in which grave mistakes were made, or as "the good old days" when everything was simple and people were happy. Each has had its share of triumphs and trials. It is important to remember the histories, but it is also important not to read too much into them. The grudges of the past should not prevent two nations from respecting each other in the present, or from working together toward a common goal. By focusing on events, we forget the collective feelings, the human aspects that led to the eventual settlement of the conflict.
To achieve true respect and understanding on a global scale, we must interact and focus on our common human characteristics. We are all human beings, and share the same feelings, needs and values. What we forget most of the time is that even though we disagree, we can't separate ourselves from the other side of the coin; we all have something in common. At the very least, we can share in our thirst to understand one another.
###
* Pensee Afifi is a student at the American University in Cairo and Jane Slusark studies at the University of Iowa in Iowa City. They co-wrote this article as part of the Soliya Connect Program's West-Muslim World intercultural dialogue program. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 25 September 2007, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.
end
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Israel denies Christian Arab clergy entrance to West Bank
Israel Denies Re-entry Visas to Holy Land Arab Christian Clergy
23-Sep-07
The Holy Land Christian Ecumenical Foundation (HCEF)
Toll free at +1-866-871-HCEF (4233)
The Israeli Government has rescinded its policy of granting re-entry visas to Arab Christian ministers, priests, nuns and other religious workers who wish to travel in and out of the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories, according to information provided to the Holy Land Christian Ecumenical Foundation (HCEF) by Christian clergy in Jerusalem.
Until now, re-entry visas were normally granted in Israel by the Israeli Government to Arab Christian religious workers in the Holy Land, and clergy traveled relatively freely to and from points overseas, including the United States.
However, HCEF has been informed that Arab Christian church workers will henceforth have to apply for re-entry visas at Israeli consulates abroad each time they travel outside the areas of Israeli control.
Since visa applications submitted to Israeli missions abroad are normally not acted upon for months after they are filed, his new Israeli policy means that religious personnel will no longer be able to move freely between their parishes in the occupied territories and any points out side of those areas.
Christian church workers normally travel frequently between their parishes and their churches’ offices in Jerusalem. Some also must travel often to countries outside the region, including the United States.
Many of the clergy and other church workers in the occupied Palestinian territories are from nearby Jordan; the new Israeli policy will prevent them from visiting their families there.
Indeed, that has already happened. Rev. Fares Khleifat, a pastor and the only Greek Melkite priest in Ramallah, traveled to Jordan for several days in mid-September; when he tried to return to his parish on September 14, he was stopped at the Israeli border, and his valid, multiple-entry visa was canceled.
Forced to remain in Jordan, he has been effectively deported from the Holy Land by the Israeli government, and his parish now has no priest.
The new Israeli policy makes it unlikely that any Arab Christian priests, ministers or other religious workers from the Holy Land will be able to attend HCEF’s Ninth International Conference, scheduled for October 26-27 in Washington.
Christian personnel based in the Holy Land have participated in all eight previous conferences of the Holy Land Christian Ecumenical Foundation.
http://www.hcef.org/index.cfm/mod/news/ID/16/SubMod/NewsView/NewsID/1849.cfm
23-Sep-07
The Holy Land Christian Ecumenical Foundation (HCEF)
Toll free at +1-866-871-HCEF (4233)
The Israeli Government has rescinded its policy of granting re-entry visas to Arab Christian ministers, priests, nuns and other religious workers who wish to travel in and out of the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories, according to information provided to the Holy Land Christian Ecumenical Foundation (HCEF) by Christian clergy in Jerusalem.
Until now, re-entry visas were normally granted in Israel by the Israeli Government to Arab Christian religious workers in the Holy Land, and clergy traveled relatively freely to and from points overseas, including the United States.
However, HCEF has been informed that Arab Christian church workers will henceforth have to apply for re-entry visas at Israeli consulates abroad each time they travel outside the areas of Israeli control.
Since visa applications submitted to Israeli missions abroad are normally not acted upon for months after they are filed, his new Israeli policy means that religious personnel will no longer be able to move freely between their parishes in the occupied territories and any points out side of those areas.
Christian church workers normally travel frequently between their parishes and their churches’ offices in Jerusalem. Some also must travel often to countries outside the region, including the United States.
Many of the clergy and other church workers in the occupied Palestinian territories are from nearby Jordan; the new Israeli policy will prevent them from visiting their families there.
Indeed, that has already happened. Rev. Fares Khleifat, a pastor and the only Greek Melkite priest in Ramallah, traveled to Jordan for several days in mid-September; when he tried to return to his parish on September 14, he was stopped at the Israeli border, and his valid, multiple-entry visa was canceled.
Forced to remain in Jordan, he has been effectively deported from the Holy Land by the Israeli government, and his parish now has no priest.
The new Israeli policy makes it unlikely that any Arab Christian priests, ministers or other religious workers from the Holy Land will be able to attend HCEF’s Ninth International Conference, scheduled for October 26-27 in Washington.
