Washington D.C. – J Street has just completed its second annual conference, “Giving Voice to Our Values” on Tuesday at the Washington Convention Center. The now three-year old Jewish-American advocacy organization offers a pro-Israel, pro-peace alternative to the other more hawkish lobbying group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

Over 2400 people attended this year’s conference-a 60% increase from 1500 attendees at J Street’s kickoff event in late October 2009.

National Security Advisor General James Jones promised at the inaugural event that the Obama administration would be, “…represented at all other future J Street conferences.” This year, the White House sent Dennis Ross, a veteran Middle East expert having served the Clinton and Bush administrations, and currently, special advisor to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

In his keynote, Ross largely focused on the “remarkable transformation” taking place in the Middle East with peaceful protests in Tunisia and Egypt unseating entrenched autocratic regimes-“the sort of thing that in the past would be unthinkable.”

Other notable J Street speakers included Professor Eric Alterman, Middle East expert Dr. Kenneth Pollack, author Barbara Slavin, Tikkun’s Rabbi Michael Lerner, Just Vision’s Ronit Avni, Colin Powell’s former Chief of Staff Col. Lawrence Wilkerson–and a surprise presentation by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg at the gala dinner.

“Global Israel” vs. “Greater Israel”

A potent meme emerged at the conference, which, for me, accurately frames the debate between the two rival Jewish-American advocacy organizations.

“Global Israel”-carried by J Street-and, “Greater Israel”, by AIPAC (a.k.a., Future v. Past).

There is a considerable amount of competitive back-and-forth between adherents of these two groups (putting it mildly), both claiming the mantle of being pro-Israel, but in different ways.

Arguments in the turf-war by AIPAC supporters have attempted to delegitimize J Street–that they’re not really pro-Israel, or no one should take them seriously–in many cases, the larger group’s attacks seem more like bullying, with AIPAC playing Goliath to J Street’s David.  

Dennis Ross–Obama’s messenger to J Street–has been active with AIPAC for many years having addressed the organization’s policy conferences numerous times, co-founded an AIPAC sponsored think-tank in 1985, and wrote part of Barack Obama’s AIPAC speech in 2008.

After giving a policy statement on developments in Egypt, Ross commented on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and basically told the J Street plenary–in a dispassionate diplomatic tone–“we’re working with each side in parallel, it hasn’t played itself out yet, but we’ll let you know.”

However, on the opening night, journalist Peter Beinart provided context and put some real numbers behind the ineffectual nature of the negotiations that have occurred to date. In the 1980s during the Reagan administration, there were 10,000 Jewish settlers in Palestinian occupied territories-now there are 500,000.

Survival of Israel Relies on Two-State Solution

Last year’s conference hammered time and again, by a lengthy roster of individuals sporting unassailable pro-Israel credentials, the necessity for Israel to finally resolve the conflict. Haim Ramon, 26-year Knesset Member and former Israeli Vice-Prime Minister, stated this in no uncertain terms,

“If we will not reach a solution based on a two-state solution, then – and “then” will be very soon – it will be a one-state solution and that means the end of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.”

This year, J Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami reprised this note in his opening address,

“The time has come for Israel to choose among three things: being a Jewish homeland, remaining democratic, and maintaining control over all the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. Israel can have only two of the three. It can only be both Jewish and democratic by giving up the land on which a Palestinian state can be built in exchange for peace.”

The clock is ticking out due to domestic demographic realities and international political pressure. The increasing growth of inflexible nationalist attitudes and unyielding religious fundamentalism on all sides of the conflict–combined with a global crescendo calling for an end to human rights abuses–has put the status quo on an untenable tract.

But the endless series of talks and negotiations–Madrid/1991, Oslo/1993, Camp David/2000, Taba/2001, Beirut/2002, Geneva/2003, Annapolis/2007–haven’t produced any satisfactory results, while Palestinian land has been increasingly fragmented by more and more Jewish settlements and settlers.

Mounting Global Pressure for Resolution of Conflict

This perpetual diplomatic runaround has been a contributing factor for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to begin searching for solutions elsewhere. President Abbas is now lobbying for more countries to officially recognize the State of Palestine with Brazil, Argentina, and Peru recently being added to the growing list of over 100 nations including Russia, Poland, and most all of Africa and the Middle East.

