Common Ground News Service
Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH)
for constructive & vibrant Muslim-Western relations
17 - 24 September 2006

The Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH) aims to promote constructive perspectives and dialogue about Muslim–Western relations. CGNews-PiH is available in Arabic, English, French and Indonesian.
For an archive of past CGNews articles and other information, please visit our website at www.commongroundnews.org.
Unless otherwise noted, copyright permission has been obtained and articles may be reprinted by any news outlet or publication. Please acknowledge both the original source and the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Inside this edition

1) by Nader Hashemi

In the second article of a series on religious revivalism and Muslim-Western relations, Nader Hashemi, a post-doctoral fellow in political science at Northwestern University looks beyond religious doctrine to explain the current rise in fundamentalism. “In the context of the debate on Islamic fundamentalism, an explanation has often been sought by focusing on the doctrinal character of Islam and its alleged anti-modern ethos. While it is tempting to do so, especially in our post-September 11th world, focusing exclusively on ideology at the expense of sociology and history limits our understanding and clouds our judgment of this important and emotionally charged topic.”
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 19 September 2006)

2) by Lee Marsden

An Oxford Brookes University lecturer in International Relations, Lee Marsden argues that the current U.S. campaign to reshape the Middle East is lacking. Concerned that “by branding others as fanatical, irrational and threatening, violent solutions are bound to appear more appropriate than attempts at resolving differences,” Marsden advocates that national leaders start talking. “Engagement does not necessarily connote agreement; indeed healthy opposition and rivalry are essential components of democratic practice between nations, just as it is within nations. What is necessary is being able to respect an opponent's right to hold different views.”
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 19 September 2006)

3) by Daniel Armanios

The president and founder of Session: Middle East at the University of Pittsburgh, Daniel Armanios, counters the overwhelming hopelessness many feel towards to the situation in the Middle East through simulation. In the spring, 22 diverse U.S. college students came together in Pennsylvania to counter the current complacency with the status quo and to reinvigorate the search for peace. “[T]hese student participants met with their many diverse peers in Pittsburgh with only the mutual and sincere desire for peaceful regional progress and cooperation. Participants left with an understanding not just of the causes for regional tension and conflict in the present day but of the ‘other’, those whose shoes they rarely get to walk in, let alone take the journey with. They left knowing that they have the tools to generate much-needed creativity and hope in a region and society mired in seemingly unchanging despair.”
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 19 September 2006)

4) by David Ignatius

Syndicated columnist, David Ignatius, writes about his recent opportunity to ask President George W. Bush what he would say to the Iranian people if he had a chance to communicate directly with them. Expressing support and respect for the state and its people, Bush also shared some of the reasons behind American concerns on the issue of Iranian nuclear weapons. He advocated face-to-face exchanges as the best way to open dialogue with Iran, leaving the author with a sense that “Bush is serious about finding a peaceful solution to the nuclear crisis, and that he is looking hard for ways to make the connections between America and Iran.”
(Source: Daily Star, 16 September 2006)

5) by Gede MN Natih

Gede MN Natih, a member of the advisory board of the Indonesian Conference of Religions for Peace (ICRP), describes the fundamental beliefs of members of the World Conference of Religions for Peace that has met regularly since 1970, representing all major religious traditions. “Sharing a conviction of the fundamental unity of the human family, and the equality and dignity of all human beings, delegates called to mind the declaration of that first assembly. It stated, ‘... It is not religion that has failed the cause of peace, but religious people. This betrayal of religion can and must be corrected.’ Never has it been more crucial to reflect and act upon this declaration.”
(Source: The Jakarta Post, 8 September 2006)

1) Searching for the roots of Islamic fundamentalism
Nader Hashemi

Evanston, Illinois - How can one rationally explain the rise of Islamic fundamentalism today? Why in the age of reason, rationality and secularism have large numbers of people in the Muslim world gravitated and embraced a religious fundamentalist conception of the world? From radical fundamentalist groups such as Al Qaeda and the Taliban to more mainstream organisations such as the Muslim Brotherhood (in Egypt) and the Jamaat-e Islami (in Pakistan), the Muslim world seems to be dominated by fundamentalist Muslims. Where can we search for answers? History and sociology, rather than ideology, provide a lens to grapple with this growing social phenomenon.