Christian personnel based in the Holy Land have participated in all eight previous conferences of the Holy Land Christian Ecumenical Foundation.
http://www.hcef.org/index.cfm/mod/news/ID/16/SubMod/NewsView/NewsID/1849.cfm
Sunday, September 23, 2007
New Political Cartoons launched in Syndication
The Arab American Writers Group Syndicate (ArabWritersGroup.com) announced a new Political Cartoon series in syndication. The cartoons are posted twice each week and feature satire and commentary on current news events, particularly those on Middle East issues.
You can view the cartoons at http://www.arabwritersgroup.com/ or at http://arabwritersgroup.wordpress.com/ or at www.hanania.com/cartoons/cartoons.htm
The cartoons are available for a small syndication fee or by arrangement.
# # #
You can view the cartoons at http://www.arabwritersgroup.com/ or at http://arabwritersgroup.wordpress.com/ or at www.hanania.com/cartoons/cartoons.htm
The cartoons are available for a small syndication fee or by arrangement.
# # #
Monday, September 17, 2007
Creative Writing Class at Arab Museum in Dearborn
FREE CREATIVE WRITING WORKSHOP AT AANM
Dearborn, MI (September 17, 2007) – The Arab American National Museum invites all budding authors to attend a free interactive creative writing workshop from 1-2:30 p.m. on Saturday, October 6.
The workshop is presented by Haley Elizabeth Garwood, author of the Warrior Queen series of novels based on actual historical figures and published by Writers Block. Garwood’s 2005 title Zenobia chronicles the adventures of a Syrian queen of the Third Century A.D. When Zenobia’s king-husband is assassinated by the Romans, a supposed ally, she rallies her own troops to avenge his death and protect her home city of Palmyra.
Garwood will also do a brief reading from Zenobia at the conclusion of the workshop. Read more about the author at http://www.haleyelizabethgarwood.com/.
Those wishing to attend the free creative writing workshop must RSVP by calling 313.624.0200 or emailing fsaad@accesscommunity.org.
The Arab American National Museum documents, preserves, celebrates, and educates the public on the history, life, culture, and contributions of Arab Americans. We serve as a resource to enhance knowledge and understanding about Arab Americans and their presence in this country. The Arab American National Museum is a project of ACCESS, a Dearborn, Michigan-based nonprofit human services and cultural organization. Learn more at http://www.arabamericanmuseum.org/ and http://www.accesscommunity.org/.
The Museum is located at 13624 Michigan Avenue, Dearborn, MI, 48126. Museum hours: 10 a.m.-6 p.m. Wednesday, Friday and Saturday; 10 a.m.-8 p.m. Thursday; noon- 5 p.m. Sunday. Closed Monday, Tuesday; Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year’s Day. Admission is $6 for adults; $3 for students, seniors and children 6-12; ages 5 and under, free. Call 313-582-2266 for further information.
###
Kim Silarski
Communications
313-624-0206
Arab American National Museum
13624 Michigan Avenue
Dearborn, MI 48126
http://www.arabamericanmuseum.org/
Dearborn, MI (September 17, 2007) – The Arab American National Museum invites all budding authors to attend a free interactive creative writing workshop from 1-2:30 p.m. on Saturday, October 6.
The workshop is presented by Haley Elizabeth Garwood, author of the Warrior Queen series of novels based on actual historical figures and published by Writers Block. Garwood’s 2005 title Zenobia chronicles the adventures of a Syrian queen of the Third Century A.D. When Zenobia’s king-husband is assassinated by the Romans, a supposed ally, she rallies her own troops to avenge his death and protect her home city of Palmyra.
Garwood will also do a brief reading from Zenobia at the conclusion of the workshop. Read more about the author at http://www.haleyelizabethgarwood.com/.
Those wishing to attend the free creative writing workshop must RSVP by calling 313.624.0200 or emailing fsaad@accesscommunity.org.
The Arab American National Museum documents, preserves, celebrates, and educates the public on the history, life, culture, and contributions of Arab Americans. We serve as a resource to enhance knowledge and understanding about Arab Americans and their presence in this country. The Arab American National Museum is a project of ACCESS, a Dearborn, Michigan-based nonprofit human services and cultural organization. Learn more at http://www.arabamericanmuseum.org/ and http://www.accesscommunity.org/.
The Museum is located at 13624 Michigan Avenue, Dearborn, MI, 48126. Museum hours: 10 a.m.-6 p.m. Wednesday, Friday and Saturday; 10 a.m.-8 p.m. Thursday; noon- 5 p.m. Sunday. Closed Monday, Tuesday; Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year’s Day. Admission is $6 for adults; $3 for students, seniors and children 6-12; ages 5 and under, free. Call 313-582-2266 for further information.