“If Israel refuses to freeze settlements, we will ask the US to propose a solution and submit it to both sides. If we fail, we will go to the UN Security Council seeking international recognition of a Palestinian state.” ~ President Mahmoud Abbas

Dennis Ross, when queried about this development responded, “The one thing that’s been clear all along in this conflict is that unilateral moves aren’t going to produce agreements; unless of course, unilateral moves are basically negotiated behind the scenes.”

Enter “Greater Israel”, stage right.

Greater Israel originally refers to the Biblical idea of the “Promised Land” given by God to the Israelites. Today, it’s commonly defined as the land of Israel together with the Palestinian occupied territories.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he wants peace, but if he did, why wouldn’t he satisfy the desire of Israel’s most trusted ally and staunch supporter, the United States, and put a moratorium on settlement expansion allowing for direct negotiations to begin again? There’s a disconnect in the logic.

A 16th century French writer named Michel de Montaigne once intoned, “Saying is one thing, but doing is another.” Like Netanyahu, AIPAC claims to want and pursue peace, yet, as recently as February 10th, defended settlement expansion as, “not an obstacle to continued talks.” But clearly the expansion is an obstacle to peace, which is why every American administration has opposed Israeli settlement activity in Palestinian territories since the occup
ation began in 1967.

Voices of Reason and a Role for America

In a panel immediately following Dennis Ross, Bernard Avishai lamented President Obama not publically embracing the well-known two-state deal points to galvanize world opinion, but rather, the administration acting as a sort of behind-the-scenes therapist, or, “mediator to get the parties to ‘Yes’.”

Avishai explains,

“That is not the purpose (only acting as mediator) of an American administration. The American administration in adopting these very well-known principles can create a kind of organized international opinion with respect to what the disposition of this conflict is, and also make an important statement, which is, that the Palestine issue is not the internal problem of Israel alone, and the existence of Israel is not simply the responsibility of the Israeli Army.”

Daniel Levy, lead Israeli drafter of the Geneva Accord two-state solution, exasperated on the lack of forward-thinking coming from Ross even while stating, “the status quo is unsustainable.”

“If the ambition today is to get the parties back to bilateral negotiations, then that is not commensurate with the challenges we face or with learning from history-if the idea today is to build confidence, 18 years after Oslo (peace talks), between an occupying power and an occupied people, in this situation of power asymmetry–really?”

Both sides in this equation, Israelis and Palestinians, comprise nationalist movements, and in order for a peace deal to be lasting, satisfying these nationalist aspirations-at least partially-is a pre-requisite. However, even with all the main political actors giving lip service to a “two-state solution with Israel and Palestine living side-by-side”, there is a considerable amount of evidence that the peace process to date has been more of a slow-walking, delaying action rather than an effective means to ameliorate the conflict.

New York Times columnist Roger Cohen spoke poignantly about the lack of results, “When I hear that word “process”, you know I just die somewhere inside-there is no process, there is no peace.”

Bernard Avishai then laid out a vision for how the Obama administration could assemble the framework to build an international gravity uplifting Israel into a sustainable relationship with her Arab neighbors, and Palestinians living within her jurisdiction.

“When you set a strategy you’re trying to create an overarching scheme for the way in which obstacles will slowly, systematically be overcome…if the “Obama blueprint” (for a two-state solution) is out there, and seems to have the world at its back, that starts to create a kind of ambient pressure on the system…for Palestinians in the streets, it’s terribly important to have this overarching thing hanging out there simply to give them a horizon, and a sense of hope, something that the Obama administration had said at the beginning of its journey.”

Avishai then identified the crux of the impasse, the biggest obstacle towards a peace settlement,

“From the point of view of the Israeli political system, we’re in a kind of interesting bind here. On the whole, Israelis are inclined to endorse the Obama blueprint. The problem comes when they have to confront the one third of Israel that is absolutely-and determined-to obstruct any deal whatsoever for obvious reasons. There are lots of people living in and around Jerusalem supporting the settlement project-let’s call them, “The Judeans”-the Israelis living along the coast (Tel Aviv) do not want to confront “the Judeans” for the sake of the Palestinians.

Let’s put it this way, those who believe in “Global Israel” don’t want to confront those who believe in “Greater Israel”. And they think they don’t have to because America is at their back and will always, in effect, coddle Greater Israel, and not make Global Israel have to take a stand.”

