Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah: The vicious circle of righteousness, force, and loss of compassion

by Daniel Bar-On

07/20/2006

In the film "Paradise Now," one of the Palestinian potential suicide bombers tells his girl friend: "The Israelis took ownership on both the righteousness of being victims and on the total powerfulness. They have left us no choice but to do the same." I wish to add to this important sentence, that when both sides take ownership on both righteousness and powerfulness, there is no space left for compassion. When rockets fall on the northern and southern parts of Israel, the Israeli Jewish people shrink back into their primary sense of victimhood: We are a small people, threatened by many external forces that should be confronted with determinism and powerfulness. This primary sense of victimhood is based on righteousness of the weak ('who tries to kill you, kill him first'). We have experienced this sense of victimhood many times during the last decades so that it has become like a second nature to us. It gives us the feeling of togetherness and authorizes our government in our name to shoot at the enemy, including their civilians, as they shoot at ours; as in war, like in war. We are well trained in this scenario and possibly prefer it to all other possible scenarios of this region.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The consciousness of many of our people rotates around this righteousness of the victim. It is not a coincidence that we are much less aware of our power and strength and its negative effects on the others who suffer from our powerful acts. The victims have an advantage over the perpetrators: They do not have to take responsibility for their own actions, as these are only a reaction to the evil acts of the others. Therefore, we should perhaps be reminded in these harsh days of bombs and fighting in Gaza and Lebanon, that it was our power-oriented behavior in Lebanon and in the occupied territories that contributed to the creation of both Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Hamas in the territories. These militant organizations were created partially as a reaction to our excessive use of power. After these organizations grew to a magnitude which threatens us, we complain and again see ourselves as their victims, and them as terrorists with whom one cannot talk?

Though we tend to put all our 'enemies' in one basket, I want to draw a clear line differentiating between the Hezbollah and the Hamas. The first is a terrorist organization which acts violently against Israel in spite of international law, thereby also endangering the safety of the Lebanese government and people. It is motivated by the regional interests of Iran and Syria and should be taken care of by the international community, as it endangers not only Israel but also the region as a whole. The Israeli government is right in its efforts to weaken this organization and the only open question is if the current military actions in Lebanon will actually contribute to achieving this goal or will actually strengthen the Hezbollah, at least in the eyes of its Arab neighbors.

Unlike the Hezbollah, the Hamas government was elected through democratic elections by the Palestinian people, mainly as a reaction of the latter to the previous corrupt government and less because of its policy toward Israel. In the last months we have seen a bitter struggle within the Hamas, pressured by the Europeans, Abu Mazen, and delegates from Egypt and Jordan, between the moderate part of the Hamas, led by Ismail Haniya, and the military part, led by Haled Mashal. The prisoners? document that was signed between Marwan Barghouti and the leaders of the Hamas in the Israeli prison could be a basis for a dialogue between Israel and the Palestinian authority. Now we are the ones who refuse to conduct such a dialogue, less out of political wisdom, but out of feeling of superiority and power-orientation. It was our military reaction to the abduction of Gilad Shalit that actually gave strength to the extremists of the Hamas in their struggle with the moderate part, instead of doing the opposite. Where is the logic for this deed?

With the Palestinian people we have to reach a painful but necessary compromise of dividing this land. A compromise can be achieved only through dialogue. We are the only people in the world, ridden by an intractable conflict with another people, who refuse to understand that a compromise will be reached only through an open dialogue. Almost every child in Israel and Palestine knows the nature of this compromise by heart: Return to the borders of 1967, with slight changes, two states with their capitals in Jerusalem, and a systematic step-wise solution to the resettlement of the Palestinian refugees, including Israel?s recognition of its share in the creation of that difficult issue. That was agreed upon in Taba in 2001, was suggested by the Arab League in 2002, and was also the basis for the prisoners? document. By reaching a compromise, the Palestinians will be pulled out from the threatening balance of power in our region, as they are not an essential part of that balance but rather suffer from it just like us.

It could happen that when the military operation will be over, we will be faced with a Palestinian government that will be ready to enter negotiations with the Israeli government based on this compromise. The question then will be: Is there an Israeli government capable of entering such a process of negotiations? Right now it does not seem that the Israeli government has a mandate to carry out such a compromise with the Palestinian people. By moving out of Lebanon and Gaza, Israel tried to retrieve an internal consensus of righteousness, which was hampered by the long occupation of lands which were not ours in the first place. The fact that Israel returned every inch of these territories, according to international law, made us again rightful, in our own eyes and those of the international community. We loved that feeling so much that we wanted to apply it also to the West Bank, cutting ourselves off behind an 8 meter wall. This was the mandate the Kadima party got from the Israeli people in the last elections. The Prime Minister even proclaimed that when this will be accomplished Israel will be a state in which it will be ?fun to live,? perhaps aiming at the full accomplishment of internal consensus and feeling of righteousness, by giving up most of the occupied territories.

However, in this whole 'clean' process someone forgot that there is also another people, with their own needs, pains and feeling of righteousness and powerfulness. In this whole process we played chess with ourselves, without letting the other party have a say, as "there is no one to talk to," and they anyway "understand only force." In that sense the Kassam missiles on Sderot and Ashkelon were unpleasant reminders of another people who suffer and needs a way to express itself. Whoever does not want to talk with them will get missiles and abducted soldiers.

Therefore, my recommendation to the Israeli government, which promised with its inception a new public agenda to a public tired of empty promises, is: Weaken the Hezbollah as much as you can, including by military means if it can serve that goal, but give up the new plan for disengagement that throws sand in our eyes and start talking to the Palestinians on the painful compromise between them and us, a solution both our people need so badly. Remember, a compromise is not based on either absolute righteousness or absolute powerfulness. It is based on compassion: Compassion for the people who suffer, who were killed, compassion for their family members, compassion for a public that is tired of just and successful wars.

Dan Bar-On, Ben Gurion University of the Negev

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dan Bar-On is a Professor of Psychology at the Department of Behavioral Sciences at Ben-Gurion University. He is also the co-director of PRIME (Peace Research Institute in the Middle East) near Beit Jala in the West Bank. He is the author of several books, among others - Legacy of Silence: Encounters with Children of the Third Reich (Harvard University Press, 1989), Fear and Hope: Three Generations of Holocaust Survivors' Families (Harvard University Press, 1998) and The Indescribable and the Undiscussable (Central European University Press, 1999). In 1996 he was awarded the David Lopatie Chair for Post-Holocaust Psychological Studies. In 2001 he received the BundesverdienstKreutz First Class, from German President Dr. Johannes Rau. In 2003 he received the Eric Maria Remarque Peace Prize in Osnabruck, Germany.

28th Annual Ethnography in Education Research Forum

“Ethnography and Education in Trying Times”

February 23-24, 2007

Center for Urban Ethnography
University of Pennsylvania
Graduate School of Education
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

***CALL for PAPERS***

ONLINE SUBMISSIONS OPEN: August 1, 2006
SUBMISSION DEADLINE: October 15, 2006
NOTIFICATION: Early November 2006
PRESENTATION SCHEDULE: Early January 2007

In most parts of the world attempts to homogenize education must compete with ever-expanding cultural and linguistic diversity. Standardized educational
goals and assessments are becoming dominant as school systems seek to prepare students to participate in broad national and international markets. Yet
students and teachers also live their lives in rich and vibrant local communities, which do not conform to standardized knowledges and practices.

The 28th Ethnography in Education Research Forum seeks to explore directions
for education in these trying times. What are the implications of educational
standardization for the value of local knowledges in education? How can ethnographers put local knowledges and practices back on national and international agendas?

The Ethnography in Education Research Forum invites papers that explore these
issues by ethnographically documenting grassroots responses to varying levels
of educational policy, describing teacher-researcher collaboration in the
development of equitable educational practices, making theoretical and
methodological connections between the study of societal level phenomena and
local processes, bringing to light covert responses to overt policy decisions,
and critically examining relationships between academic and public interests.

Plenary Speakers:
Marilyn Cochran-Smith, Boston College
Frederick Erickson, University of California at Los Angeles
Gloria Ladson-Billings, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Susan Lytle, University of Pennsylvania

All proposals may be submitted online beginning August 1:
http://www.gse.upenn.edu/cue/forum.php

TYPES OF PRESENTATIONS:

Proposals are requested for presentations in the following categories:

1. Individual Paper (Traditional or Work-in-Progress)
2. Group Sessions (Traditional or Work-in-Progress)
3. Data Analysis Consultation

Practitioner Research: For Individual Papers and Group Sessions, you may
choose to designate your presentation as PRACTITIONER RESEARCH. Practitioner research presentations focus on research by teachers and other practitioners in educational settings (e.g., school principals, counselors, non-teaching aides, parents, students, and other members of school communities).
Practitioner research presentations are particularly featured on Saturday,
known as Practitioner Research Day.

1. Individual Papers: (15 minutes)
Individual papers by one or more authors. Either final analyses, results, and
conclusions (Traditional) or preliminary findings and tentative conclusions
(Work-in-Progress) may be submitted. Indicate practitioner research, if you
so choose.

2. Group Sessions (75 minutes)
A full session of no fewer than three, and no more than six presenters,
including a discussant. These sessions may vary in organization: a set of
individual papers, a panel discussion, a plan for interaction among members of
the audience in discussion or workshop groups are possible formats. Either
final analyses, results, and conclusions (Traditional) or preliminary findings
and tentative conclusions (Work-in-Progress) may be submitted. Indicate
practitioner research, if you so choose.

3. Data Analysis Consultation (30 minutes)
Individual submissions only. Presenters offer data along with questions about
analysis for consultation with expert researchers and conference
participants. Data analysis consultation is by definition Work-in-Progess.
Presenters must follow specific guidelines available online:
http://www.gse.upenn.edu/cue/dacinstructions.php

PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA:

1. Significance for education
2. Conceptual orientation
3. Methodology
4. Interpretation
5. Quality of analysis
6. Depth and clarity

FORMAT OF PROPOSALS:

Everyone must submit:

A. Summary (limit 100 words)
This should be a brief overview of the work to be presented.

B. Description (limit 1500 words)
Selection is based on the description. A detailed description of the work to
be presented should be submitted including conceptual orientation, data
collection and analysis methods, data interpretation, and significance to
education.

Special Instruction for Group Sessions
Submit Summary and Description of the session overall, as specified above. If
the session consists of a set of individual papers, the group session proposal
must also include a description for each individual presentation.