###
Kim Silarski
Communications
313-624-0206
Arab American National Museum
13624 Michigan Avenue
Dearborn, MI 48126
http://www.arabamericanmuseum.org/
Friday, September 14, 2007
Arguments filed in Guantanamo detainess case on religious abuse
Baptist Joint Committee200 Maryland Avenue NEWashington, D.C. 20002For Immediate Release Contacts: Jeff HuettSeptember 14, 2007 Phallan Davis 202-544-4226
Oral arguments today in case filed by Guantanamo detainees concerning religious abuse claims
WASHINGTON —Oral arguments are being heard today before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in a government appeal for a lower court decision holding that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) provides broad protection for the free exercise rights of military personnel and detainees at Guantanamo, according to an amicus brief submitted by the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty and other religious organizations. The brief was filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in the case of Rasul, et al. v. Rumsfeld, et al.The case centers on four British citizens who were detained by American forces in Afghanistan, transported to Guantanamo Bay and subsequently released without charge after two years. While there, the men alleged repeated and systematic acts of harassment based on their Muslim faith, including forced shaving of their beards, interruption or prohibition of their efforts to pray, the denial of prayer mats and copies of the Koran, mistreatment of the Koran in their presence by guards who kicked it and threw it in a toilet bucket, and being forced to pray with exposed genital areas. The plaintiffs brought a suit seeking damages against U.S. government officials, claiming violations of the Alien Tort Statute, the Fifth and Eighth amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the Geneva Convention and RFRA. The district court dismissed the plaintiff’s international law and constitutional claims, but ruled that RFRA applies, even to claims arising from those held at Guantanamo Bay. The defendants appealed that decision to the D.C. Circuit. RFRA provides that “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability,” unless it can demonstrate that doing so is “in furtherance of a compelling government interest,” and “is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest.” RFRA reflects the commitment of the diverse coalition that supported its passage in 1993. By design, RFRA’s protections apply to the federal government, without exception for particular branches, and to all religions.BJC General Counsel K. Hollyn Hollman said individuals and faith communities from across the religious spectrum recognize that our country’s commitment to religious freedom is one of its greatest attributes.“RFRA is a limitation on governmental interference with religious practice,” Hollman said. “Its protections are intentionally broad and reflect the widely shared belief that religious freedom is paramount. “RFRA, like the First Amendment itself, reflects our nation’s high regard for religion and for religious liberty” Hollman said. “We should be alarmed any time the government seeks to narrow those protections.” In its friend-of-the-court brief, the BJC acknowledged grave concerns about terrorism and the agency’s intent not to encumber the government’s efforts to bring culpable parties to justice, while arguing RFRA’s high standard for the federal government in accommodating religious practice and respecting religious diversity be preserved.Those joining the brief include American Jewish Committee, National Association of Evangelicals, National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Presbyterian Church (USA) and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. All have participated in various ways in the efforts of the Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion, the coalition of dozens of religious organizations that supported the passage of RFRA.The Baptist Joint Committee is a 70-year-old, Washington, D.C.-based religious liberty organization that works to defend and extend God-given religious liberty for all, bringing a uniquely Baptist witness to the principle that religion must be freely exercised, neither advanced nor inhibited by government.—30—
Jeff Huett, communications director Baptist Joint Committee 200 Maryland Avenue, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20002
Oral arguments today in case filed by Guantanamo detainees concerning religious abuse claims
WASHINGTON —Oral arguments are being heard today before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in a government appeal for a lower court decision holding that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) provides broad protection for the free exercise rights of military personnel and detainees at Guantanamo, according to an amicus brief submitted by the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty and other religious organizations. The brief was filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in the case of Rasul, et al. v. Rumsfeld, et al.The case centers on four British citizens who were detained by American forces in Afghanistan, transported to Guantanamo Bay and subsequently released without charge after two years. While there, the men alleged repeated and systematic acts of harassment based on their Muslim faith, including forced shaving of their beards, interruption or prohibition of their efforts to pray, the denial of prayer mats and copies of the Koran, mistreatment of the Koran in their presence by guards who kicked it and threw it in a toilet bucket, and being forced to pray with exposed genital areas. The plaintiffs brought a suit seeking damages against U.S. government officials, claiming violations of the Alien Tort Statute, the Fifth and Eighth amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the Geneva Convention and RFRA. The district court dismissed the plaintiff’s international law and constitutional claims, but ruled that RFRA applies, even to claims arising from those held at Guantanamo Bay. The defendants appealed that decision to the D.C. Circuit. RFRA provides that “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability,” unless it can demonstrate that doing so is “in furtherance of a compelling government interest,” and “is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest.” RFRA reflects the commitment of the diverse coalition that supported its passage in 1993. By design, RFRA’s protections apply to the federal government, without exception for particular branches, and to all religions.BJC General Counsel K. Hollyn Hollman said individuals and faith communities from across the religious spectrum recognize that our country’s commitment to religious freedom is one of its greatest attributes.