Bernard Avishai is the appropriate voice to articulate this distinction. As a contributing editor of the Harvard Business Review, he understands the power of regional economic cooperation to uplift societies, bringing entrepreneurial opportunities and prosperity to their people.

At the last J Street, Avishai spoke about what a Global Israel at peace with her neighbors might look like, “…a two-state solution is really a three-state solution (common-market with Jordan)–it’s really a twenty-state solution, because it means developing a relationship with the countries of the Mediterranean through a Sarkozy-like European Union–we have to begin to understand that Israel is not a nation that dwells alone.”

It’s the interconnected nature of the new world that best favors a Global Israel over Greater Israel, and every moment that moves technology forward into the 21st century will make this contrast even more stark. As our world becomes more seamless, political isolation will no longer be an option for Israel, nor America.

Breaking Down The Fear

Andrew Breitbart’s Big Journalism published this attack on J Street,  

“Just how extreme and anti-Israel is J Street? Yet despite Obama’s tacit support of this dangerous group and his manifest preference for the company of Jew-haters, the vile anti-Jewish J Street is being shunned by K street, Congress, and anyone with an ounce of basic human decency. Only Barack Obama has sanctioned this stain on humanity.”

How can people talking about peace, human rights, dignity, be so threatening? Just like protesting Egyptians were threatening to their status quo, so is J Street. There’s nothing wrong with talking about human rights, dignity, democracy-people are talking about those things all over the world-why should they stop when it concerns the inhabitants of the Holy Land? The harshest criticisms leveled at J Street reminds me of people burning Beatles records because “Rock ‘n Roll is Satan’s music.” New things can be hard to metabolize for those clinging to old ways.

I think there is value in seeing the future and getting on the right side of history. AIPAC was formed in 1953, shortly after the creation of the State of Israel. I can see how many of its supporters consider AIPAC to be virtually synonymous with Israel, and any organization, like J Street, that emerges attempting to offer a dissenting perspective on what it really means to be pro-Israel, is simply “anti-Israel.” But this is two-dimensional thinking in a very dynamic 3d world. There’s common ground on which both AIPAC and J Street stand, and a respectful conversation between these two organizations would be good for Israel and America, instead of never sharing a stage or recognizing that diversity of thought is ultimately a strength, not a weakness.

There’s a movement going on, and it’s a global movement. It’s about connecting people-to-people, and reversing old systems that deny basic human rights. It’s not unlike what our country went through over two hundred years ago, and then a hundred years later to abolish slavery. Any government that institutionally works to oppress or discriminate people has to realize that reform will happen one way or another-the Facebook and Twitter uprisings in the Middle East have made what were formally theoretical perspectives on social networks, democracy, and interconnectivity, very, very real.

Ten Days Too Late

Egyptian-born journalist Mona Eltahawy spoke at J Street about the overturned Tunisian and Egyptian regimes each coming out during the uprisings and making three speeches and then collapsing-the speeches were “ten days too late”. If they had been made ten days earlier, some people might have listened. There are realists now serving in the Israeli government that see the big picture-they need to take decisive action before it’s “ten days too late.”  

In January 2009, I remember speaki
ng at a gathering in an Arabic Bedouin village in Israel about human rights, and introducing them to the constitutional protections we enjoy in America, freedom of expression, religion, assembly, the press. I could feel the visceral reaction of hope they had to this idea-to Americans, the Constitution is like religious scripture, but often taken for granted. Currently, there are no equivalent protections applying to all of Israel’s inhabitants, but I venture, someday, there will be.

As an American, I believe we must end the antiquated Cold War thinking in opposing human rights and democracy around the world, and begin to transform our foreign policy into a commensurate relationship with the values we hold. The debate between Global Israel and Greater Israel revolves around the support and amplification of these universal values for all human beings.

Ultimately, we must support the principle–as was said in a classic Star Trek episode by a Jewish Canadian–the values set forth in America’s founding documents must apply to all, or they mean nothing.

J Street continues to establish itself as a political force that’s increasingly being listened to in Washington DC. In only three years, the newly formed progressive Jewish-American advocacy organization has amassed an impressive record of growth-and last night kicked off its second DC conference to a packed house at the Washington Convention Center.