All proposals must be submitted online:
http://www.gse.upenn.edu/cue/forum.php

Questions
E-mail: cue @ gse.upenn.edu

Making Terrorism History
by Scilla Elworthy and Gabrielle Rifkind
Rider Peace studies

1 INTRODUCTION

Terrorism and political violence have assumed a new profile around the world. Resolving intractable conflicts, especially when some of those involved in them are not acting on behalf of states, has become an even more urgent task since the September 11 attacks and the subsequent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

To achieve peace and security,we now need strategies to combat the use of terror in political and territorial conflicts. But too often this terror is exacerbated - indeed sometimes even triggered - by the actions of governments, both democratic and non-democratic. In this turbulent world, many of the old methods of dealing with conflict seem to be unable to deal with the new realities. Force of arms is not sufficient to establish peaceful order.Military victory is not enough to prevent future violence.Whether we are considering Iraq, al- Qaeda, Chechnya or the Middle East, it is clear that simply trying to hit back and to destroy the 'enemy', the 'terrorists' or the political opponents provides only short-term solutions.

In fact the evidence suggests that such strategies serve only to increase both the level of violence and the yawning chasm between the two sides. The vast superiority in military and economic power of states - American,British,Russian, Israeli - is unable to subdue opponents and bring peace. New thinking and new approaches are needed.

We argue that such strategies will never be successful unless they address the full range of factors that fuel cycles of violence and influence the use of terror.These include the economic, social and cultural context in which violence is sustained. Perhaps even more important, they also include the emotional and psychological effects of violence and humiliation - factors often missing from traditional approaches to counter-terrorism, and especially the 'war on terror'.

Much more is known about how to reduce and prevent violence than our current public debate about terrorism acknowledges. A careful analysis of the root causes of political violence reveals the persistent influence of powerlessness, exclusion, trauma and humiliation, and knowledge of this could usefully inform and influence the development of new security measures.These will be effective to the extent that they are based on principles of non-violence,mutual respect and dialogue, and involve neutral third parties as necessary.

The need for armed intervention and the consistent threat of it may never be eliminated from the way the world is governed. But minimising the use and costs of such intervention is a realistic goal,which all of us have a moral responsibility to pursue.

In Making Terrorism History we suggest a different approach to violent conflicts, prioritising the human factor that is often neglected in such situations.We then propose proven practical steps that can - and should - be taken in a wide range of contexts, including Iraq, Israel-Palestine, and also our own towns and cities. In chapter 7 ('What can be done?') we set out a range of measures to resolve and prevent conflict without the use of force. Some of these measures need to be taken at the international level, some at the local level.There are also many initiatives that we can - and perhaps must - take in our own communities to encourage a new society built on understanding, respect and dialogue (see pp. 85-9).The aim is not just to seek immediate resolutions to armed conflict, but also to address and prevent the conditions in which it can be triggered.

Terrorism never entirely can be made history, but how we tackle it will determine whether we exacerbate the problem. Understanding the psychological and emotional causes of political violence is often dismissed as, at best, a nice extra, or, at worst, a harmful distraction from our real world goals.We argue that, rather than being peripheral, the need for a sense of human security must be the starting point of all approaches to terror, political violence and insurgency.This is the only route to lasting peace, and we all have a part to play.

RRP £3.99 • Paperback
Publication Date: 02/02/2006 • 96 pages • A format • ISBN: 1846040477

All material ©The Random House Group

Articles on Love & Marriage by Alfred Adler

"Love is a Recent Invention" and three other articles by Alfred Adler, "Marriage as a Mutual Task," "Disturbances in Love
Relationships," & "Marriage as a Responsibility," are now available in our new Theme Pack 10 - Love and Marriage. To order, go to
http://go.ourworld.nu/hstein/theme.htm.

According to Adler, the ideal of modern love did not exist until women were emancipated from their social and economic shackles; it is a dyad
of equal partners. From this perspective, many of the early writings of poets and philosophers about love are for the most part "nonsense."
The decision to marry, from both partners, ought to spring from a mutual striving for humaneness.

==============================================
Henry T. Stein, Ph.D., Director
Alfred Adler Institutes of San Francisco & Northwestern Washington
Distance Training in Classical Adlerian Psychotherapy
Web site: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/hstein/
E-mail: HTStein@att.net
Tel: (360) 647-5670

Search for Common Ground Update - July 2006

Search for Common Ground Announces
2006 Common Ground Awards to be Presented
at the United Nations on November 1st

In times of violence and suffering, it is hard not to despair when reading about, or watching, our fellow human beings' pain. At such a time, we feel helpless to effect change, and the work that we and our colleagues do is even more challenging than usual.

We are announcing the Awards now, because, it is important to remember that there are individuals and organizations who are making a significant difference -- and to acknowledge their courage and strength of spirit. These individuals and groups inspire others to be their best, even in the face of violent conflict.

This year we will honor:

Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, the newly elected President of Liberia, is the first woman to lead an African nation. She and her administration are committed to advancing reconciliation in post-civil war Liberia through her example of inclusive leadership.

Sesame Workshop has been creating children's educational television programming for 38 years, broadcasting in over 120 countries, including some of the most challenging regions affected by conflict. Their programs have taught millions of children that differences between people are what make each of us special and unique.

Taylor Branch spent the last two decades writing about the life and legacy of Martin Luther King Jr., and portraying America during the King years. Inspired by Dr. King's dedication to non-violent social change, he wrote the award-winning trilogy: Parting the Waters, Pillar of Fire, and At Canaan's Edge.

John Whitehead was founding Chairman of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation. In the aftermath of September 11th, he led an inclusive public planning process that reached out to the many diverse communities affected by the tragic events in 2001.

David Broza, Wisam Murad and Said Murad collaborated to compose "In My Heart," which captures the love and the bond that Israelis and Palestinians share for the same land. For the first time, a song was premiered simultaneously on the Israeli Army Radio and on the Voice of Palestine.

The Eliav-Sartawi Awards for Middle East Journalism are given annually to Arab, Israeli, and international journalists. They recognize and encourage journalism that contributes to better understanding between people and to maintaining political dialogue in the Middle East.
We created The Common Ground Awards in 1998 to honor outstanding accomplishments in conflict resolution, community building, and peacebuilding. Recipients have made significant contributions toward bridging the divides between people, finding solutions to seemingly intractable problems, and providing hope where there often was none.

Whether people work internationally or in their local communities -- the work that they do and the transformation they bring -- are essentially the same.

For the first time The Common Ground Awards will be held in New York, at the United Nations, on November 1st.

"There is no conflict that cannot be resolved. Violent conflict is created and sustained by human beings, and it can be ended by human beings." Past Common Ground Award Recipient, former Senator George Mitchell.

On 27/07/2006, Michael Dahan kindly wrote to us:

Greetings,

I would like to bring to your attention a short piece which I distributed on the academic lists in Israel this morning... Please feel free to distribute this as widely as possible.

Michael

A Call for Peace, Understanding and an end to the Violence: A Lesson from Lebanon

I am an Israeli political scientist currently participating in an academic conference in Cairo, Egypt. It is the annual meeting of the International Association of Media and Communication Research. Even under the best of circumstances, it is not easy for an Israeli to participate in a conference in Cairo due to issues related to normalization. Today, when Israel is at war with Lebanon, it is even more difficult. Indeed, almost all the Israeli participants cancelled at the last minute. I decided to go because I felt that as an academic, an intellectual, it was crucial for me to participate, to keep lines of communication open with my Arab and Muslim colleagues in the region. To talk and to discuss. To share knowledge.

The conference has a large number of participants from throughout the region -- Palestinians, Lebanese, Iranians, Syrians, Egyptians and others. I presented a paper co authored with an Egyptian colleague and friend. In the audience and on the panel with me were my "enemies". At least, that is what my government and to a certain extent, my society, would like me to believe.

The paper was very well received. The next day, one of the people at the conference who had heard the presentation approached me and complimented me on the paper. He introduced himself as a Professor at the American University in Beirut. He had also come to the conference in spite of the "situation", a word that has become a euphemism for the death and destruction, the agony and the pain that we all share. He noted that I was slightly nervous during the presentation, that he had felt this and wanted to tell me that I had no reason to be nervous, that it was a good paper. Under any other circumstances his comments would have been innocent, devoid of any emotional weight. A simple expression of respect and comraderie from one academic to another. Yet his remarks and his insight brought tears to my eyes. I expressed to him my disgust for the violence that is being perpetrated by my country against his own. He in turn expressed similar feelings about the suffering in northern Israel. He handed me a copy of his own paper. A little while later we met again. I told him that his remarks had brought tears to my eyes. We looked at each other and embraced. A few hours later, when I had a chance, I began to read his paper. In the prologue he noted the words of two Egyptian artists, Ahmad Fouad Negm, and the Oud player, Sheikh Imam. He brought forth only four lines which stress the power of words, the main tools of communication. These words echo and reverberate in my mind, refusing to leave me, to allow me any rest or respite:

Should the sun drown in the sea of clouds
And should the world be engulfed in waves of darkness
You who search, and care, for meaning
Shall find nothing to guide you, but eyes made of words.

I call on my colleagues back home, those "who search and care for meaning", to take heed of these words, to listen and to think, to rise above the pain and sorrow, and to let reason and humanity prevail. In the end, as human beings, all we have is our own basic humanity. As academics all we have in the end are words. Let us use these two very basic tools to end the suffering, to speak out loudly and clearly, before it is too late and we are all engulfed in the flames.

-- Michael (Mike) Dahan, Cairo, July 26th, 2006

War, Genocide and Memory. German Colonialism and National Identity - Sheffield 09/06

Convenors: Juergen Zimmerer/Michael Perraudin

Workshop of the Arbeitskreis Militärgeschichte e.V.,
in cooperation with the Department of Germanic Studies, Department of
History, Centre for Nineteenth-Century Studies and Humanities Research
Institute, University of Sheffield, the Nordic Africa Institute,
Uppsala, and the International Network of Genocide Scholars (INOGS),
Sheffield

11.09.2006-13.09.2006, Humanities Research Institute, University of
Sheffield, 34 Gell Street, Sheffield S3 7QW, GB

For almost sixty years, since the end of World War II, the German public
had forgotten about its colonial empire. Whereas other European powers
experienced the traumatic violence of decolonisation, Germans believed
that they had nothing to do with the colonial exploitation of large
parts of Africa, Asia or South America. They were innocent - so many
believed - of the devastations brought about by European colonialism and
could therefore engage with the new postcolonial world without the dark
shadow of a colonial past. Some observers have termed this 'colonial
amnesia'.

Such suppression was severely shaken in 2004, when the centenary of the
genocide of the Herero and Nama peoples confronted a wide German
audience with German atrocities of a hundred years before. The first
German genocide, as it was called, attracted media coverage, and in
August 2004 the German government officially apologised for the
atrocities. After Germany's attempts to come to terms with its Nazi
past, this step was seen by many international observers as a major
break-through in global attempts to right historic wrongs, especially
those committed in a colonial context. In Germany, the official apology,
far from marking closure on a dark chapter in German history, sparked a
variety of agitated responses. Instead of acknowledging the act as a
much-needed step in the process of coming to terms with the colonial
past, conservative circles denounced the German Minister for Economic
Cooperation and Development, Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, who had
delivered the apology, as a 'traitor'. Others worried about claims for
reparations by the Herero, and the German tabloid BILD asked on its
front page, 'What will be the cost of the minister's tears?', deriding
her carefully crafted statement as being the result of female sentiment.
Wieczorek-Zeul's courageous act had obviously touched a nerve. Whereas
some felt encouraged to bring other German colonial atrocities into the
limelight, for example the Maji-Maji war in German East Africa, the
centenary of which fell in 2005, others have attempted to rewrite
Germany's colonial past by emphasizing the exotic aspects of Germany's
colonial undertaking, and by disconnecting the imperial past from the
positive strands of German history. A dubious documentary on prime-time
German television, which made repeated use of colonial stereotypes,
marked - for the time being - the extreme point of this endeavour.