Throughout human history during times of great social transformation and political turmoil, a natural concomitant has been the revival of religion. This is an observable sociological and historical phenomenon that transcends borders, ethnicities and civilisations. During the Mongol occupation of Russia (1237-1480), for example, the Orthodox Church experienced one of its greatest periods of growth. A similar phenomenon occurred in the United States in the mid-nineteenth century with the onset of the Industrial Revolution. Stated simply, social upheaval engenders a reaction where one seeks stability and security by a return to the basic and the familiar. This often means religion. Muslim societies are no different in this regard.

James Piscatori has perceptively noted that “religion, precisely because in the past it answered questions about life and death and provided its followers with moral links to each other, becomes the means by which individuals hope to answer the new question of what it is to be modern, and, in so doing, to gain perhaps a reassuring, common world-view. In this respect, born-again Christians and veiled-again Muslims are responding to the same broad phenomenon.” The upheavals associated with modernity, as Piscatori suggests, are central to understanding the rise of religious fundamentalism.

Modernisation, it should be emphasised, is a traumatic process. In the Western experience it took several hundred years to develop its secular and democratic institutions, much of it through a process of trial and error. The historic intra-Christian wars of religion, political persecution, genocide, the Industrial Revolution, the exploitation of workers, the rise of nationalism, and two world wars, resulted in a profound change in all spheres of life – political, economic, intellectual and religious. Today we are witnessing a similar process of transformation in developing countries with concomitant destabilising affects. One comparative difference is that these changes are taking place more rapidly in the Muslim World (in the last half of the 20th century) than they did in the Western experience which unfolded over the course of hundreds of years.

It is important to appreciate that the modernisation process in the Muslim world has been very different in many respects. Unlike in Europe where it was largely an indigenous process, in the case of Muslim societies, modernisation began as a direct result of the colonial encounter with Europe. Instead of innovation, the Muslim experience was one of imitation in an attempt to play catch up with the West. Muslim countries in the post-colonial era have been split unhealthily into two camps: the elites, who have received a Western-style education and internalised secular values and a large majority that has not. Many regimes are ruled by a gerontocracy of aging men while the majority of their populations are under the age of 30. Most political change since the era of formal independence has been forced top-down on society in an accelerated manner, not bottom-up via an indigenous process of social evolution and democratic negotiation.

In 1935, for example, Reza Pahlavi (the father of the last Shah) ordered his troops to go into the streets of Tehran to forcibly remove – at bayonet point – the veil from women’s heads. These policies were matched in neighbouring Turkey by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s harsh secularisation and Westernisation of Turkish society. Two generations later, in the same authoritarian way that the Pahlavi monarchy forcibly removed the veil, Ayatullah Khomeini and his Islamic revolutionaries imposed it on Iranian women with equal determination and rigor. Similarly, the rise of political Islam in Turkey can partially be explained as a counter reaction to Kemalist secularist policies that were imposed on a religious society – 99.8 % of which are Muslims – in a top-down manner to the exclusion of Turkey’s Islamic character. It is against this backdrop that we should situate and explore the emergence of Islamic fundamentalism as a historical phenomenon.

It is tempting to seek easy answers to complex social phenomenon. In the context of the debate on Islamic fundamentalism, an explanation has often been sought by focusing on the doctrinal character of Islam and its alleged anti-modern ethos. While it is tempting to do so, especially in our post-September 11th world, focusing exclusively on ideology at the expense of sociology and history limits our understanding and clouds our judgment of this important and emotionally charged topic.

###

* Nader Hashemi is a post-doctoral fellow in political science at Northwestern University. This is the second of six articles in a series on religious revivalism and Muslim-Western relations commissioned by the Common Ground News Service (www.commongroundnews.org).

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 19 September 2006, www.commongroundnews.org (http://www.commongroundnews.org)
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.

2) Time to talk
Lee Marsden

Norwich, England – Today, the United States’ campaign to reshape the Middle East is an unmitigated disaster. The ambitious project to create a democratic region has resulted in the deaths of over seventy thousand people, mainly civilians, in the Middle East and beyond. Recent democratic elections in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories and Israel have resulted in more rather than less violence. For Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice this may be the acceptable “birth pangs of democracy” but for millions in the Middle East the very notion of US-sponsored democracy is a misnomer.