Over 2000 participants has turned this annual event into the largest pro-Israel, pro-peace gathering ever, including 500 students from more than 100 Universities, 50 members of Congress, and 170,000 supporters nationwide.

The recent uprisings unfolding in the Middle East have brought particular attention to this year’s conference. J Street calls for governance to be based on human rights, dignity, democracy-all familiar notes-albeit strikingly elusive in many of the region’s nations, including Palestinian territories under Israeli control.

Last year I attended the inaugural conference and described the group as, “…an amalgamation of Jewish American progressive groups and voices – by far the largest in US history – into one effective political lobbying force with singular purpose; compelling American leadership into a more active and penetrating diplomatic role helping to peacefully resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street president, continued this line last night by laying out five operative tenets:

#1 We stand proudly with and for the people and the state of Israel.

#2 We believe that the future of Israel depends on achieving a two-state resolution to the conflict with the Palestinian people.

#3 Israel’s supporters have not only the right but the obligation to speak out when we think the policies or actions of the Israeli government are hurting Israel or harming the long-term interests of the Jewish people.

#4 We believe that vibrant but respectful debate over Israel benefits the American Jewish community.

#5 We must ground our work in the values on which we were raised.

All this talk around should we ‘debate’ or ‘dare to criticize Israel’, might seem a little out of place in 21st century America, but the fact remains, there have been many concerted efforts to shut down debate over US-Israel policies, or any criticism of the internal affairs of Israel-especially concerning its treatment of the Palestinian people in occupied territories of West Bank and Gaza.  

Jeremy Ben-Ami elaborates,

“Those who believe there is only one acceptable view on Israel – theirs – should not be allowed to impose constraints on what constitutes acceptable speech in the Jewish community. To the extent that the doors of the Jewish community are barred – be they synagogues, Hillels or Birthright trips – to those who question conventional wisdom on Israel, the Jewish establishment is putting the future of the community at risk. (…)

That’s why it makes no sense that for three years, the leadership of such institutions as AIPAC, the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League have almost uniformly refused to take the stage with me or with representatives of J Street.”

The millennial march of cultural progress establishing human rights, freedom, does not stop to satisfy the needs of a few engaged in organizational power struggles or political squabbles. Our social and political world is an ever-changing canvass that ebbs and flows, and indeed, with Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, we are witness to the indefatigable will of human dignity as an unstoppable force elevating global society. J Street works to amplify these democratic trends to strengthen Israel, not weaken her-and if anything’s clear by the last few weeks-the desire for freedom embraced by those denied it, is a juggernaut that no force or fear can turn away.

As J Street continues to grow and rise in influence in the halls of Congress, so will the very real chance of achieving a lasting peace settlement for the Israeli and Palestinian people. Ben-Ami concluded the opening plenary last night with,“This is our mission. This is our calling.  And it is the reason for the tremendous growth of our movement. I welcome you again to an exciting three days and I thank you for joining us in our work at such a critical time.”

A class action lawsuit has just been filed in New York against former U.S. President Jimmy Carter for his 2006 book, “Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid.” The suit, captioned Unterberg et al. v. Jimmy Carter et al., is the latest salvo from the right-wing activist Israel Law Center, which claims to be an “Israeli based civil right organization”.

According to the five individuals named in the complaint, Carter’s book is, “in fact demonstrably false, misleading, and deceptive,” and because they felt they were “sold” on Carter’s book being truthful, well, they felt they’ve been harmed, and in as much, have now sued the publisher Simon & Schuster, and the author, Jimmy Carter for $5 million dollars.

The fantastical nature of this lawsuit reminds me of the “birther” lawsuits, claiming President Obama wasn’t born in America and therefore disqualified to serve as her President.

This case, attempting to gag a Nobel Peace Prize winning former President, is just as absurd–however, the litigants do graciously offer an alternative where there wouldn’t be cause–if President Carter and Simon & Schuster only had promoted and sold the book as “the anti-Israel screed that it is.”

This misplaced pro-Israeli patriotism is a ridiculous waste of the court’s time and probably qualifies as a harassment lawsuit, which may result in the overly zealous parties having to pay Carter’s and Simon & Schuster’s legal fees. You cannot justify use of a state consumer protection statute to attack the US Constitution’s First Amendment protections for the mere publishing and sale of a book. That’s like trying to say a tugboat’s as big as an Aircraft Carrier. You can say it, but it isn’t.