Nevertheless, the debate shows that Germany has finally arrived at a
postcolonial European normality, where its own historical relationship
with the world is part of a lively debate not only about the past, but
also about the future. Migration, multiculturalism and xenophobia are
only some of the topics which are substantially shaped by Germany's
memory of the past. Colonialism was central to Wilhelminian discourse on
national identity, to the country's understanding of itself as a world
power; and now discussion about the German empire seems to be
resurfacing as part of a German discourse of self-understanding and
self-reassurance in the aftermath of Unification.

The conference will address Germany's biased and troubled relationship
with the colonial world over the course of two centuries. As
postcolonial studies have shown, colonial engagement neither started nor
ended with formal colonial rule. Thus we will have papers dealing with
numerous aspects of the encounters of Germany and Germans with imagined
or real colonial empires, from the mid nineteenth century to the present
day. Papers addressing the problems from a transnational or comparative
perspective, papers dealing with the landscapes of memory in the former
German colonies, and papers offering literary and other
cultural-historical perspectives are also included. The contributors are
practitioners in a diversity of disciplines.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROVISIONAL PROGRAMME

MONDAY, 11 September 2006
1:00-2:30 Registration

2:30-3:00 Welcome and Introduction

3:00-5:00

Panel 1: Namibia: Coming to Terms with Genocide

Reinhart KÖßLER (Bochum): "Communal Memory Events and the Heritage of
the Victims. The Persistence of the Theme of Genocide in Namibia"
Hanns LESSING (Dortmund): "Commemorating the Past – Building the Future:
the Contribution of the Churches in Namibia and Germany to the
Commemoration of the Centenary of the Colonial War and Genocide in
Namibia"
Dominik SCHALLER (Heidelberg): "The Herero Genocide and Politics of
Memory"

Panel 2: Colonialism and Metropolitan Politics

Robin KRAUSE (Clark U, Massachusetts): "Critical Responses in Germany to
Colonial Adventures and Atrocities, 1900-10"
Brian VICK (Sheffield): "Empire and Imperialism at the Paulskirche:
Origins, Meanings, Trajectories"

5:00-5:30 Coffee/Tea

5:30-7:30

Panel 3: Remembering Colonialism in Africa:

Dennis LAUMANN (Memphis): "Narratives of a ‘Model Colony’: German
Togoland in Written and Oral Histories"
Stephanie MICHELS (Cologne): "Colonial Wars in Cameroon – Shared
Histories, Divided Memories"

Panel 4: Colonialism and Popular Culture

Jeffrey BOWERSOX (Toronto): "Exotic Education: Writing Empire for Young
Germans, 1884-1914"
David CIARLO (MIT): "Picturing Genocide in German Consumer Culture,
1904-1910"
Volker LANGBEHN (San Francisco): "‘Greetings from Africa’ – The Visual
Representation of Blackness during German Imperialism"

7:30 Wine Reception

TUESDAY, 12 September 2006

9:00-11:00

Panel 5: Travelling

Tracey DAWE (Durham): "Time, Identity and Colonialism in German Travel
Writing on Africa,1850-1914"
Matthias FIEDLER (Dublin): "Our Forgotten Travellers – German
Afrikareisende and the Popularisation of the German Discourse on Africa
in the 19th Century"
Charles HOAG (N Carolina): "The Mission of Memory: J.L. Krapf and the
German Colonial Project"

Panel 6: Colonial Mythmaking I

Constant KPAO SARE (Saarland): "Abuses of German Colonial History: the
Character of Carl Peters as Weapon for Völkisch and National-Socialist
Discourses: Anglophobia, Anti-Semitism, Aryanism"
Jörg LEHMANN (Berlin): "From ‘Peter Moors Fahrt nach Südwest’ to
‘Deutsch Sonne über Sand und Palmen’: Fraternity, Frenzy and Genocide in
German War Literature, 1906-1937"
Sara EIGEN (Vanderbilt): "Hans Grimm and the Reception of German
Colonialism"

11:00-11:30 Coffee/Tea

11:30-1:30

Panel 7: Colonial Mythmaking II

Rob HEYNEN (Toronto): "Images of Lost Empire: Colonial Nostalgia in
Weimar Visual Culture"
Susann LEWERENZ (Hamburg): "‘Loyal Askari’ and ‘Black Rapist’ – Two
Images in the German Discourse on National Identity and their Impact on
the Lives of Black People in Germany (1918-1945)"
Kristin KOPP (Missouri): "Representing German Colonial Interventions in
Poland"

Panel 8: Mainstreaming Colonialism

Kenneth OROSZ (Maine): "Colonialism and the Simplification of Language:
Germany’s Kolonialdeutsch Experiment"
Elisabeth SCHMIDT (Paris): "Aspects of German Identity in the African
Colonies: the Role of the Local Press"
Britta SCHILLING (Oxford): "Beyond Empire: German Women in Africa,
1919-1933"

1:30-2:30 Lunch

2:30-4:30

Panel 9: Colonial Warfare

Yixu LU (Sydney): "Germany’s War in China: Media Coverage and Political
Myth"
Michael Pesek (Berlin): "The Shadows of the Thirty Years War in Eastern
Africa. German and Allied War Crimes in the East African Campaign,
1914-18"
Nicholas MARTIN (Birmingham): "A Place in the Sun: Paul von
Lettow-Vorbeck and the Defence of Civilisation in German East Africa"

Panel 10: Engaging with the Past in the Federal Republic I

Monika ALBRECHT (Münster): "Reflections on the Idea of ‘Colonial
Amnesia’ in Post-1945 West Germany"
Esther ALMSTADT (Bremen): "A Spotlight on a Dark Chapter in German
History: Criticism of German Colonialism in Uwe Timm’s novel ‘Morenga’
and its Reception in the West German Public"
Ingo CORNILS (Leeds): "Denkmalsturz. The German Student Movement and
German Colonialism"

4:30-5:00 Coffee/Tea

5:00-7:00 Round Table: Uses and Abuses of Colonial History

Panel to include:
Martial Staub (Sheffield: Chair)
Henning Melber (Uppsala)
Michael Perraudin (Sheffield)
Ian Phimister (Sheffield)
Eve Rosenhaft (Liverpool)
Jürgen Zimmerer (Sheffield)

8:00 Dinner

WEDNESDAY, 13 September 2006

9:30-11:30

Panel 11: The Transnational Dimension

Donald BLOXHAM (Edinburgh): "The German Involvement in the Armenia
Genocide and Armenian Memory Politics" (tbc)
Kathryn JONES (Swansea): "Vergangenheitsbewältigung à la française:
French Colonial Memories of the Algerian War"
Arndt WITTE (Maynooth): "The Discipline ‘Germanistik’ in Sub-Saharan
African Universities – Extending Colonialism, Promoting Intercultural
Dialogue or Facilitating Authentic African Perspectives on the Former
Colonisers?"

Panel 12: Engaging with the Past in the Federal Republic II

Wolfgang STRUCK (Erfurt): "The Persistence of (Colonial) Fantasies"
Holger NEHRING (Sheffield): "Auschwitz, Hiroshima and West German
Anti-Colonialism: Protest Movements and National Identity (1958-1969)"
Katrina HAGEN (Seattle): "'Unburdened by Colonialism’? Contested
Histories of German Colonialism in the Era of Global Decolonisation"

11:30-12:00 Coffee/Tea

12:00-13:00 Closing Discussion: Future Perspectives on German
Colonialism (Chairs: Jürgen Zimmerer, Michael Perraudin)

Please check the conference webpage for updates and further information:
http://www.c19.group.shef.ac.uk/germancolonialisminformation.html
For specific enquiries, please write to the conference administrator,
Ben Schofield, at germancolonialism@shef.ac.uk.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Juergen Zimmerer
Department of History
University of Sheffield
387 Glossop Road
Sheffield
S10 2TN
UK

Homepage
<http://www.c19.group.shef.ac.uk/germancolonialisminformation.html>

URL zur Zitation dieses Beitrages
<http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/termine/id=5790>

Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH)
July 25, 2006

**********

The Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH) aims to promote constructive perspectives and dialogue about Muslim-Western relations.
*This service is available in Arabic, Bahasa Indonesia and French.
*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).
*For an archive of CGNews articles and other information, please visit our website at www.commongroundnews.org (http://www.commongroundnews.org/).

**********

ARTICLES IN THIS EDITION:

1. Hamas and Hezbollah: one strategy or two? by Gayle Meyers
Gayle Meyers, Director of the Middle East Regional Security Projects at Search for Common Ground, explores the distinction between Hezbollah and Hamas in the broader context of state support and appropriate foreign policy. She encourages governments to move away from "treating states and non-state actors interchangeably" toward approaching conflict in a more constructive way that encourages dialogue in place of violence, especially when non-state actors are involved.
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), July 25, 2006)

2. U.S. fights terror on humanitarian front by Carlos Conde
Carlos H. Conde explains how a humanitarian-cum-development approach by the United States to combating terrorism in the Philippines is proving far more effective than the usual military option. "We must address the root causes, the environment, that allow them to recruit and seek sanctuary," Linder said in an interview in Manila.
(Source: International Herald Tribune, July 5, 2006)

3. Not the enemy, but not a reliable neighbour either by Yossi Alpher
Yossi Alpher of Bitterlemons.org not only explains the Israeli take on the current Lebanon/Israel crisis while demonstrating a keen understanding of Lebanese politics’ complexity, but reaches beyond that to imagine a solution: “In recent years, Bashar Assad has asked Israel repeatedly to renew bilateral peace talks. The Pentagon has responded by asking Israel to rebuff Assad …….Now this option should be reconsidered.”
(Source: Americans for Peace Now, July 21, 2006)

4. ~YOUTH VIEWS~ America in the world: not so beautifulby Jennie Kim
Jennie Kim examines American foreign policy choices as the nation's popularity continues to plummet in the global arena. Recognising the "historic peculiarities of American foreign policy, which is characterised by a gap between narrow interests and lofty ideals", she puts forward public diplomacy as a tool for improving the world's perception of a nation that once enjoyed strong international support, particularly in the aftermath of September 11.
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), July 25, 2006)

5. Lebanese and Israelis exchange views onlineby Jean-Marc Manach
Le Monde journalist Jean-Marc Manach examines the often surprising exchanges that take place online between ordinary Lebanese and Israeli citizens. Canadian-Israeli blogger and journalist Lisa Goldman catches herself dreaming of a future of Lebanese and Israeli leaders who will benefit from such intimate relations, concluding that "it's not so easy to kill someone you know... as a human being, not simply as 'the former enemy'".
(Source: Le Monde, July 19, 2006)

**********

ARTICLE 1
Hamas and Hezbollah: one strategy or two?
Gayle Meyers

Jerusalem - Here in the Jerusalem office of Search for Common Ground, I work with Palestinians who have family in Gaza, and we have one staff member in Beirut. My Israeli relatives live in the south, within range of Qassam rockets fired from Gaza by Hamas, and in the north, within range of Katyusha rockets fired from Lebanon by Hezbollah.