“RFRA is a limitation on governmental interference with religious practice,” Hollman said. “Its protections are intentionally broad and reflect the widely shared belief that religious freedom is paramount. “RFRA, like the First Amendment itself, reflects our nation’s high regard for religion and for religious liberty” Hollman said. “We should be alarmed any time the government seeks to narrow those protections.” In its friend-of-the-court brief, the BJC acknowledged grave concerns about terrorism and the agency’s intent not to encumber the government’s efforts to bring culpable parties to justice, while arguing RFRA’s high standard for the federal government in accommodating religious practice and respecting religious diversity be preserved.Those joining the brief include American Jewish Committee, National Association of Evangelicals, National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Presbyterian Church (USA) and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. All have participated in various ways in the efforts of the Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion, the coalition of dozens of religious organizations that supported the passage of RFRA.The Baptist Joint Committee is a 70-year-old, Washington, D.C.-based religious liberty organization that works to defend and extend God-given religious liberty for all, bringing a uniquely Baptist witness to the principle that religion must be freely exercised, neither advanced nor inhibited by government.—30—
Jeff Huett, communications director Baptist Joint Committee 200 Maryland Avenue, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20002
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Common Ground News Service features, 9/13/07
Title: Measures of confidence
Author: Mark L. Cohen
Source: The Common Ground News Service, 13 September 2007
Word Count: 709
Title: My first Jewish wedding
Author: Rami Assali
Source: The Common Ground News Service, 13 September 2007
Word Count: 735
Title: Soccer unites children
Author: Deborah Clifford
Source: The Common Ground News Service, 13 September 2007
Word Count: 657
Each article is available in Arabic, English and Hebrew; I’d be happy to send
you any translation. Please feel free to republish the article(s) and let me know
by sending an email to: akessinger@sfcg.org.
Common Ground News Service
**********
Measures of confidence
Mark L. Cohen
PARIS - Success in bringing about real Middle East peace will depend on more
than marginalizing Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank and a political
settlement with the Palestinian Authority alone. Crucially, other Arab nations
in the region must also accept the future Palestine as a full-fledged
neighbouring state, as well as Palestinian nationals themselves as entitled
members of the Middle East community. Concrete steps in this direction-with
Palestinians no longer treated by Arab neighbour states as outcasts or frontline
soldiers in the war against Israel-will in turn provide Israelis and their
government the confidence needed to make concessions in the peace process.
Both Palestinians and Israelis need to be convinced that the political process
can lead to constructive change in their respective conditions. Progress on the
outstanding issues-such as the relocation of West Bank settlers, Jerusalem,
the right of return, and the PLO’s obligation to crack down on terrorists and
their organizations-is obviously vital. But none of this will produce real change
unless the nations in the region (Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and countries
in the Persian Gulf) acknowledge that Palestinians, inside and outside a future
Palestinian state, must have the right to travel, work, and attend universities
throughout the area-rights which have been denied by Israel and Arab nations
alike.
Only if an end is put to the isolation of Palestinians from their Arab neighbours
will viable economic, social as well as political solutions emerge. And only if the
two-state solution is formulated in that context will the parties make the
necessary political concessions for a viable, long-term peace to take hold. Why?
Because despite its economic strengths, Israel alone cannot produce
meaningful change in the lives of the 3.5 million Palestinians living inside the
new state, nor in the lives of the 2.4 million refugees in Jordan, Syria and
Lebanon.
Yet despite this, there is at least an implicit expectation among Arabs and also
Europeans that it somehow falls mostly on Israel to create the conditions
needed to satisfy the aspirations and rectify the suffering of the Palestinian
people. While both unfair and unrealistic, this expectation goes far back in
history. Indeed, having more or less openly decided at the time of the 1948 war
to isolate Palestinian refugees in camps and to prevent their integration in the
Arab world, Arab states have continued ever since to claim that Israel was and
is the sole party responsible for the Palestinian condition. To this day,
neighbouring states have been at best ambiguous about allowing Palestinians
to travel or work in their territories, and for more than 20 years, following the
partition of Palestine in 1947, opposed the establishment of a Palestinian state
on the West Bank. This refusal to recognize a Palestinian identity is further
reflected in UN Resolutions designating Palestinians not as such but as Arab
refugees.
Be that as it may, this expectation has had two counterproductive
consequences. On the Israeli side, it has led to the lingering suspicion that
Arab countries are disingenuous in their avowed passionate defence of
Palestinian rights. On the Palestinian side, it has led to the assumption of a
front line combatant mission to retrieve the lost honour of the Arab world. This
has blinded many Palestinians to the prospect of any future outlook to the
East, North or South, and has produced a perhaps excessive fixation on the
right of return and other political rights, at the expense of focusing on the right
to better lives.