Now, the people suing “wish to be clear” that they’re not suing to challenge President Carter’s right to publish a book, nor his right to “forward his virulently anti-Israeli bias”, but rather, they’re suing because he wrote a non-fiction book and claimed it to be so.

The suit was announced as, “…the first time a former President and a publishing house have been sued for violating consumer protection laws by knowingly publishing inaccurate information while promoting a book as factual.”  That puts them out on a limb, for sure.  

One of the plaintiff’s attorneys, Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, said,

“The lawsuit will expose all the falsehoods and misrepresentations in Carter’s book and prove that his hatred of Israel has led him to commit this fraud on the public. He is entitled to his opinions but deceptions and lies have no place in works of history.”

The Washington Post reported a response from a spokesman from Simon & Schuster, Adam Rothberg:

“This lawsuit is frivolous, without merit, and is a transparent attempt by the plaintiffs, despite their contentions, to punish the author, a Nobel Peace prize winner and world-renowned statesmen, and his publisher, for writing and publishing a book with which the plaintiffs simply disagree. It is a chilling attack on free speech that we intend to defend vigorously.”

In reading through the complaint, a few things come to mind.

The plaintiffs are claiming harm to the “reading public” due to the fact that:

• Carter and publisher claim his non-fiction work as truthful and accurate while marketing the book, then,

• Carter and Simon & Schuster benefitted financially from selling a supposedly “inaccurate and deceptive” book,

• Because the reading public was “deceived” with the marketing of the book, they were harmed,

• Hence, the lawsuit under New York state consumer protection statute, ala “truth in advertising”.

Problem is, satisfying this complaint would set a precedent undermining a fundamental legal pillar upon which the entire nation rests.  It’s called the First Amendment.

Two problems going after the First Amendment.

#1 Federal Supremacy – New York state business statute cannot trump Federal law, let alone the US Constitution.

#2 Greater Harm – Satisfying the complaint would mean that books and publications of all different stripes would be called into question, most likely by those who didn’t like them, creating the greater harm of damaging the fundamental Freedoms of Speech and Freedoms of the Press enshrined in the US Constitution’s First Amendment protections. This, in turn, would negatively impact an important sector within the “prize of the American economy”, namely, intellectual property (e.g. the publishing industry).

This is clearly a harassment suit, and needs to be thrown out as such.

The presiding judge in one of the birther cases (Hollister vs. Soetoro) said, “the case was a waste of the court’s time”, calling the lawyers “agents provocateurs” and ordered their local counsel, John Hemenway, to show cause why he should not pay the legal fees for Obama’s attorney as a penalty for filing a complaint “for an improper purpose such as to harass”.

Another judge concluded an Orly Taitz birther case,

“The Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”

With this attempt to gag a former U.S. President–or squeeze $5 million dollars out of him because someone didn’t like what he said–methinks, the “Ingenious Hidalgo Don Quixote of La Mancha” has, lately, been making the book club reading list at the Israel Law Center.

For more info:

The complaint filed on February 1st, 2011 as Unterberg et al. v. Jimmy Carter et al. can be found here:

http://israellawcenter.org//uploadimages/image/Jimmy%20Carter%20Complaint.pdf

The plaintiffs listed are Stephen Unterberg (Israel / New York), Susan Echman (Elizabeth, New Jersey), Ryan Shuman (Orono, Minnesota), Danica Bernard (Marina Del Rey, California), and Steven Tabak (Israel / New York).

The defendants are President Jimmy Carter, and his publisher, Simon & Schuster.

The attorneys listed on the complaint are David I. Schoen, as counsel for the plaintiffs, from Montgomery, Alabama, and the Israeli co-counsel, Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, from Ramat Gan, Israel.

There’s a common misperception that the constant state of warfare and conflict that besets the Holy Land, Eretz Israel, or in Arabic, Bilad Ash’ Sham, is a result of some cultural or racial flaw–“oh, they’ve been fighting for two thousand years, they’ll never stop.”

Even the most cursory examination of human history reveals skirmishes, battles, and wars, interwoven throughout our timeline, have been perpetrated by all religions, races, and cultures. People are people. And a kinder gentler human civilization can be had, but it has to be taught, and then walked.  