The Re’ut Institute, an Israeli think-tank run by an advisor to former Prime Minister Ehud Barak, poses two questions about Israel’s decision to treat Hezbollah as a rogue organisation separate from the Lebanese government (even though it holds seats in parliament) while simultaneously going after Hamas by attacking Palestinian government buildings in addition to military targets.

The two questions are:

What is the organizing idea behind the differentiation between Hamas and Hezbollah? Does damage to the Palestinian political address serve Israel's strategic interests -- or, alternately, does the “protection” of the Lebanese government serve the battle against Hezbollah?

These are important questions for U.S. policy as well, both in the current crisis and in its approach to the “Global War on Terror”. And there is a related debate about what the policy should be toward states like Iran and Syria that use groups like Hezbollah and Hamas as proxies.

The Bush Doctrine makes no distinction between terrorist groups and the states that harbour them. This is logical in some cases, as in the decision to wipe out Al Qaeda’s sanctuary in Afghanistan, but it has also lead to confusion and the misplaced use of force, as in the decision to pursue Saddam Hussein in lieu of Osama Bin Laden.

I believe that treating states and non-state actors interchangeably represents wishful thinking. States are easier to confront, both politically and militarily. As signatories to treaties and members of international organisations, they are tied into the international system and can be reached by both carrots and sticks. As entities with territory and borders, well -- they don’t move. Someone wanting to bomb them can always find them. On the other hand, terrorist groups are elusive, with fewer assets, fewer channels for reward or punishment.

To answer Re’ut’s questions, there is a clear distinction between Hezbollah and Hamas at this time. Despite its close alliance with Syria and Iran, Hezbollah is acting as an independent militia, without the approval of the Lebanese government. Israel’s fight on its northern border is with Hezbollah. The strategy of “protecting” the Lebanese government is correct and should go even further. Broad strikes against the infrastructure of Lebanon, which have destroyed the country’s ports, airports, and roads, will only lead to the death of civilians and further embitter the conflict.

The issue of Hamas is much more complicated, not only because the organisation has now been elected to lead the Palestinian Authority (through the Palestinian Legislative Council, though rival Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas still holds the presidency), but also because it is just one facet of the problem of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and the festering Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I propose that anyone devising national security strategies for the US and its allies needs to develop new approaches for dealing with non-state actors that go beyond emotional responses to terrorism and sweeping linkages between states and other actors. Questions to answer include the following:

What tools are available, other than force, for influencing the behaviour of non-state actors?

Does force in fact work? Do concepts such as deterrence and coercion have merit?

Given that they cannot sign international treaties, how can non-state actors be held to their commitments (e.g. to ceasefires)? When should states be considered responsible for the actions of non-state actors?

I’m sure there are more questions. In the meantime, I suggest that non-state actors should be dealt with on their own terms—friend or foe. And in confronting them, strategies should be designed to avoid punishing the innocent and to limit escalation to state-to-state conflict.

###
* Gayle Meyers is Director of Regional Security Projects at Search for Common Ground- in the Middle East. She can be contacted at gmeyers@sfcg.org. 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), July 25, 2006
Visit the website at www.commongroundnews.org (http://www.commongroundnews.org/)
Distributed by the Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH).
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.

**********

ARTICLE 2
US fights terror on humanitarian front
Carlos H. Conde

Jolo, Philippines - Like most children on this predominantly Muslim island, Soraya Tampalan hardly receives proper health care from the government. Torn by conflict and neglect for years, this has not been a good place to grow up in for the 13-year-old girl.

It has been especially difficult for Soraya because she was born with a cleft lip, a deformity that forced her to drop out of school after the third grade because she could not take the teasing.

Poverty and strife -- mainly caused by a negligent government, the Muslim rebels who have been fighting for self-rule for decades and, lately, the terrorist group Abu Sayyaf -- have conspired to make this island one of the most depressed, violent and volatile areas in the Philippines. Residents like Soraya have been caught in the crossfire.

The United States was drawn to this island this year as it pursued its campaign against terrorism in Southeast Asia, providing support in logistics and intelligence to the Philippine military as it attempts to crush terrorists from the Abu Sayyaf and Jemaah Islamiyah groups who are responsible for some of the most violent terrorist attacks in the country.

Hundreds of U.S. military personnel are deployed on Jolo and on the nearby island of Basilan Province, a stronghold of Abu Sayyaf that, according to American officials, has become since 2002 a showcase of how to fight terrorism.

The strategy was simple: at the same time that the Philippine military, with U.S. help, goes after the terrorists, parallel efforts by both Filipinos and Americans - but mostly using U.S. resources - attempt to address the problems that allow the extremists to recruit from what Colonel Jim Linder, the commander of the U.S. forces on Jolo, called "a disenfranchised, disgruntled and dissatisfied population."

"We must address the root causes, the environment, that allow them to recruit and seek sanctuary," Linder said in an interview in Manila. The U.S. government, through its armed forces and agencies like the Agency for International Development and with the collaboration of the Philippine government, has built roads, bridges, school buildings and wells in many Muslim communities that, for decades, had been neglected by their leaders and by Manila.

According to officials, this humanitarian and development-oriented approach is proving to be even more effective than a purely military one. It has transformed Basilan, the Abu Sayyaf stronghold where U.S. forces first went after the attacks of Sept. 11, into a relatively safer island after the terrorists were eliminated one by one, either in combat or in manhunt operations supported by the U.S. State Department's Rewards for Justice programme, in which hundreds of thousands of dollars are offered for the capture of Abu Sayyaf and Jemaah Islamiyah leaders.

Today, the Americans are trying to duplicate on Jolo their success on Basilan and would like to do the same thing in Tawi-tawi, the most remote part of the Muslim southern Philippines.

There had been initial trepidation on the part of the United States, officials said, considering that Jolo shares a rather dark past with it. Jolo's warriors and sultans led the resistance to American colonisers in the late 1800s. Just a few kilometres from the town center is a mountain called Bud Dajo, the site of what Muslims here call the massacre by the US of hundreds of Muslims. The massacre's 100th anniversary was observed here in March, just as U.S. troops were setting up their camps on the island.

It is said that of all the Muslim areas in Mindanao, anti-American sentiment is strongest here. But many Muslims, like Soraya and her family, are just too overwhelmed by poverty to care about what happened more than a hundred years ago.

Soraya's family lives in a poor village in a remote part of this town. Her father died and her mother, a laundrywoman, could hardly make ends meet. Her grandmother took care of her most of the time.

For years, Soraya and her family tried to find the means to fix her lip, but being a peasant girl from an island where basic health care is practically nonexistent, she did not stand a chance.

Until the Mercy came along. The U.S. Navy's hospital ship, which visited Jolo last month, treated thousands of poor Filipinos, mostly Muslims, in three provinces during its visit.

One day early last month, Soraya finally got her wish. Doctors on the Mercy operated on her cleft lip for free. "We are very thankful. We never dreamed this would happen," said Fatima Tampalan, Soraya's grandmother, who accompanied her.

Filipino officials on Jolo are likewise grateful. "We are thankful not just for the assistance but for the friendship," said Fahra Tan-Omar, the administrator of the Sulu Provincial Hospital, which has received assistance from the United States. She said that because of American help, the hospital is better able to serve the people of Jolo.

These humanitarian and development programs are "a new paradigm," said Lieutenant Commander Franklin Sechriest of the navy, who led the group at the hospital.

"We have no ill intentions here," Sechriest said. "What we're doing is helping by stepping outside our traditional military role." Addressing the unmet needs of the local population, he said, "will contain the spread of terrorism."

To Michele Okamoto, a 51-year-old nurse from New York who volunteers for Project Hope, the private charitable and humanitarian project involved in the Mercy visit, this is the kind of initiative that would, in the long run, help defeat terrorism and prevent another Sept. 11, which she personally experienced as a nurse volunteering to help the victims of the World Trade Center attacks.

Sept. 11, she said in an interview on the Mercy, changed the way she looked at things. The attacks, the intolerance, the hatred, the poverty and disenfranchisement on Jolo - "I just think they're all connected," Okamoto said.

Her work on the Mercy, and the smile that would soon come from the lips of Soraya Tampalan, "are the small things that we could do to prevent Sept. 11 from happening again," she said.

###
* Carlos H. Conde serves as Secretary-General of the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, and writes from Manila for the International Herald Tribune and New York Times. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org (http://www.commongroundnews.org/).
Source: International Herald Tribune, July 5, 2006
Visit the International Herald Tribune at www.iht.com (http://www.iht.com/)
Distributed by the Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH).
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.

**********

ARTICLE 3
Not the enemy, but not a reliable neighbour either
Yossi Alpher

Tel Aviv - In mid-983, I joined six other academics from Tel Aviv University in a visit to Lebanon. We were the guests of Maronite Christian academics, for a seminar they organised on the future of Israeli-Lebanese relations. At the time, a year or so after Israel's invasion of Lebanon and siege of Beirut, the Maronite-Israeli alliance was on the verge of collapse. The Sabra and Shatila massacre, the murder of Bashir Gemayel and the unreliability of the Maronites as allies had all taken their toll. Israelis were fed up with the Lebanon adventure orchestrated by Ariel Sharon. The academic conference idea was a last-ditch Maronite attempt to shore up the foundations.

We landed by IAF helicopter at Junieh, north of Beirut, under blackout conditions. Our armed escorts from the Lebanese Forces reminded us of mafia gangs. The seminar, held in a beach hotel, featured lectures by both sides on the history of Lebanese-Israeli and even ancient Phoenician-Hebrew relations. But the dominant theme was the Maronites' glorification of Ariel Sharon and insistence that the IDF strike again at Syria and push it back from Lebanese soil.

None of the Israeli delegation had a word of praise for Sharon. The atmosphere was surrealistic, the tension audible despite the academic decorum. The clincher came when the Maronite professors, almost as one, turned to us and said, "if you don't get rid of the Syrians for us, we'll have to become their allies!"

That was, and is, Lebanon: torn by inter-communal conflict, unable to stand on its own feet, hating its neighbours but drawing them in cynically to fight its internal wars. In the 23 years that have elapsed since the Junieh meeting, Hezbollah was born and gained strength, aided and abetted by its Iranian co-religionists. It seeks to represent the 40 percent (or more, there are no censuses in Lebanon lest the results bring about total collapse) of Lebanese who are Shi'ites and are under-represented in its anachronistic confessional system. It effectively rules large swaths of the country. Its forces are the best armed and best trained, with Iran and Syria firmly behind them. It would win a civil war.