Rather than assisting democracy and the perpetual peace that is supposed to ensue from it, the United States is perceived as a destabilising force that has wrought havoc in many societies and economies, be it intentional or not. In identifying the promotion of democracy as a U.S. national security objective, the Bush administration has sought to influence the outcomes of elections, refused to deal with democratically elected governments not of its choosing, and arguably used democracy promotion as a Trojan horse to undermine governments in Iran and Syria. In doing so, America has seriously undermined both its own democratic credentials and its ability to influence change in the region.

It is the Bush administration's dichotomous presentation of its war on terror that is the greatest obstacle to peace and democracy in the region. In attempting to portray conflicts in the region as between good and evil, freedom and terrorism, democrats and “Islamo-fascists”, debate is closed down and opportunities for engagement rejected. Just as in the Cold War when nationalist movements were equated with communism, so now Islamic movements are regarded as tyrannical and belligerent - to be defeated rather than negotiated with. By stigmatising organisations such as Hizbullah and Hamas as terrorist, which have legitimately built their reputations on extensive social welfare provision and a lack of corruption, there is no longer a necessity to respect their constituencies and democratic mandates. And yet it is only by engagement and searching for common ground that a way forward can be found in the region.

Engagement does not necessarily connote agreement; indeed healthy opposition and rivalry are essential components of democratic practice between nations, just as it is within nations. What is necessary is being able to respect an opponent's right to hold different views. Democrats should seek to convert enemies into adversaries through the contestation of ideas rather than bullets. Demonising organisations and individuals reduces the possibility of negotiating peaceful outcomes to a zero sum game. The demonised want similar things for their own families and neighbours that are taken for granted in America: the right to a peaceful life, to work, be educated, have a decent standard of living and not live under foreign occupation. By branding others as fanatical, irrational and threatening, violent solutions are bound to appear more appropriate than attempts at resolving differences. Conflict resolution requires some recognition that opponents may have legitimate grievances and concerns, and that these need to be addressed.

If the United States is genuinely interested in Middle Eastern democratisation, then it needs to start a dialogue not just with its friends in the region but also with its enemies, including Syria and Iran. It needs to respect the electoral wishes of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories and enter into direct talks with Hamas about resuming financial assistance. At the same time it needs to take note that what is good for the Middle East must necessarily be what works for both Israel and its Arab neighbours. As part of a more considered strategy of engagement, leading to the establishment of democratic norms, the United States should encourage the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza, the immediate release of all democratically elected members of the Palestinian Assembly held in Israeli gaols, insist on respecting the sovereignty of Lebanon and engage with Hizbullah as a component of the Lebanese polity.

Over the past five years, we have heard much from the Bush administration about freedom and liberty but little about justice, fairness and respect in the Middle East. Without these there can be no freedom or liberty, and certainly no democracy. Winston Churchill famously said that “jaw jaw is better than war war”, and this could still be America's contribution to peace in the Middle East. The time has come to start talking directly to leaders of antagonistic governments and organisations, as representatives of their peoples, and seek to achieve settlement to problems on the basis of equity and sustainability.

###

* Lee Marsden is a lecturer in International Relations at Oxford Brookes University in the United Kingdom. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org (http://www.commongroundnews.org).

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 19 September 2006, www.commongroundnews.org (http://www.commongroundnews.org)
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.

3) ~YOUTH VIEWS~ College students search for innovative methods of peace
Daniel Armanios

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania –In the aftermath of the recent Hizbullah-Israeli conflict and with continued violence in the Gaza strip, the days of Yitzhak Rabin, Anwar el-Sadat, King Hussein, and even the Oslo-days of Yassir Arafat, days of hope for peace, seem a distant nostalgic memory.

From 31 March to 2 April 2006, twenty-two U.S. college students from across the country came to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to genuinely change the prevailing sense of despair about Middle Eastern conflicts. They came together because they felt it was time to sincerely recognise the profound 1977 words of Anwar el-Sadat at the Knesset: “No one can build his happiness at the expense of the misery of others.” Together they decided to defy the hopelessness that seems the norm in the Middle East by finding new innovative methods to rejuvenate the quest for permanent regional peace. Together, American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) interns, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) members, Palestine refugee activists, college Democrats and Republicans, Central Asians, Christians, Jews and Muslims decided the time to change complacency with the status quo was now.