As I observed in a report on the Holy Land in 2009–contrary to popular belief–history’s wars and military campaigns have been launched largely due to political agendas, power struggles, or naked resource/land grabs–and although often cloaked in religious trappings–religion has primarily been used as a war-making tool; to mobilize foot soldiers, and rally public opinion when necessary.

Humans are pack animals (viz. “leader of the pack”, not “backpack”), and in modern civilization, we have been arranged into herds within herds; overlapping groupings and interchangeable associations, class, race, religion. But in order to change the perpetual dynamic of two warring peoples, polarized, locked in conflict–efforts must be taken to bring the poles together. This can be accomplished through education by blurring ethnocentric distinctions, emphasizing the universality of what it means to be human-our basic needs, hopes, and dreams. A facet of this ‘coming together’ process involves a sincere effort to understand the life experiences and background of the different societies at play–to be aware–and especially–to empathize with individual and/or group trauma.

While working with an inspiring new organization called the Euphrates Institute, founder Janessa Gans relayed a profound concept from Palestinian nonviolence activist Sami Awad with the Holy Land Trust.

“It is up to the Palestinians to do what the international community has failed to do for the Jewish people:  to heal the trauma they have experienced.”

This is a true universal expression of peacemaking, seeing the pain within the Israeli community at large and seeking to ameliorate it; helping both Israeli and Palestinian alike.

A book by Avraham Burg, “The Holocaust Is Over, We Must Rise From Its Ashes“, illumes on this topic of trauma and healing for the Israeli community and Jewish Diaspora. Avraham Burg is a former Israeli Knesset member and former Chairman of both the Jewish Agency and the World Zionist Organization.

The following is an excerpt from Burg’s, The Holocaust Is Over, We Must Rise From Its Ashes,

Herman (Judith Herman’s “Trauma and Recovery”) attempted to understand the depth of the traumatic experience and to find in it the key for a spiritual recovery. She interviewed victims of post-traumatic stress disorder from battlefield and concentration camps and also victims of crimes, vulnerable family members (especially women and children), former hostages, prisoners of wars and rape victims. Her documentation is stunning and horrifying, but not without hope. The healing process that she proposes is long, slow, and requires patience, but it offers the hope of a future that is at least as good as the pre-traumatic past. I would like to borrow some of her insights in order to understand the Israeli paradox that pairs power with weakness, nuclear weapons with paranoia, solid international status with the world-is-against-us mentality…

 

…In time, Israel became a multi-traumatic society, a coalition of all its victims that harnesses its worst experiences and turned them into its central existential experience…The result is a national doctrine, aptly described in Yiddish by the late Prime Minister Levi Eshkol as Shimshon hagibor der nebechkicker, literally, “mighty Samson the weakling.”

This national condition includes two contradictory elements that are derived from our history: excessive power and desperate weakness. It makes sense to Israelis, but not to others, who may interpret it as something between hypocrisy and madness. The wisdom is self-evident in the nonscientific expression, “a battered boy will be a battering father.”

Both populations have their backs up against a wall; figuratively and literally. Palestinians in the occupied territories face the trauma of military occupation, endless check points, and resource deprivation. Israel, on the other hand, is surrounded by unfriendly Arab countries, suffers periodic attacks, and throughout the ages Jews have a well-known history of being persecuted and oppressed. Anyone growing up and living in this environment is certainly subject to trauma of one sort or another.  

For Sami Awad, a Palestinian, to take up the mantle with compassion for his oppressor, shows the heart of a true peacemaker in action; healing trauma through patience and understanding, squelching any fires of fear with a cool salve of love. Pervasive fear fuels the conflict and the recent rise of separatist attitudes and political beliefs (e.g. Yisrael Beiteinu / Hamas, etc.), only increases the fear of the “other”. The best antidote to reduce alienation between peoples, starts with promoting intercultural values through our children’s education. There’s no earlier point to appropriately address the racial, cultural, and/or political stereotypes that puts people at odds with one another.

Shepha Vainstein (Founder of the Salaam Shalom Educational Foundation), has been leading the way in building educational programs in the Holy Land for children to learn nonviolence and peace while absorbing a transcendent understanding of humanity beyond race or religion. In a recent speaking tour Shepha explained the purpose behind Salaam Shalom’s Ein Bustan, the first Jewish/Arab Waldorf kindergarten in Israel.