Israel's current strategy in Lebanon is intended to weaken Hezbollah to such an extent that the central government can, after nearly 40 years, finally exercise its authority in the South. Even assuming we succeed against Hezbollah, the history of those past decades, reflecting as it does Lebanon's built-in limitations as a viable state, suggests that the intended Lebanese government role will be problematic, if not impossible. Communal tensions will still dominate the government; Shi'ite units in the army might not serve the common cause. Hezbollah will rebuild, with Iranian help; both will cite a mandate to lead the downtrodden Shi'ites. The Syrians, then as now, will await the anguished calls of one or more of Lebanon's myriad of ethno-religious communities for help.

One way to bolster the Lebanese government's performance when and if the time comes, could be large-scale international intervention: not an international force on Israel's border but rather a multi-national effort, bordering on a condominium, to reinforce the courage and capacities of Lebanon's government and armed forces.

Another option is to try to neutralise Syria -- the weak link in the Iran-Iraqi Shi'ite-Syria-Hezbollah axis, but for Lebanon an overbearing and highly-manipulative neighbour. Israel has ruled out doing this militarily, since the resultant escalation could be extremely dangerous for all parties and the Middle East at large.

That leaves the diplomatic option. In recent years, Bashar Assad has asked Israel repeatedly to renew bilateral peace talks. The Pentagon has responded by asking Israel to rebuff Assad lest he break out of the isolation imposed on him due to his support for terrorists in Iraq, Israel and Lebanon. In Ariel Sharon's day that caution was welcomed, since Sharon had no intention of giving up the Golan.

Now this option should be reconsidered. Washington, which helped lay the foundations for Israel's current two-front war by encouraging armed Islamists like Hezbollah and Hamas to participate in premature democratic processes, might stand back. In a renewed Syrian-Israeli peace process, Israel would have to insist that in return for most of the Golan Heights it get not only peace with Syria but peace and quiet in Lebanon and an end to Damascus' support for Palestinian Islamist radicals.

A tall order, but perhaps now is the time to try.

###
*Yossi Alpher is co-editor of the bitterlemons family of internet publications. He is former director of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, and a former senior adviser to PM Ehud Barak. This article was distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org (http://www.commongroundnews.org/).
Source: Americans for Peace Now, July 21, 2006
Visit Americans for Peace Now at www.peacenow.org (http://www.peacenow.org/)
Distributed by the Common Ground News Service - Partners in Humanity.
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.

**********

ARTICLE 4
~YOUTH VIEWS~ America in the world: not so beautiful
Jennie Kim

Washington, D.C. - The world must seem like a cold place to Americans, as the question du jour, “Why do they hate us?” now invites another: “Which ‘they’ are you talking about?”

“They” no longer refers exclusively to terrorist groups. Indeed, American diplomacy has atrophied worldwide. Nowhere is this more painfully evident than in the Middle East, where for two weeks now Israel and Hezbollah have exchanged devastating blows, while Washington -- cut off from key regional powers in Tehran and Damascus -- did nothing to broker the peace. Tragically, Lebanon, one of America’s precious few Arab allies, will bear the brunt of two costs: the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict and America’s stunning diplomatic failure in the Middle East.

The Lebanon crisis will certainly not improve the dismal perception of America shared by Arab and Muslim publics, the key audiences of the Bush administration’s Iraq and War on Terror policies. According to the newly released June 2006 Pew Global Attitudes survey, only 30 percent of Egyptians and 15 percent of Jordanians have a favourable opinion of America, despite receiving billions of dollars in U.S. bilateral aid over the years. In 2000, a solid majority of Indonesians (75 percent) held positive views of America -- today, only 30 percent do. However, the most dramatic decline was in Turkey, where positive views of America have tumbled more than four-fold in six years (from 52 to 12 percent).

In fact, America’s image has fallen sharply worldwide in the years since 9/11. Today, 37 percent of Germans and 23 percent of Spaniards have a favourable opinion of the U.S. -- less than half the number from six years ago. During that time, America’s favourability also dropped more than one-third in France (from 62 to 39 percent). Even in Great Britain, its strongest ally, America draws a lukewarm reception, with 56 percent of the British public expressing positive views of the US, down from 83 percent in 2000.

Being an object of global disdain is a relatively new role for this country, which has generally followed Willy Loman’s philosophy in Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman, “Be liked and you will never want”, to manoeuvre its way around the world. Indeed, no other country has capitalised on the relationship between popularity and global success better than the United States, a nation whose stunning military and economic resources have, until recently, been matched by an enviable store of soft power -- the power of influence and persuasion that comes from being respected and liked.

Some may dismiss soft power as irrelevant, arguing that America is mighty enough to pursue its interests without regard to international opinion. But hard power has its limits. Like globalisation, the worldwide spread of democracy is double-edged. Anti-American sentiment among foreign audiences can constrain would-be allies and have serious policy implications: consider Turkey’s decision to prevent American troops from crossing its borders to fight in Iraq, or the repercussions of the Spanish elections after the Madrid subway bombing, which resulted in Spain withdrawing its troops from Iraq.

What can soft power do to reverse this trend? While we may never get the world to agree with our decision to invade Iraq, or our stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict, public diplomacy -- the act of understanding, engaging and influencing foreign public opinion -- can go a long way to dampen what Edward Djerijan, a former diplomat and expert on public diplomacy, calls “the dangerously reinforcing cycle of animosity”. Furthermore, he recommends, the tools of public diplomacy must be used in the early stages of policymaking to avoid producing negative reactions that could undermine American interests.

To that end, Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes has taken several steps forward since she became the nation’s public diplomacy tzarina last fall. After a rocky start -- Beirut’s Daily Star derided her first Middle East listening tour as “not charming, but definitely offensive” -- Hughes has successfully pushed for much-needed reforms to raise public diplomacy’s profile and budget (albeit to a scant $1.14 billion).

Public diplomacy is a generational endeavour and, after many years of idling, it will need a great deal more time, talent and funding to succeed. Of course, there will always be a limit to how much public diplomacy can do: bad policies, like bad products, won’t sell. Nor can public diplomacy dismantle the historic peculiarities of American foreign policy, which is characterised by a gap between narrow interests and lofty ideals, creating a dissonance that an arrogant, at times messianic, sense of purpose feigns to obscure.

From Woodrow Wilson’s solemn justification (“God helping her, she can do no other”) for sending America to intervene in the First World War, to Bush’s bold claim that “freedom is…the almighty God’s gift to every man and woman in this world,” American presidents have shown themselves willing to risk extraordinary over-reach, so long as they’re erring on the side of the divine. Under the shade of this theory, international opprobrium is a burden secondary to moral duty -- a consoling thought. But if America alone could not “make the world safe for democracy” in the last century, how do we expect to make democracy safe for the world in this one?

###
* Jennie Kim (jenniek@gwu.edu) is a graduate student at the George Washington University’s School of Media and Public Affairs. She received her degree, in History, from Stanford University in 2005. 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), July 25, 2006)
Visit the website at www.commongroundnews.org (http://www.commongroundnews.org/)
Distributed by the Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH).
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.

**********

ARTICLE 5
Lebanese and Israelis exchange views online
Jean-Marc Manach

Paris – In 2003, Salam Pax (http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/), the pseudonym of an Iraqi blogger, enabled millions of Internet users to follow the advance of American troops in real-time from Baghdad. The “blogosphere” was then bristling with controversies: was the United States right to go to war, and was this an invasion or a liberation? And attention focused on the Iraqi blogger not only because he wrote in English—and with some talent—but also because there were practically no other Iraqi bloggers around.

The difference with the war in Lebanon is that there is a legion of Salam Pax’s, both on the Lebanese and the Israeli sides. They are indeed so numerous that websites have been set up to take an inventory of them, to syndicate their postings and finally to facilitate consulting them: Jblogosphere (http://www.jblogsphere.net/special/) and Webster (http://english.webster.co.il/) on the Israeli side; OpenLebanon (http://openlebanon.com/) and Lebanese Blogger Forum (http://lebanonheartblogs.blogspot.com/) on the Lebanese side; while The Truth Laid Bear (http://truthlaidbear.com/mideastcrisis.php) has, for its part, made an inventory of bloggers on both sides of the border, as well as of Palestinian bloggers.

These sites feature international calendars of pro-Israeli and pro-Lebanese protests, practical information (emergency phone numbers, contact information for the Red Cross or blood banks), and photos and propaganda videos which, because they can be shocking, have not been published by Western media.

Like their fellow citizens, a majority of Israelis support the Tsahal (Israel Defence Forces) and are especially concerned by Hezbollah’s missiles. Others condemn the biased perception of the international community. IsraPundit (http://israpundit.com/2006/?p=1878) thus likens CNN to a mouthpiece of Hezbollah. On the Lebanese side, incomprehension and anger take precedence in the face of the violence of Israeli bombings and the number of civilians killed (BloggingBeirut (http://bloggingbeirut.com/)), alongside the impression that it is the country itself, more than Hezbollah alone, that Tsahal wishes to destroy (Stop Destroying Lebanon (http://stopdestroyinglebanon.com/)).

But what is most outstanding is that beyond ideological diatribes and reflex reactions, snippets of a true dialogue are beginning to appear between Israeli and Lebanese Internet users. Ignoring their political differences, they benefit from the human, not to say intimate, aspect of blogs to engage in a conversation that conventional media cannot enable.

“With the web, the war becomes personal”

Ramzi, 27, lives in Beirut. The first post published on his blog (http://ramziblahblah.blogspot.com/), launched just two years ago, attested to the challenge of living in a country so invaded by tourists that it becomes difficult to find a seat at the terrace of a café. In early July, he mentioned the fact that, while waiting for a visa, he kept cancelling his plane ticket and saying “goodbye” to his friends. Today, he comments on the “Israeli aggression” through, namely, advertisements full of humour and poetry. Several Israelis have written to him in the form of comments to condemn the “waste” of this war, express their compassion, wish for a quick resolution to the conflict and call for peace between “neighbours”. Ramzi summarises this in a single line: “With the web, the war becomes personal” - thanks to blogs, amateur videos posted on the Internet and to the comments posted by Internet users.

For Lisa Goldman, a Canadian-Israeli journalist and blogger (http://ontheface.blogware.com/blog) who lives in Tel Aviv, this was the “first time that residents of ‘enemy’ countries engaged in an ongoing conversation while missiles were falling”. And the examples abound. Thus, the first person to react on her posting dedicated to an anti-war protest last Sunday was a Lebanese woman who condemns the state of siege, the destruction of her country and the death of civilians but adds that “with people like you, the dialogue will continue; we have no choice”.