Despite the outstanding issues between the two principal parties, it is now
obvious that what is good for the Palestinians is good for Israel. The
interdependence of both parties was addressed by Marwan Muasher, a
Jordanian Foreign Minister, when he said that progress for the Palestinian
people can only be achieved by allowing the Israelis to have "a real sense of
security." This position is also being highlighted by the present Palestinian
prime minister, Salam Fayyad, who said that peace efforts can only be
successful if we address the issues of job creation, training, improved internal
security and a strong way forward toward building a viable economy. In clear
terms, Israelis will only make concessions to the Palestinians when they are
convinced that a two-state solution is something sustainable-not just a short-
term interruption in the conflict.
###
* Mark Cohen is an international lawyer and counsel for the law firm White &
Case in Paris. He also teaches courses on the history of the US legal system.
This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and
can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.
Source: Common Ground News Service, 13 September 2007,
www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for republication.
**********
My first Jewish wedding
Rami Assali
JERUSALEM - A week ago I was invited to a Jewish wedding. As a Palestinian
from East Jerusalem, this would have been my first, and I was ambivalent
about attending the ceremony. So many questions flooded my mind: how would
they react if they knew that I was a Muslim? Would I be the black sheep?
Would they wonder what the hell I was doing there? My feelings were mixed to
the very last moment. It was not until the day of the wedding that I finally
decided to go. What was the worst that could happen? If I was not welcome
then I would go home.
At the entrance to the wedding, another bombardment of questions attacked
my mind: what should I do? How different are they from us? What do Jews do
at their weddings?
I overcame my hesitation and entered. The ushers gave me my table number
and I was directed to the small reception preceding the ceremony. The bride
and groom’s families were very friendly; one could feel the joy and happiness in
the air.
After thirty minutes, the Rabbi asked that people be seated so the ceremony
could begin. Escorted by their parents, the bride and groom entered the
garden-soft music playing in the background. The couple walked with their
parents to the Chuppah, joining the Rabbi, and signaling the start of the
ceremony. The Rabbi then read the ketubah-a legal marriage document signed
by the bride, groom and their parents before the wedding. (It is the same
document that Muslims sign before their weddings and we call it Katb el Ktab).
When the Rabbi finished reading, he and the family members offered blessings
to the newlyweds.
The ceremony differed from Muslim weddings only in the symbolic breaking of
the glass, an act that reminds the groom, even in the happiest of moments, not
to forget the destruction of the Jewish Temple. And the sounds of music
remind us that the time has come for dancing, celebration and dinner.
I thought Muslims and Jews were different, but witnessing this ceremony
taught me what we share. Just as we all take the same steps in our weddings,
so we take the same steps in our lives. We bond our histories with marriage,
with faith, and with our shared values. The "holy wars" of the Middle East often
cause us to forget that the three religions of Abraham are almost the same.
These faiths teach us deep commitment to peace and brotherhood. It’s our
ignorance that makes us different; we need to know the other side before
passing judgment. We all believe in the same God, though we write it
differently. Even the messages we teach are almost the same. It is like having
the same coat but in different colors. What difference does the color make? The
most important thing is that a coat provides comfort, and keeps us warm in the
winter.
Religion is God’s gift, and it should not pave our way to destruction and
misery, but to happiness and joy. All sacred texts of the Abrahamic faiths call
for peace and brotherhood:
From The Quran
8:61 But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards
peace. In Allah: for He is the One that heareth and knoweth (all things).
8:62 Should they intend to deceive thee, verily Allah sufficeth thee: He it is that
hath strengthened thee with his aid and with (company of) The Believers.
8:63 And (moreover) He hath put affection between their hearts: Not if thou
hadst spent all that is in the earth, couldst thou have produced that affection,
but Allah hath done it: for He is mighty, wise.
From The Old Testament
Isaiah 2:4 ... and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears
into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation; neither shall
they learn war any more.
Psalms 34:14 Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it.
From The New Testament
Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children
of God.
Hebrews 12:14 Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man
shall see the Lord.
James 3:18 And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make
peace.
We need to start listening to the other side. When we learn more about each
other, we’ll discover that we are not that different from each other. We all share
the same values and beliefs.
###
* Rami Assali works for Search for Common Ground in the Middle East. This
article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can
be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.
Source: Common Ground News Service, 13 September 2007,
www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for republication.
**********
Soccer unites children
Deborah Clifford
WADI ARA - On the first day of Camp Coexistence, kids tended to stick with the
friends whom they already knew (Jews with Jews and Arabs with Arabs). But
new friendships were already forming by day two, and the kids began to
interact in mixed groups.
Soccer for Peace (SFP) recently completed its most successful camp to date, the
third annual soccer camp for Arab and Jewish children in Israel: Camp
Coexistence 2007. The camp was a joint undertaking with the Maccabim
Association and the Kibbutz Barka’i Center for Soccer, Peace and Coexistence.