“If we’re going to have peace in the future in the Middle East, we’re going to need to focus on healing children today. At a time when there is so much cynicism and despair about the situation, it’s important to know about a life-enriching approach to education that is changing both Jewish and Arab children’s lives for the better. Waldorf education, an artistic and healing education, nurtures children while cultivating independent creative thinking, cooperative problem solving, and flexibility. Through the Waldorf curriculum children are introduced to other cultures and religions and significant bridges are being built with Arab and Jewish children and their families.”

Reaching children in their formative years to stave off discriminating or racist perspectives is the heavy lifting that will eventually succeed in creating a sustainable peace. In our discussion within Euphrates Institute about the healing potential of addressing collective trauma, the inspirational work of Uri Avnery was mentioned.

Uri Avnery is the founder of the Gush Shalom movement. Gush Shalom, “The Peace Bloc”, is an Israeli group praised by organizations such as Amnesty International and the American Friends Service Committee. Adam Keller, a chief organizer with Gush Shalom, appeared on my satellite TV talk show, Global Peace Network, in 2004.

Uri Avnery, like Avraham Burg, has deep roots woven throughout the entire life of young Israel–incidently, both Uri and Avraham were born in Germany. Uri joined the Zionist paramilitary organization, Irgun, in 1938 and fought for Israeli’s i
ndependence in 1948.

From a 2009 column entitled “Tutu’s Prayer”, Uri speaks about the Holocaust, South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation movement, calls for boycotts of Israel (which he opposes)–all through the lens of a conversation he had had with South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu,

“Peoples are not the same everywhere. It seems that the Blacks in South Africa are very different from the Israelis, and from the Palestinians, too. The collapse of the oppressive racist regime did not lead to a bloodbath, as could have been predicted, but on the contrary: to the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Committee. Instead of revenge, forgiveness. Those who appeared before the commission and admitted their misdeeds were pardoned. That was in tune with Christian belief, and that was also in tune with the Jewish Biblical promise: “Whoso confesseth and forsaketh [his sins] shall have mercy.” (Proverbs 28:13)

I told the bishop that I admire not only the leaders who chose this path but also the people who accepted it.

ONE OF the profound differences between the two conflicts concerns the Holocaust.

Centuries of pogroms have imprinted on the consciousness of the Jews the conviction that the whole world is out to get them. This belief was reinforced a hundredfold by the Holocaust. Every Jewish Israeli child learns in school that “the entire world was silent” when the six million were murdered. This belief is anchored in the deepest recesses of the Jewish soul. Even when it is dormant, it is easy to arouse it.

(That is the conviction which made it possible for Avigdor Lieberman, last week, to accuse the entire Swedish nation of cooperating with the Nazis, because of one idiotic article in a Swedish tabloid.)

It may well be that the Jewish conviction that “the whole world is against us” is irrational. But in the life of nations, as indeed in the life of individuals, it is irrational to ignore the irrational.

The Holocaust will have a decisive impact on any call for a boycott of Israel. The leaders of the racist regime in South Africa openly sympathized with the Nazis and were even interned for this in World War II. Apartheid was based on the same racist theories as inspired Adolf Hitler. It was easy to get the civilized world to boycott such a disgusting regime. The Israelis, on the other hand, are seen as the victims of Nazism. The call for a boycott will remind many people around the world of the Nazi slogan “Kauft nicht bei Juden!” – don’t buy from Jews.

That does not apply to every kind of boycott. Some 11 years ago, the Gush Shalom movement, in which I am active, called for a boycott of the product of the settlements. Its intention was to separate the settlers from the Israeli public, and to show that there are two kinds of Israelis. The boycott was designed to strengthen those Israelis who oppose the occupation, without becoming anti-Israeli or anti-Semitic. Since then, the European Union has been working hard to close the gates of the EU to the products of the settlers, and almost nobody has accused it of anti-Semitism.

ONE OF the main battlefields in our fight for peace is Israeli public opinion. Most Israelis believe nowadays that peace is desirable but impossible (because of the Arabs, of course.) We must convince them not that peace would be good for Israel, but that it is realistically achievable.”