Beyond generating this type of civilised dialogue between citizens of warring nations, the Internet also creates otherwise more unsettling situations where the military, and those who support it, are kept informed of the consequences of their actions by the very people they are bombing. Last Monday, Shachar, a Tsahal soldier usually stationed at the Lebanese border, was on leave to attend a funeral. He took advantage of this by consulting a collaborative and very popular blog, Lebanese Bloggers (http://lebanesebloggers.blogspot.com/), in order to stay informed of what is happening on the other side of the border: “We can’t see all the bombing in Lebanon from Israel (naturally, we’re focusing on bombs in Israel)”.

When hate fades away…

For several nights now, Lisa Goldman has found herself “chatting” live with a Lebanese man she met through his blog. Sitting on the roof of his apartment building in Beirut, he describes his impressions to her while Israeli missiles fall on the city “in a human, personal way that no newspaper article or television news segment can convey”.

More generally speaking, what comes out of these conversations—through blogs or interspersed commentaries between Israelis and Lebanese—is a feeling of powerlessness and sadness regarding this conflict over the civilian losses it has caused, and over the policymakers of their respective countries and their international allies who have subjected them to this fait accompli. Hope is also present in these conversations, for while many Lebanese bloggers today feel hate toward Israel and will now refuse any contact with Israelis, most of those who communicate online do not consider themselves as “enemies” but as “neighbours”.

Lisa Goldman goes even further: “When the anger dissipates, perhaps they will remember the personal connections with their ‘enemies’”. Catching herself dreaming that the next generation of Lebanese and Israeli politicians and business leaders will benefit from such intimate relations, she concludes that “it’s not so easy to kill someone you know… as a human being, not simply as ‘the former enemy’”.

###
* Jean-Marc Manach is a journalist for Le Monde. He also maintains a blog, rewriting.net (http://rewriting.net/), a distribution list on the information war, guerrelec (http://groups-beta.google.com/group/guerrelec), and a research interface of 200 search engines and databases, manhack.net (http://manhack.net/). This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org (http://www.commongroundnews.org/).
Source: ãLe Monde, July 19, 2006
Visit Le Monde at www.lemonde.fr (http://www.lemonde.fr/)
Distributed by the Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH).
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.

**********

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 balanced and solution-oriented 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.

~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 cbinkley@sfcg.org for more information on contributing.
*The views expressed in these articles are those of the authors, not of CGNews-PiH 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: http://www.commongroundnews.org

Editors

Emad Khalil (Amman)
Juliette Schmidt (Beirut)
Chris Binkley (Dakar)
Medhy Hidayat (Jakarta)
Elyte Baykun (Washington)
Leena El-Ali (Washington)
Emmanuelle Hazan (Washington)

**********

To subscribe or unsubscribe, send an email to cgnewspih@sfcg.org with “subscribe” or “unsubscribe” in the subject line, indicating your language of choice among English, French, Arabic and Bahasa Indonesia.

Angola - Kenia - Kongo - Nigeria - Uganda - Brasilien - Mexiko - China -
Russland - USA

KORRUPTION - Die KUNST DES STEHLENS lautet das Schwerpunktthema im neuen "überblick" (www.der-ueberblick.de).

Korruption behindert die Entwicklung. Kein Land ist frei davon.
Selbst kirchliche Hilfsorganisationen kämpfen mit diesem Problem.

Weitere Themen wie "Argentinien: Mit Tango aus der Wirtschaftskrise",
Pfingstkirchen oder Friedensperspektiven im Kongo und im Sudan und mehr finden Sie in der neuen Ausgabe von "der überblick" (Euro 6,00 + Versandkosten).

www.der-ueberblick.de (herausgegeben i.A. vom Evangelischen Entwicklungsdienst und von Brot für die Welt).

Vergangene Schwerpunkte:
Zentralasien, Chinas Griff nach Afrika, Mediziner für den Norden, AIDS und
Gesellschaft,
Pfingstkirchen, Entwicklungspolitik, Fisch und Welternährung, Afrika,
Umgang mit Tod und Trauer, Bildung, Migration, Tansania, Sklaverei heute,
Energie,
NGOs, Exil, Vorsorge, Grenzen, Mexiko, Aids, Gefängnisse, Maghreb.

Mit freundlicher Empfehlung
die Redaktion

Call for Applications: 2006 Youth Advocacy Team for a Culture of Peace

Organised by the United Network of Young Peacebuilders and Fundación Cultura de Paz

The United Network of Young Peacebuilders and Fundación Cultura de Paz welcome applications to join this year’s New York Youth Advocacy Team for a Culture of Peace.

The Youth Advocacy Team consists of three teams, advocating for a Culture of Peace. These includes

o The Hague Team that will advocate for the Culture of Peace at embassies in The Hague from Mid-August on an ongoing basis
o The Brussels Team that will advocate for the Culture of Peace to the European Union in Brussels between on an ongoing basis
o The New York Team that will advocate for the Culture of Peace to the United Nations in New York between October 8 and 20

Although this call is for the New York Team, for those who live in Brussels and The Hague, there are still places for those interested in joining these Teams.

Aims of the 2006 Youth Advocacy Team:

There are two goals that this year’s advocacy team will be working towards:

o Continuing and building upon the work of last year, in which countries will be requested to support and commit to the International Decade for Peace and Nonviolence; as well as introducing a monitoring system of the implementation efforts of the countries who have committed themselves to the Culture of Peace, with a special emphasis on National Youth Policies.

o Possibly introducing and getting the support of countries for a United Nations Youth Fund for a Culture of Peace that will assist Civil Society groups in their activities related to the Culture of Peace.

Who we are looking for:

A team of ten youths aged between 18 and 25, who have been actively engaged in Promoting a Culture of Peace.

The criteria for selection of the team are:

- Actively involved in promoting the Culture of Peace (the addition of have organized activities for the September 21st International Day of Peace will be regarded favorably)
- Strong motivation and willingness to engage in follow up activities.
- Ability to communicate well in English (additional languages will be an asset)

Gender balance and geographical diversity will also be taken into consideration when selecting the team.

How to Apply:

Please ask for the application form from (and complete it by August 15th and send to) the following email addresses: advocacy@unoy.org , decadaculturadepaz@yahoo.com.ar and mail@decade-culture-of-peace.org, with “YAT Application” in the subject line.

The application procedure will follow the below timeline:

15th August – Application due
– Selections are finalized. Those selected will be notified, as well as those who are on the waiting list
– Participation is confirmed by applicant, and commitment is made to the team
- The participation status of those on the waiting list will be confirmed
– Participation of those on the waiting list confirmed, and commitment is made to the team

NB Confirmation of participation means that you confirm the availability of funds to support your participation (including airfare and costs of living in New York for two weeks), and the possession of a visa valid until the end of October.

We realize that the requirement for a valid visa and the availability of funds is far from an ideal situation, however we under financial and time constraints, and therefore cannot cover the costs of participating. There is however, a chance that we may raise the funds, therefore we still encourage those who cannot cover their entire costs to apply, and depending on our financial situation at the time of selections, we shall either consider the application or put you on the waiting list. For those put on the waiting list, you will be informed as soon as the availability of funding can be confirmed, which can be anything up to last minute. It is therefore very advisable that you maintain alternative plans for October in case our fundraising is not successful, and that you try fundraise for yourself to cover your costs. We would be happy to provide advice on how to fundraise and sources of funding.

New Book:

Making Social Worlds: A Communication Perspective
by
Barnett Pearce.

This book will be published in Danish in January 2007 by Danish Psychological Press and in English sometime later in the year by Blackwell Publishers.

Dear Friends,

Please find further down an invitation letter to the July 25th, 2006 Gender
Forum scheduled for 4-6p.m. at the Nairobi Safari Club (Lilian Towers).

Our thematic areas of discussion for the day shall be on the key issues of
Women in Leadership, Domestic Violence and the Status of the Girl Child,
with presentations from; Deborah Okumu ­ In a collaborative effort of the
League of Kenya Women Voters, Education Centre for Women in Democracy and the Kenya Women Political Caucus, Jane Onyango - The Federation of Women Lawyers ­ Kenya Chapter and Millie Odhiambo ­ The Cradle Children’s
Foundation.

We look forward to your participation.

Regards,

Catherine Magua
catherine @ hbfha.com
For Wanjiku Wakogi
Regional Gender Programme Coordinator
Heinrich Boll Foundation

Dear Friends,
GENDER FORUM ON THE NAIROBI +21 INITIATIVE
TUESDAY 25TH JULY 2006 AT THE NAIROBI SAFARI CLUB, 4 – 6PM

Greetings from the Heinrich Böll Foundation.

We wish to take this opportunity to sincerely thank those of you who took part in the last forum in the continuing series of gender fora under the Nairobi +21 process. For those who were not able to make it for one reason or another, we believe that you will be able to participate in this next Forum.

We, in continued collaboration with the National Commission on Gender and Development, UNIFEM, Ford Foundation, FEMNET, AWC, CIDA – GESP and the Urgent Action Fund – Africa towards the Nairobi +21 Initiative, wish to invite you to a gender forum on Tuesday, 25th July 2006 at the Nairobi Safari Club (Lilian Towers) from 4pm to 6pm.

Our thematic areas of discussion for the day shall be on the key issues of Women in Leadership, Domestic Violence and the Status of the Girl Child, with presentations from:

i. Deborah Okumu – In a collaborative effort of the League of Kenya Women Voters, Education Centre for Women in Democracy and the Kenya Women Political Caucus
ii. Jane Onyango - The Federation of Women Lawyers – Kenya Chapter
iii. Millie Odhiambo – The Cradle Children’s Foundation

The Minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs, Hon. Martha Karua is scheduled to address the gathering.

We expect that the day’s forum will be enriching for all members and participants alike. We strongly urge you to attend, bring a friend, and contribute to the debate.

Thank you.

Wanjiku Wakogi
catherine @ hbfha.com
Regional Gender Programme Coordinator
Heinrich Boll Foundation

Beyond Victimhood: Women's Peacebuilding In Sudan, Congo and Uganda
By
International Crisis Group, (ICG) (2006).

"This report addresses the importance of ensuring the inclusion of women in peacebuilding in Sudan, Congo (DRC), and Uganda. The report points out that one of the main hindrances to women's inclusion is the discrimination and violence that women face in armed conflict.

AfricAvenir News are kindly sent out by Eric Van Grasdorff:

Liebe Freunde,

hiermit möchten wir Sie ganz herzlich zum nächsten Film unserer Reihe "African Perspectives" am kommenden Sonntag (30.07.) in das Berliner Filmtheater Hackesche Höfe einladen. Wir möchten Ihnen diesmal Tim Greenes "Boy Called Twist" vorführen.