Since 2005, Soccer for Peace has brought Arab and Jewish children together in
Israel through overnight soccer camps. Our innovative program model of
coexistence education offers children the rare opportunity to meet on a regular
basis, on equal footing, to find a common language through activities they all
enjoy. Dialogue, social and educational activities challenge participants to learn
about, understand and respect the differences that exist among the peoples of
Israel. By planting seeds of respect, tolerance and peace within our children,
SFP is able to nurture and sow these seeds throughout a lifetime.
Our model begins with a five-day overnight soccer camp, where 10 and 11-
year-old Arab and Jewish children train together on integrated soccer teams. In
the fall, these teams join a league, and travel through the Wadi Ara region of
Israel. They are one of the only mixed teams. Each summer, participants
return to camp and again participate in the after-school program. Children
may stay in the program for up to seven years, enough time for them to shape
life-long attitudes of mutual acceptance. We plan to expand the program, year
by year, so that SFP participants will be part of each other’s daily lives until the
age of 17.
In addition to soccer, the kids take part in many social and educational
activities, learning about themselves and one another. The educational
activities are run by Kaleidoscope, an Israeli non-profit seeking to foster the
development of social and emotional competencies, reduce aggressive
behaviour and promote acceptance of others. These activities had quite an
impact on the kids. When asked, "What did you learn about yourself?" many
hands shot up in the air. "I learned that I like to learn in this classroom!"
exclaimed one boy. "We are all family," said another excited participant.
Social activities, such as daily swimming, allowed the kids to simply hang out,
and gave their minds a rest from soccer and the Arab Jewish conflict. This is
when friendships truly flourished. We took a day trip to a mosque in Sakhnin,
and a synagogue in Kfar-Piness, which gave participants an opportunity to
learn about each other’s religious and cultural histories. The kids also visited
an authentic Australian zoo, and went rafting in the Jordan River. The lessons
they had learned both on the field and in the classroom provided a platform for
them to enjoy this time as true friends.
When camp ended, the kids were both excited to be going home and sad that it
was over:
"I don’t want camp to end!"
"We really learned a lot about how similar we all are."
"I am glad I got to meet the kids from the other team."
"I got to meet new friends that I normally would never have met."
When asked if they wanted to come back next year, all hands shot up into the
air. Though they were sad to say goodbye, they left camp knowing that they
would again become a team in September when SFP’s after-school program
begins.
There is no limit to SFP’s potential. Though conflict exists in every corner of the
world, so too does soccer; the most watched and played sport on earth. United
in their love of the game, SFP participants form organic relationships, implicit
in which are the trust and respect necessary for constructive dialogue. With
this as our guiding principle, SFP believes that sport can serve as both a
metaphor and vehicle for peace in our time.
###
* Soccer for Peace is a 501©(3) non-profit organization whose mission is to
unite children of war-torn nations in their shared love of soccer. Based in New
York City, Soccer for Peace has no political, religious or racial affiliation. For
more information, please visit www.soccerforpeace.com. This article is
distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be
accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.
Source: Common Ground News Service, 13 September 2007,
www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.
**********
Author: Mark L. Cohen
Source: The Common Ground News Service, 13 September 2007
Word Count: 709
Title: My first Jewish wedding
Author: Rami Assali
Source: The Common Ground News Service, 13 September 2007
Word Count: 735
Title: Soccer unites children
Author: Deborah Clifford
Source: The Common Ground News Service, 13 September 2007
Word Count: 657
Each article is available in Arabic, English and Hebrew; I’d be happy to send
you any translation. Please feel free to republish the article(s) and let me know
by sending an email to: akessinger@sfcg.org.
Common Ground News Service
**********
Measures of confidence
Mark L. Cohen
PARIS - Success in bringing about real Middle East peace will depend on more
than marginalizing Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank and a political
settlement with the Palestinian Authority alone. Crucially, other Arab nations
in the region must also accept the future Palestine as a full-fledged
neighbouring state, as well as Palestinian nationals themselves as entitled
members of the Middle East community. Concrete steps in this direction-with
Palestinians no longer treated by Arab neighbour states as outcasts or frontline
soldiers in the war against Israel-will in turn provide Israelis and their
government the confidence needed to make concessions in the peace process.
Both Palestinians and Israelis need to be convinced that the political process
can lead to constructive change in their respective conditions. Progress on the
outstanding issues-such as the relocation of West Bank settlers, Jerusalem,
the right of return, and the PLO’s obligation to crack down on terrorists and
their organizations-is obviously vital. But none of this will produce real change
unless the nations in the region (Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and countries
in the Persian Gulf) acknowledge that Palestinians, inside and outside a future
Palestinian state, must have the right to travel, work, and attend universities
throughout the area-rights which have been denied by Israel and Arab nations
alike.
Only if an end is put to the isolation of Palestinians from their Arab neighbours
will viable economic, social as well as political solutions emerge. And only if the
two-state solution is formulated in that context will the parties make the
necessary political concessions for a viable, long-term peace to take hold. Why?