Finally, in bringing to bear existing resources concerning trauma and healing, I would be remiss if I did not mention Rabbi Michael Lerner, who among many other things, is the publisher and editor of Tikkun magazine (from Tikkun Olam or “heal the world”, a Jewish commandment and obligation, or mitzvot).

Rabbi Lerner, on the sixtieth anniversary of Israel, published a Tikkun column on Huffington Post named, “On Zionism, Healing, and Israel’s 60th Anniversary”. In it, Lerner intones the reality of Holocaust trauma and its resultant impact on the people of Palestine,

Jews jumped from the burning buildings of Europe into Palestine not because we were servants of imperial or colonial interests, but because we were desperate and because no one wanted us or would protect us. Unfortunately and tragically, we landed on the backs of Palestinians who were already there, and we hurt many of them in our landing. So scarred were we by our own pain-having just witnessed the death of one out of every three Jews alive on the planet-that we were unable to notice or take seriously the pain that we were causing to the Palestinian people in the process. When our army uprooted Palestinians from their homes and villages, it was in the midst of a struggle for survival in which Jews were determined to be as ruthless towards others as others had been towards us…

…When I look back and watch the irrational and self-defeating behavior of both sides, and when I interview people on both sides of this struggle, one concept shouts out to me: PTSD-Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. The trauma on both sides has led people to be unable to think rationally about what is in their own best interests. For the Palestinians that trauma led them to reject the proposal of a two-state solution that was offered them in 1947, and for them to encourage the surrounding Arab states to reject every offer made by Israel in subsequent decades even after those states were decisively defeated in the 1967 War. In later decades, starting in the 1980s, it was the Jews who rejected reasonable offers for peace, and instead imagined that their military might would allow them to crush the Palestinian national movement. Illusion after illusion after illusion.

In considering the best preparation and plan for peace–the Euphrates new mantra–I must say that people bringing heart and head together in showing compassion and generosity will be the torch bearers to show the way; to dispel the dark side of warring tribal “illusions”. There is no more deeper truth than the fact that we are all members of one family of humanity. As Rabbi Lerner expressed, each side wielding an “I’m right, you’re wrong” kind of rhetoric is armed with very specific facts and statistics bolstering their arguments, but until we begin to build an understanding founded on universal basic human needs, of safety for our children, of peace for our collective future, this impasse will continue to fester.

War begins with violation of thought that summons the violence of deed. And people living through fear are often unknowingly contributing to an amplification of the conflict through the use of stereotypes, racist notions, and violent metaphor. It would be helpful if more people could be taught to become aware of this fact. Many are not conscious participants in furthering conflict-but if shown a way to dilute it-the numbers of people for peace will vastly overwhelm and effectively silence the small minority “authors of war“.

We have former warriors and even victims of the conflict working for peace–dedicated to nonviolence and nonviolent communication–these are the stories we must demand the mainstream media to carry, in the States and in Israel. But until then, there are relatively few venues sharing this heartening news. Hearing stories of courage and hope through examples of service to humanity, will open, for some, a door; through which a choice can be made to stop adding to the disease of war and conflict. People could start healing their collective trauma and adopt an intercultural ethos based upon empathy, equity, justice, and peace.

This may sound unrealistic to some, but it becomes more plausible when you co
nsider the shift in attitude among many partisan Israeli political leaders, officers, and soldiers–or their Palestinian counterparts–that have come to realize that peace and prosperity will only be achieved through regional cooperation and interdependence. Beyond the well-known two-state solution (Israel and Palestine, ’67 borders), visionaries like Bernard Avishai go further and talk about a three-state solution (common market with Jordan), and even a 20-state “Sarkozy-like” regional economic cooperation.

These are the voices of reason. They speak from a position unmatched in experience and expertise in the Israeli / Palestinian conflict, and are calling for population-wide psychological healing to prepare the way for peace. Leaders in the US, Palestine, and Israel should heed their call for healing-and begin to have faith in what’s possible on the positive side of the spectrum–instead of governing through fear and myopia. Loving perspectives seen through compassionate eyes can only add to our toolkit for helping to cure the epidemic PTSD afflicting Middle Eastern political affairs today.

Nitzahon la Shalom, Mansour ya Salaam, and Victory to Peace!