Boy Called Twist
Regie: Tim Greene
Südafrika, 115 min, OV Englisch

Am: Sonntag, den 30. Juli 2006
Beginn: 17.15 Uhr
Ort: Filmtheater Hackesche Höfe (Rosenthaler Str. 40/41; 10178 Berlin)
Vorbestellung: 030/283 46 03 (Mo-Sa ab 14.30 Uhr/So ab 10.30 Uhr)
Eintritt: 5 Euro

Kurzinhalt
Tim Greenes werktreue Adaption von „Oliver Twist“, Charles Dickens’ Roman über Kinderarbeit im England des 19. Jahrhunderts, führt ins heutige Südafrika und erzählt vom Twist, einem Jungen, der auf der Straße lebt. An der Westküste geboren, wächst er in einem Waisenhaus auf und muss auf Farmen und bei einem Bestatter arbeiten. Schließlich nimmt Twist sein Schicksal selbst in die Hand und schlägt sich nach Kapstadt durch. Hier fällt er dem Rastafari Fagin in die Hände, der Kinder zu Taschendieben ausbildet und abkassiert. Doch dann befreundet sich Twist mit dem alten Ebrahim, ohne zu wissen, dass er in ihm seinen Großvater gefunden hat. Das berührende Porträt eines Kindes, dem das Leben mit brutaler Gleichgültigkeit begegnet und das doch bedingungslose Liebe findet. (mehr Infos zum Film unter http://www.twistmovie.co.za)

Regisseur
‚Boy Called Twist’ ist Tim Greenes erster Spielfilm, den er mit Hilfe von 1000 Leuten, die er dazu bewegen konnte jeweils 1000 Rand für die Finanzierung des Films zu investieren, drehte. Sein erster Kurzfilm, mit dem ihm der Durchbruch gelang war ‚Corner Caffie’ (1995), der auch auf verschiedensten internationalen Festivals lief. Außer einem weiteren preisgekrönten Kurzfilm, ‚Kap ‘an, Driver’ (1998) drehte er verschiedenste Musikvideos und Werbespots.

Auszeichnungen/Preise
- Winner Best Feature, Apollo Film Festival 2005
- Official Selection Cannes 2005

Pressestimmen (Auszug)
“South African spin on the Dickens classic Oliver Twist ...effortlessly translates the orphan horror story ...without artifice or coyness ...retains the vitality of the Victorian adventure admirably, Jarrid Geduld wonderfully engaging in the title role.” – Variety
"...a pleasing cacophony of visual imagery ...carries as much weight as Dickens had intended in his novel." - Mary Corrigall, Sunday Independent
"... a powerful and impressive film... beautifully filmed, vigorously acted ...an impressive feat." - Barry Ronge, Sunday Times

African Perspectives ist eine monatlich stattfindende Filmreihe, in deren Rahmen aktuelle afrikanische Filme präsentiert werden. Mehr über diese Reihe erfahren Sie unter:
http://www.africavenir.com/africavenir/berlin/film/film-presentations.php

In Kooperation mit dem Filmtheater Hackesche Höfe und mit freundlicher Unterstützung von South African Airways.

Medienpartner: Radio Multikulti

Ständig aktuelle Informationen auf:
http://www.africavenir.org
http://www.inisa.de

www.AfricAvenir.org
Wollen Sie Fördermitglied von AfricAvenir International e.V. werden?
Kontaktieren Sie Ann Kathrin Helfrich, Fon: 030-80906789, a.helfrich@africavenir.org

Redaktion des Newsletters: Eric Van Grasdorff, e.vangrasdorff@africavenir.org
AfricAvenir International e.V. ist nicht für die Inhalte externer Webseiten verantwortlich.

Dear Friends!

On 19/07/2006, Sarah Sayeed kindly wrote to us:

Hi Evelin,
I thought of you when I read the attached, which was written by a colleague who is also on the board of Muslim Consultative Network with me. Would love to know what you think of it.
...
Love,
Sarah

Zidane and the Zananah; How Small Becomes Big
© Adem Carroll

We fear the external threat. News keeps us all on edge. But are we the threat? Non-Muslims think we are, and fear us with each new “terror plot” that is reported in the tabloids and scare-media. Now, even some Muslims are having doubts! In Iraq, Sunnis and Shia fellow citizens drag each other out of cars, check ID cards, slaughter and destroy. Painful as it is, we should not turn away and ignore the external threat of our own violence.

But here at home, we have other external threats; last week, the FBI raided a mosque in Pittsburgh. Someone shot a bullet through all 10 windows of an Indiana mosque. And someone threw a pig’s head into a mosque in Maine.

But what head was Zinedine Zidane wearing when he head-butted Italian player Marco Matterazzi, in the last minutes of the World Cup? Probably setting up France for its loss, minutes later? O son of Algerian immigrants to France, our role model and now our Red Card shame!

“Zidane, Zidane! Zizou, Zizou, Zizou!” called the crowd for over 20 years. How tragic this small aggressive act! And now silence-- of defeat and we hope repentance! May this silence heal his heart.

The external threat is not only the weapons of mass destruction. The external threat is in the weapons of mass distraction. And a talented player may lose himself in the shouts of an adoring crowd, feeling the emotional heat and the pressure of the millions. How to be free of this? Some commentators seek to pass blame, asserting that the Italian player must have made a racial remark against Zidane’s honor. We don’t know. But there is hope beyond honor if we remember God.

Zananah zananah zananah in the sky; the residents know it is the Israeli Drone. It is not televising barefoot soccer matches in the Palestinian dust. This entity, called Zananah because of the sound it makes, has escaped from its Israeli bottle unlike the hundreds of detainees held in Israeli jails. It is a tool of invasion, occupation and control. The Zananah buzzes around the edges of life; and then, finally, comes the missile strike, and death.

However, this external threat is matched by an internal threat. This is the stupid and impractical commitment of the local militants to sending rockets over to Israel. This is infantile-- but dangerous enough to lend legitimacy to Israeli actions. These rockets will win no war.

Small actions-- little rockets and head-butting— come from frustration. The eyes of the world (and the zananah) are watching and small becomes big, sometimes beyond all proportion. Internal threats become external. And if we don’t do something they will be eternal.

In the heat, we become hot-headed. Even off the field of battle, social dynamics can provoke us. Some wives play on husband’s nerves like world-class musicians; some men regularly intimidate other men; and other social groups maintain the strange energy of unresolved sexual tension. It is hard not to react. I just came from a meeting in which I was very reactive, again and again; I felt manipulated, disrespected, and confused. I lost trust. So yes I understand the impulse to butt heads! Alas!

How can we be more conscious and intentional at these difficult moments? It is easy to take revenge for all the annoyances of the world. It easy enough to “blow up.” It is also easier to get a Red Card than a Green Card. You don’t need to be a missile-carrying Israeli drone to see, not just what “they” have done to “us”, but the mess “we” humans have made. But that all-seeing human eye makes many mistakes.

Will the collective punishment of the 1.4 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip result in peace? Have the restrictions and humiliations on the Palestinian people for decades brought us closer to justice? Surely Israel puts far too much faith in force. Even leading Jews have spoken out. As Rabbi Michael Lerner has written: “..human rights violations in Guantanamo and Iraq are unacceptable, so we need to communicate to the Israeli people that the mass punishment of a million people for the acts of a few is as unacceptable.”

Have you called the Israeli embassy, their allies in the media, and in the US Congress? Just call them on your cell phone! Just be conscious and not reactive. If we Muslims learn to be more conscious we may be better able to advocate effectively.

A just action grows from a peaceful heart. Hope may grow beyond honor, and peace beyond the collective honor of nationalism. The seed of peace may grow from the soil of soul into a beautiful and conscious Ummah. Is it still possible? In this night air, do we sense the fragrance of future gardens of Islam? Or only feel the desert winds of our own bitter human will, blowing, blowing nowhere forever?

On 23/07/2006, Ralph Summy kindly writes to us:

Dear Evelin,

Just reporting in to let you know that interest is high on our Social Alternatives issue. Local sales are better than usual and nine have thus far come in from your email launch. It would be nice to see some lecturers set it on their reading lists and purchase copies for their libraries.
...
I'm very impressed with your book, and hope its reception has been equally as impressive.

Agape,
Ralph

Ralph Summy
Adjunct Professor
Australian Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies
The University of Queensland
Queensland, Australia 4072

Please see for more details http://www.humiliationstudies.org/publications/bertspecialissue.php

Please obtain a copy by making a cheque to Social Alternatives for $20 ($10 for the journal and the extra $10 to cover postage) and sending it to Ralph Summy, Co-Editor Social Alternatives, Adjunct Professor, Australian Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies, University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia 4072.

Dear friends!

Please see further down a link to Hearts and Minds, a pamphlet written by Scilla Elworthy and Gabrielle Rifkind.

Please note chapter 3: Understanding terrorism: humiliation and revenge.

Most warmly!
Evelin

Hearts and Minds Human Security Approaches to Political Violence
- Simply attempting to hit back at terrorism provides only short-term solutions and is woefully inadequate

by
Scilla Elworthy
Gabrielle Rifkind

Contents

A note from the authors 7
Acknowledgements 9
1. Introduction 11
2. The links between trauma and fundamentalism 14
3. Understanding terrorism: humiliation and revenge 24
4. The growth of suicide bombing 28
5. Why do peace processes collapse? 33
6. Is non-violence an option? 40
7. A programme for change 44
8. Conclusion 61
Epilogue: after the London bombings 64
Notes 67

Call for Applications for the 2006 Youth Advocacy Team for a Culture of Peace

Organised by the United Network of Young Peacebuilders and Fundación Cultura de Paz

The United Network of Young Peacebuilders and Fundación Cultura de Paz welcome applications to join this year?s New York Youth Advocacy Team for a Culture of Peace.

The Youth Advocacy Team consists of three teams, advocating for a Culture of
Peace. These includes:

o The Hague Team that will advocate for the Culture of Peace at embassies in The Hague from Mid-August on an ongoing basis
o The Brussels Team that will advocate for the Culture of Peace to the European Union in Brussels between on an ongoing basis
o The New York Team that will advocate for the Culture of Peace to the United
Nations in New York between October 8 and 20

Although this call is for the New York Team, for those who live in Brussels and
The Hague, there are still places for those interested in joining these Teams.

AIMS OF THE 2006 YOUTH ADVOCACY TEAM:

There are two goals that this year?s advocacy team will be working towards:

o Continuing and building upon the work of last year, in which countries will be
requested to support and commit to the International Decade for Peace and
Nonviolence; as well as introducing a monitoring system of the implementation
efforts of the countries who have committed themselves to the Culture of Peace, with a special emphasis on National Youth Policies.

o Possibly introducing and getting the support of countries for a United Nations
Youth Fund for a Culture of Peace that will assist Civil Society groups in their
activities related to the Culture of Peace.

WHO WE ARE LOOKING FOR:

A team of ten youths aged between 18 and 25, who have been actively engaged in Promoting a Culture of Peace.

The criteria for selection of the team are:

o Actively involved in promoting the Culture of Peace (the addition of have organized activities for the September 21st International Day of Peace will be
regarded favorably)
o Strong motivation and willingness to engage in follow up activities.
o Ability to communicate well in English (additional languages will be an asset)

Gender balance and geographical diversity will also be taken into consideration
when selecting the team.