Because despite its economic strengths, Israel alone cannot produce
meaningful change in the lives of the 3.5 million Palestinians living inside the
new state, nor in the lives of the 2.4 million refugees in Jordan, Syria and
Lebanon.
Yet despite this, there is at least an implicit expectation among Arabs and also
Europeans that it somehow falls mostly on Israel to create the conditions
needed to satisfy the aspirations and rectify the suffering of the Palestinian
people. While both unfair and unrealistic, this expectation goes far back in
history. Indeed, having more or less openly decided at the time of the 1948 war
to isolate Palestinian refugees in camps and to prevent their integration in the
Arab world, Arab states have continued ever since to claim that Israel was and
is the sole party responsible for the Palestinian condition. To this day,
neighbouring states have been at best ambiguous about allowing Palestinians
to travel or work in their territories, and for more than 20 years, following the
partition of Palestine in 1947, opposed the establishment of a Palestinian state
on the West Bank. This refusal to recognize a Palestinian identity is further
reflected in UN Resolutions designating Palestinians not as such but as Arab
refugees.
Be that as it may, this expectation has had two counterproductive
consequences. On the Israeli side, it has led to the lingering suspicion that
Arab countries are disingenuous in their avowed passionate defence of
Palestinian rights. On the Palestinian side, it has led to the assumption of a
front line combatant mission to retrieve the lost honour of the Arab world. This
has blinded many Palestinians to the prospect of any future outlook to the
East, North or South, and has produced a perhaps excessive fixation on the
right of return and other political rights, at the expense of focusing on the right
to better lives.
Despite the outstanding issues between the two principal parties, it is now
obvious that what is good for the Palestinians is good for Israel. The
interdependence of both parties was addressed by Marwan Muasher, a
Jordanian Foreign Minister, when he said that progress for the Palestinian
people can only be achieved by allowing the Israelis to have "a real sense of
security." This position is also being highlighted by the present Palestinian
prime minister, Salam Fayyad, who said that peace efforts can only be
successful if we address the issues of job creation, training, improved internal
security and a strong way forward toward building a viable economy. In clear
terms, Israelis will only make concessions to the Palestinians when they are
convinced that a two-state solution is something sustainable-not just a short-
term interruption in the conflict.
###
* Mark Cohen is an international lawyer and counsel for the law firm White &
Case in Paris. He also teaches courses on the history of the US legal system.
This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and
can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.
Source: Common Ground News Service, 13 September 2007,
www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for republication.
**********
My first Jewish wedding
Rami Assali
JERUSALEM - A week ago I was invited to a Jewish wedding. As a Palestinian
from East Jerusalem, this would have been my first, and I was ambivalent
about attending the ceremony. So many questions flooded my mind: how would
they react if they knew that I was a Muslim? Would I be the black sheep?
Would they wonder what the hell I was doing there? My feelings were mixed to
the very last moment. It was not until the day of the wedding that I finally
decided to go. What was the worst that could happen? If I was not welcome
then I would go home.
At the entrance to the wedding, another bombardment of questions attacked
my mind: what should I do? How different are they from us? What do Jews do
at their weddings?
I overcame my hesitation and entered. The ushers gave me my table number
and I was directed to the small reception preceding the ceremony. The bride
and groom’s families were very friendly; one could feel the joy and happiness in
the air.
After thirty minutes, the Rabbi asked that people be seated so the ceremony
could begin. Escorted by their parents, the bride and groom entered the
garden-soft music playing in the background. The couple walked with their
parents to the Chuppah, joining the Rabbi, and signaling the start of the
ceremony. The Rabbi then read the ketubah-a legal marriage document signed
by the bride, groom and their parents before the wedding. (It is the same
document that Muslims sign before their weddings and we call it Katb el Ktab).
When the Rabbi finished reading, he and the family members offered blessings
to the newlyweds.
The ceremony differed from Muslim weddings only in the symbolic breaking of
the glass, an act that reminds the groom, even in the happiest of moments, not
to forget the destruction of the Jewish Temple. And the sounds of music
remind us that the time has come for dancing, celebration and dinner.
I thought Muslims and Jews were different, but witnessing this ceremony
taught me what we share. Just as we all take the same steps in our weddings,
so we take the same steps in our lives. We bond our histories with marriage,
with faith, and with our shared values. The "holy wars" of the Middle East often
cause us to forget that the three religions of Abraham are almost the same.
These faiths teach us deep commitment to peace and brotherhood. It’s our
ignorance that makes us different; we need to know the other side before
passing judgment. We all believe in the same God, though we write it
differently. Even the messages we teach are almost the same. It is like having
the same coat but in different colors. What difference does the color make? The
most important thing is that a coat provides comfort, and keeps us warm in the
winter.