Through a forum called Session: Middle East, founded at the University of Pittsburgh, the successes of the 1978-1979 Camp David Summit and the 1991 Madrid Conference and, yes, even the failures of Camp David II in 2000, were considered in light of current events to help promote new grassroots methods for peace. Student participants role-played not just leaders intimately involved in the conflict but also journalists, scientists, and others devoted to regional awareness and peace. Unlike other conventional simulation methods, for participants to understand the “other”, role reversals were conducted so that those holding pro-Israeli views were often asked to adopt Arab positions and vice versa.

The results of this simulation were as diverse and creative as the participants involved. Israel employed a series of good-faith measures towards the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) such as increased water from Israeli reserves and joint management of permanent check points in return for a PNA-issued immediate cease fire. Lebanon recognised Israel as a state so long as Israel joined in talks regarding its status in the Non-Proliferation Treaty (PNA), respect of Lebanese sovereignty, and the Palestinian right of return. Through all these events, student journalists chronicled events, as mock reporters for the Jerusalem Post and Al-Hayat. Student scientific experts, simulating the roles of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), provided technical assistance for scientific aspects of the agreed-upon resolutions.

For the observer, this was truly an investment in hope for the future. Just as Sadat boldly appeared before the Knesset, these student participants met with their many diverse peers in Pittsburgh with only the mutual and sincere desire for peaceful regional progress and cooperation. Participants left with an understanding not just of the causes for regional tension and conflict in the present day but of the “other”, those whose shoes they rarely get to walk in, let alone take the journey with. They left knowing that they have the tools to generate much-needed creativity and hope in a region and society mired in seemingly unchanging despair.

This student-initiated and student-run movement for genuine and innovative methods for peace is spreading across the United States and Canada. The student bodies of the University of Georgia, the University of California at Irvine, and the University of Toronto in Scarborough have all expressed interest in constructing similar forums amongst students in their respective regions. Hopefully, more will find their own personalised versions of the regions leaders and hold dear to the knowledge that they can create change today that will last well into tomorrow.

###

* Daniel Armanios is the president and founder of Session: Middle East at the University of Pittsburgh. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org (http://www.commongroundnews.org).

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 19 September 2006, www.commongroundnews.org (http://www.commongroundnews.org)
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.

4) White House sends peace vibrations at Tehran
David Ignatius

Washington, D.C. - What would President George W. Bush say to the Iranian people if he had a chance to communicate directly with them? I was able to put that question to Bush in a one-on-one interview in the Oval Office on Wednesday. His answer made clear that the administration wants a diplomatic solution to the confrontation over Iran's nuclear program - one that is premised on an American recognition of Iran's role as an important nation in the Middle East.

"I would say to the Iranian people: We respect your history. We respect your culture. We admire the entrepreneurial skills of your people. I would say to the Iranian people that I recognise the importance of your sovereignty - that you're a proud nation, and you want to have a positive future for your citizens," Bush said, answering quickly and without notes.

"In terms of the nuclear issue," he continued, "I understand that you believe it is in your interest - your sovereign interest, and your sovereign right - to have nuclear power. I understand that. But I would also say to the Iranian people, there are deep concerns about the intentions of some in your government who would use knowledge gained from a civilian nuclear power industry to develop a weapon that can then fulfil the stated objectives of some of the leadership (to attack Israel and threaten the United States). And I would say to the Iranian people that I would want to work for a solution to meeting your rightful desires to have civilian nuclear power."

"I would tell the Iranian people that we have no desire for conflict," Bush added.

He expressed hope that Iran would help stabilise Iraq, but he said the best channel for this dialogue would be through Iraq's new prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, who was in Tehran this week. And he called for a new program of cultural and educational exchanges between the United States and Iran, as a way of encouraging greater contact and trust.

Bush's comments were a clear public signal of the administration's strategy in the confrontation over Iran's nuclear program. In recent days, the Washington rumour mill has been bubbling with talk that the administration is planning military options for dealing with the crisis, perhaps in the near term. But Bush's remarks went in a different direction. His stress was on reassuring Iran that the United States recognises its ambitions to be an advanced nation, with a robust civilian nuclear power program and a role in shaping the Middle East commensurate with its size and power. The red lines for America involve nuclear weapons, military threats to Israel or the United States, and Iran's links to terrorist groups.

Bush's comments tracked the offer the United States and its allies have made to Iran if it agrees to suspend its enrichment of uranium. He proposed that the West supply enriched uranium to Iran and other countries and collect the nuclear waste. He argued that this global program "would be a solution that would answer a deep desire from the Iranian people to have a nuclear power industry."

On Iraq, Bush said Maliki's visit to Tehran was "aimed at convincing the Iranians that a stable Iraq is in their interest. They have said so many times, and I think Prime Minister Maliki is now attempting to find out what that means, and how the Iraqi government can work with the Iranians to create a sense of stability."

Bush said he had read commentary criticising Maliki's trip. "I disagree. Prime Minister Maliki should go to Iran. It is in Iraq's national interest that relations with Iran be such that there are secure borders and no cross-border issues, including the exportation of equipment that can harm Iraqi citizens as well as coalition troops, and the exportation of extremism that can prevent this young [Iraqi] democracy from flourishing."

Our discussion followed the 12-day visit to America by Iran's former president, Mohammad Khatami. I asked Bush why he had approved this visit by a high-level Iranian, and what he thought it had accomplished. "One of the dilemmas facing [American] policymakers is to understand the nature, the complex nature of the Iranian regime. And I thought it would be beneficial for our country to receive the former leader, Khatami, to hear what he had to say. And as importantly for him, to hear what Americans had to say." He wanted Khatami to understand that on the nuclear issue and Hizbullah's attacks on Israel, "it's not just George W. Bush speaking."

The Khatami visit "said that the United States is willing to listen to voices," Bush explained. "And I hope that sends a message to the Iranian people that we're an open society, and that we respect the people of Iran." Clearly, the White House wants to reach out to segments of Iranian opinion beyond the hard-line president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

I asked Bush what next steps he would favour in opening dialogue with Iran. "I would like to see more cultural exchanges," he said. "I would like to see university exchanges. I would like to see more people-to-people exchanges."

"I know that the more we can show the Iranian people the true intention of the American government," Bush concluded, "the more likely it is that we will be able to reach a diplomatic solution to a difficult problem." I came away with a sense that Bush is serious about finding a peaceful solution to the nuclear crisis, and that he is looking hard for ways to make the connections between America and Iran.

###

* David Ignatius is a syndicated columnist. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org (http://www.commongroundnews.org).

Source: Daily Star, 16 September 2006, www.dailystar.com.lb (http://www.dailystar.com.lb)
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.

5) Interfaith forum opens pathways to understanding
Gede MN Natih

Jakarta - Representing all major religious traditions, more than 800 religious leaders from more than 100 countries convened last month in Kyoto, Japan, at the Eighth World Assembly of the World Conference of Religions for Peace (WCRP), to address the theme, "Confronting Violence and Advancing Shared Security".

The first Religions for Peace World Assembly, convened in Kyoto in 1970, and every assembly since, has affirmed deeply held and widely shared religious principles that still inspire our search for peace with justice today. Sharing a conviction of the fundamental unity of the human family, and the equality and dignity of all human beings, delegates called to mind the declaration of that first assembly. It stated, "... It is not religion that has failed the cause of peace, but religious people. This betrayal of religion can and must be corrected." Never has it been more crucial to reflect and act upon this declaration.

Today we live in the grip of many forms of violence, both direct and structural, and violent conflicts take lives and destroy communities. The diverse and interconnected threats currently experienced by innumerable members of the human family call for a much broader understanding of violence in the world, and the world's religious communities must play a central role partnering with one another and all sectors of society to prevent and stop war, expose injustice, combat poverty and protect the earth. The time to do this is now and our key to confronting violence is cooperation based on mutual respect and acceptance.

Direct physical threats are the most commonly offered definition of violence, but in reality violence takes many diverse and complex forms. Economic injustices leading to extreme poverty and hunger kill 50,000 people each day, while preventable and treatable diseases kill millions. Meanwhile, 25 million people have already died from AIDS while some 40 million more are living with AIDS and HIV. The impact on our communities is devastating.

Many corporations, especially at the multinational level, pursue their business interests without concern for values that foster sustainable development, while environmental degradation and dwindling resources threaten our planet's ability to sustain life. Victims are the poor and the powerless who are vulnerable to violence in all forms.