Religion is God’s gift, and it should not pave our way to destruction and
misery, but to happiness and joy. All sacred texts of the Abrahamic faiths call
for peace and brotherhood:
From The Quran
8:61 But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards
peace. In Allah: for He is the One that heareth and knoweth (all things).
8:62 Should they intend to deceive thee, verily Allah sufficeth thee: He it is that
hath strengthened thee with his aid and with (company of) The Believers.
8:63 And (moreover) He hath put affection between their hearts: Not if thou
hadst spent all that is in the earth, couldst thou have produced that affection,
but Allah hath done it: for He is mighty, wise.
From The Old Testament
Isaiah 2:4 ... and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears
into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation; neither shall
they learn war any more.
Psalms 34:14 Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it.
From The New Testament
Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children
of God.
Hebrews 12:14 Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man
shall see the Lord.
James 3:18 And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make
peace.
We need to start listening to the other side. When we learn more about each
other, we’ll discover that we are not that different from each other. We all share
the same values and beliefs.
###
* Rami Assali works for Search for Common Ground in the Middle East. This
article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can
be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.
Source: Common Ground News Service, 13 September 2007,
www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for republication.
**********
Soccer unites children
Deborah Clifford
WADI ARA - On the first day of Camp Coexistence, kids tended to stick with the
friends whom they already knew (Jews with Jews and Arabs with Arabs). But
new friendships were already forming by day two, and the kids began to
interact in mixed groups.
Soccer for Peace (SFP) recently completed its most successful camp to date, the
third annual soccer camp for Arab and Jewish children in Israel: Camp
Coexistence 2007. The camp was a joint undertaking with the Maccabim
Association and the Kibbutz Barka’i Center for Soccer, Peace and Coexistence.
Since 2005, Soccer for Peace has brought Arab and Jewish children together in
Israel through overnight soccer camps. Our innovative program model of
coexistence education offers children the rare opportunity to meet on a regular
basis, on equal footing, to find a common language through activities they all
enjoy. Dialogue, social and educational activities challenge participants to learn
about, understand and respect the differences that exist among the peoples of
Israel. By planting seeds of respect, tolerance and peace within our children,
SFP is able to nurture and sow these seeds throughout a lifetime.
Our model begins with a five-day overnight soccer camp, where 10 and 11-
year-old Arab and Jewish children train together on integrated soccer teams. In
the fall, these teams join a league, and travel through the Wadi Ara region of
Israel. They are one of the only mixed teams. Each summer, participants
return to camp and again participate in the after-school program. Children
may stay in the program for up to seven years, enough time for them to shape
life-long attitudes of mutual acceptance. We plan to expand the program, year
by year, so that SFP participants will be part of each other’s daily lives until the
age of 17.
In addition to soccer, the kids take part in many social and educational
activities, learning about themselves and one another. The educational
activities are run by Kaleidoscope, an Israeli non-profit seeking to foster the
development of social and emotional competencies, reduce aggressive
behaviour and promote acceptance of others. These activities had quite an
impact on the kids. When asked, "What did you learn about yourself?" many
hands shot up in the air. "I learned that I like to learn in this classroom!"
exclaimed one boy. "We are all family," said another excited participant.
Social activities, such as daily swimming, allowed the kids to simply hang out,
and gave their minds a rest from soccer and the Arab Jewish conflict. This is
when friendships truly flourished. We took a day trip to a mosque in Sakhnin,
and a synagogue in Kfar-Piness, which gave participants an opportunity to
learn about each other’s religious and cultural histories. The kids also visited
an authentic Australian zoo, and went rafting in the Jordan River. The lessons
they had learned both on the field and in the classroom provided a platform for
them to enjoy this time as true friends.
When camp ended, the kids were both excited to be going home and sad that it
was over:
"I don’t want camp to end!"
"We really learned a lot about how similar we all are."
"I am glad I got to meet the kids from the other team."
"I got to meet new friends that I normally would never have met."
When asked if they wanted to come back next year, all hands shot up into the
air. Though they were sad to say goodbye, they left camp knowing that they
would again become a team in September when SFP’s after-school program
begins.
There is no limit to SFP’s potential. Though conflict exists in every corner of the
world, so too does soccer; the most watched and played sport on earth. United
in their love of the game, SFP participants form organic relationships, implicit
in which are the trust and respect necessary for constructive dialogue. With
this as our guiding principle, SFP believes that sport can serve as both a
metaphor and vehicle for peace in our time.
###
* Soccer for Peace is a 501©(3) non-profit organization whose mission is to
unite children of war-torn nations in their shared love of soccer. Based in New
York City, Soccer for Peace has no political, religious or racial affiliation. For
more information, please visit www.soccerforpeace.com. This article is
distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be
accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.
Source: Common Ground News Service, 13 September 2007,
www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.
**********
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe to Ray's
Join Ray Hanania on the
Follow Ray Hanania's 