As people of religious conviction, all delegates agreed that we hold the responsibility to effectively confront violence within our own communities whenever religion is misused as a justification or excuse for violence. Religious communities need to express their opposition whenever religion and its sacred principles are distorted in the service of violence.

Our religious teachings call us to care for one another and to treat the problems faced by others as our own. Furthermore, there are practical grounds for cooperation. No group is immune to violence or its consequences. War, poverty, disease and the destruction of the environment have a direct or indirect impact on all of us.

Individuals and communities deceive themselves if they believe they are secure while others are suffering. Walls can never be high enough to insulate us from the impact of the genuine needs and vulnerabilities of others. No nation can be secure while other nations are threatened. We are no safer than the most vulnerable among us.

Security is a shared commitment and the moral and ethical convictions of diverse religious traditions around the world provide a moral foundation for confronting violence in its many forms. All people have a collective responsibility to meet our common need for security.

Looking back to the Seventh World Assembly of Religions for Peace, in Amman, Jordan, in 1999, it is encouraging to learn about the peace initiatives that have been implemented by dedicated people around the world since that time. There is still so much to do but Religions for Peace has become a major global multireligious voice and agent for peace. Guided by respect for religious differences, in Indonesia and around the world, we will keep striving to foster multireligious collaboration harnessing the power of religious communities to transform conflict, build peace and advance sustainable development.

In Kyoto, the delegates committed themselves to prevent and confront violence in all its forms. They believe in the power of multireligious cooperation to advance a common vision of shared security. We are determined to mobilise our religious communities to work together and with all sectors of society to stop war, struggle to build more just communities, foster education for justice and peace, eliminate poverty and advance sustainable development for future generations.

###

* Gede MN Natih is a member of the advisory board of the Indonesian Conference of Religions for Peace (ICRP). This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org (http://www.commongroundnews.org).

Source: The Jakarta Post, 8 September 2006, www.thejakartapost.com (http://www.thejakartapost.com)
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.

Youth Views
CGNews-PiH also regularly publishes the work of student leaders and journalists whose articles strengthen intercultural understanding and promote constructive perspectives and dialogue in their own communities. Student journalists and writers under the age of 27 are encouraged to write to Chris Binkley (cbinkley@sfcg.org) for more information on contributing.

About CGNews-PiH
The Common Ground News Service - Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH) provides news, op-eds, features and analysis by local and international experts on a broad range of issues affecting Muslim-Western relations. CGNews-PiH syndicates articles that are constructive, offer hope and promote dialogue and mutual understanding, to news outlets worldwide. With support from the Norwegian government and the United States Institute of Peace, this news service is a non-profit initiative of Search for Common Ground, an international NGO working in the field of conflict transformation.

This news service is one outcome of a set of working meetings held in partnership with His Royal Highness Prince El Hassan bin Talal of Jordan in June 2003.

The Common Ground News Service also commissions and distributes solution-oriented articles by local and international experts to promote constructive perspectives and encourage dialogue about current Middle East issues. This service, Common Ground News Service - Middle East (CGNews-ME), is available in Arabic, English, and Hebrew. To subscribe, click here. (http://www.sfcg.org/template/lists.cfm?list=cgnews)

The views expressed in these articles are those of the authors, not of CGNews or its affiliates.

Common Ground News Service
1601 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite #200
Washington, DC 20009 USA
Ph: +1(202) 265-4300
Fax: +1(202) 232-6718

Rue Belliard 205 Bte 13 B-1040
Brussels, Belgium
Ph: +32(02) 736-7262
Fax: +32(02) 732-3033

E-mail : cgnewspih@sfcg.org
Website : www.commongroundnews.org (http://www.commongroundnews.org/index.php?sid=1&lang=en)

Editors
Emad Khalil (Amman)
Juliette Schmidt (Beirut)
Chris Binkley (Dakar)
Emmanuelle Hazan (Geneva)
Medhy Hidayat (Jakarta)
Leena El-Ali (Washington)
Andrew Kessinger (Washington)

Translators
Olivia Qusaibaty (Washington)
Rio Rinaldo (Jakarta)
Zeina Safa (Beirut)

CGNews is a not-for-profit news service.

Posted by Evelin at September 20, 2006 03:35 PM