HOW TO APPLY:

Please complete the following application form by July 31st and send to both the
following email addresses: advocacy@unoy.org and mail@decade-culture-of-peace.org, with ?YAT Application? in the subject line.

The application procedure will follow the below timeline:

31 July - Application due
4 Aug - Selections are finalized. Those selected will be notified, as well
as those who are on the waiting list
11 Aug - Participation is confirmed by applicant, and commitment is made to
the team
- The participation status of those on the waiting list will be confirmed
17 Aug - Participation of those on the waiting list confirmed, and commitment
is made to the team

NB Confirmation of participation means that you confirm the availability of
funds to support your participation (including airfare and costs of living in
New York for two weeks), and the possession of a visa valid until the end of
October.

We realize that the requirement for a valid visa and the availability of funds
is far from an ideal situation, however we under financial and time
constraints, and therefore cannot cover the costs of participating. There is
however, a chance that we may raise the funds, therefore we still encourage
those who cannot cover their entire costs to apply, and depending on our
financial situation at the time of selections, we shall either consider the
application or put you on the waiting list. For those put on the waiting list,
you will be informed as soon as the availability of funding can be confirmed,
which can be anything up to last minute. It is therefore very advisable that
you maintain alternative plans for October in case our fundraising is not
successful, and that you try fundraise for yourself to cover your costs. We
would be happy to provide advice on how to fundraise and sources of funding.

-------------------
Youth Advocacy Team
UNOY Peacebuilders
Javastraat 58,
2585 AR, The Hague,
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 703647799
Fax: +31 703622633
advocacy@unoy.org
www.unoy.org
-------------------

Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH)
SPECIAL EDITION: ESCALATION IN THE MIDDLE EAST
July 18, 2006

**********

The Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH) aims to promote constructive perspectives and dialogue about Muslim-Western relations.
*This service is also available in Arabic, Bahasa Indonesia and French.
*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).
*For an archive of CGNews articles and other information, please visit our website at www.commongroundnews.org (http://www.commongroundnews.org/).

**********

ARTICLES IN THIS EDITION:

1. The real cost of Israel's strategy in Lebanon by Nadim Matta
Nadim Matta, a US citizen of Lebanese origin, sheds light on the indignation and frustration that ordinary Lebanese citizens feel as Israeli bombardment of their country continues. Through the use of analogies tailored to recent American experience with both the civil rights movement and September 11, Matta makes the case for immediate US intervention - before the cause of peace is set back by decades.
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), July 18, 2006)

2. How to see the common ground while bombs are landing around you by Juliette Schmidt
Juliette Schmidt, Assistant Director of the Partners in Humanity programme at Search for Common Ground, examines the recent conflict between Lebanon and Israel from the perspective of a Canadian living in Beirut. "Empathizing with our neighbours to the south is not so popular up here, but it seems that we have a few things in common at the moment." She proceeds to lay out several steps that need to be taken not only by the international community, but by Lebanese and Israelis themselves, in order to turn the situation around.
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), July 18, 2006)

3. Time for America to put its diplomatic muscle where its mouth is – Editorial (Daily Star)
The Daily Star comments on the devastating blow of the ongoing Israeli onslaught to Lebanon’s struggle to rebuild itself following its civil war, and its democratic progress since Syria finally withdrew its troops last year: “…we trusted Bush when he promised that he would do everything to protect and advance our aspirations…Yet even now, …we are still clinging to the same values and ideals that the Bush administration has promoted: we want life, liberty and happiness; we want democracy, sovereignty, freedom and independence.” Lebanon’s “fledgling independence is under fire,” and the US has an obligation to "be faithful to the values that they have championed and protect [Lebanon] from further harm."
(Source: The Daily Star, July 15, 2006)

4. Israel can win all the wars, but that doesn't settle anything by Gwynne Dyer
Gwynne Dyer places Israel’s use of military force in Lebanon and Gaza under the microscope and acknowledges that while both Israel and Hizbollah are capable of exerting tremendous force, the damage done will not produce either parties’ intended outcome.
(Source: Arab News, July 16, 2006)

5. US must act to stop Mideast escalation by James Zogby
James Zogby, founder and president of the Arab American Institute (AAI), recognises the problem of placing blame on multiple parties as events unfold alarmingly in the Middle East. “Pointing fingers in every direction may be a valid exercise, but it accomplishes little. There is clearly enough blame to go around, with reckless provocations abounding.” He also confronts the current stance that the US has taken on the developing crisis, and offers advice for the next course of action.
(Source: The Jordan Times, July 18, 2006)

**********

ARTICLE 1
The real cost of Israel's strategy in Lebanon
Nadim Matta

Stamford, Connecticut - When Hizbollah embarked on its provocative incursion into Israel, most Lebanese (apart from ardent Shiite radicals) saw this incident for what it was: a reckless act aimed at advancing the interests of the Iranian and Syrian regimes, at great risk to both Lebanon and its people.

But the mood in Lebanon has drastically changed over the past few days. Very few now blame Hizbollah, or actively agree with calls for its disarmament (even though the majority of the population supported this goal prior to the recent events). And virtually no one would be pleased if the two Israeli soldiers were surrendered under the threat of Israel’s continuation of its systematic destruction of Lebanon’s infrastructure.

Understanding this radical transformation in mind-set can shed some light on the unintended – yet tragically predictable – consequences of U.S. policy in the Middle East.

What has happened in the span of a few days?

In the aftermath of Hizbollah’s attacking and kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers across the border, Israel implemented a “shock and awe” strategy that blasted away every piece of infrastructure that the Lebanese painstakingly built over the past fifteen years. As the long-in-place agreement to restrict activities in Southern Lebanon and Northern Israel to military targets gave way to open warfare, Hizbollah also unleashed its deadly barrages of Katyusha rockets over northern Israel.

In a few infernal days, Israeli planes and warships managed to destroy the fruits of fifteen years of labour of ordinary Lebanese citizens determined to restore the country to a semblance of its pre-war level of development. Significantly, only three Hizbollah fighters were killed in the Israeli raids, while more than two hundred Lebanese civilians, including whole families, perished. It is equally sad that Israeli civilians, however fewer in number these may be, were killed and wounded by Hizbollah rockets.

In what can only be viewed as an insult to the intelligence of informed citizens everywhere, President Bush argued simply that Israel “has the right to defend itself”. Luckily for Mr. Bush, Israel was able to articulate a more plausible explanation for its strategy: it was ensuring that Hizbollah will not smuggle the Israeli soldiers out of Lebanon, and it was cutting off Hizbollah’s arms supply routes.

In reality, this explanation is not borne out by the facts on the ground. For example, Israeli jets bombed the highest bridge in the Middle East – a few miles from my hometown on the main road between Beirut and Damascus – disabling it and rendering it unusable for months to come. Curiously, the Israelis were not satisfied by disabling the bridge. They came back the next day and completely demolished the remainder of the structure – as if to simply add tens of million of dollars to the eventual cost of repair. Israel also bombed power generating plants, cellular telephone towers, gas stations, foodstock warehouses and purely commercial targets. I am not a military expert, but none of these seem like relevant targets if the aim is to block Hizbollah from transporting the Israeli soldiers out of the country or to prevent it from receiving arms from Syria and Iran.

The more plausible rationale for the “shock and awe” operation is to make the situation so painful for Lebanese civilians that they “take responsibility” for the actions of one of their own, the Hizbollah militia. The argument goes as follows: if the cost is made high enough, citizens will pressure their government into doing what it has been struggling to do for months: disarming Hizbollah. This strategy was beginning to work in the first day of the Israeli operation, as voices in the country began to be raised against Hizbollah and its reckless action. But as the intensity and the perniciousness of the Israeli bombing escalated, even the most moderate civilians in Lebanon experienced an emotional transformation into what can be likened to the revulsion of an innocent person being terrorised into submission by a vastly superior power. In an affront to human dignity and disregard for human life, Israel is inflicting severe pain and suffering on a huge number of civilians to incite them to do its bidding.

Hizbollah may be accused of doing the same in Israel (though with a much more limited capacity to inflict pain). But then we would expect a terrorist organisation to commit acts of terrorism. A state committing the same acts, magnified many times over, with the same intentions, must be condemned and ultimately prevented by the world community. Otherwise, we would be sending yet another message to people and nations who feel wronged yet do not have the means to win the fight against their aggressors: your only recourse is to equip yourself with whatever means necessary to deter your aggressors. It would be a return to the law of the jungle that the world can ill afford in this age of nuclear proliferation.

By failing to act on behalf of Lebanon and to call Israel to account for its actions, the US is putting the world at greater risk, and it is setting back by decades the cause of peace in the region.

To understand the sense of injustice that people in Lebanon feel about their situation, consider this analogy: black rights activists, indignant at police brutality towards fellow blacks, kidnap a white police officer and retreat into their black neighbourhood, demanding the release of detained black activists in exchange for the police officer. The state calls in the exclusively white national guardsmen who surround the neighbourhood and start firing mortars into it, destroying businesses and killing whole families. To drive their point home, the national guardsmen cut off the electricity and water supply of the neighbourhood, and announce to the inhabitants that they, the community, will be held responsible for the actions of their radical fringes, and will continue to be pounded by heavy artillery until they rise up against the activists among them. Would blacks in the neighbourhood rise against their reckless brothers, or would this response by state authorities take their fury towards their white neighbours to new and irreversibly hostile levels?

To put things in perspective, Lebanese civilians are experiencing the same type of revulsion towards Israel that American citizens felt towards Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda after September 11. But blame is also directed at the U.S. government for its political and moral support of Israel in this affair. And I am not talking here about Lebanese Shiite fanatics. I am talking about Jane and John Doe of Lebanon: your average Sunni, Christian, Shiite and Druze who may otherwise hold living in the US as their greatest aspiration.

The Lebanese are feeling tremendous indignation at the injustice they are facing. Let us not allow this indignation to fester and turn into new seeds of hatred. The US had best seize the moment, quickly and decisively, to demonstrate that it understands that there is no lasting peace for Israel or Lebanon without some measure of justice and dignity for all parties involved.

###
* Nadim Matta is a management consultant and US citizen of Lebanese origin. During the civil war in Lebanon, he worked for USAID and for Save the Children Federation in Beirut. He can be reached at nadim@rhsa.com. Thisarticle 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), July 18, 2006)
Visit the website at www.commongroundnews.org (http://www.commongroundnews.org/)
Distributed by the Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH).
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.

**********

ARTICLE 2
How to see the common ground while bombs are landing around you
Juliette Schmidt

Beirut, Lebanon - As a Canadian, I have so far been spared the stress, anxiety and heartbreak of living through a violent conflict that is the centre of the world’s attention. Yet here I find myself, just north of Beirut, sitting in a glassed-in balcony overlooking the American Embassy and the Mediterranean, 9 of us plus a dog in a 3-bedroom apartment. For the last 7 days we have been listening with heavy hearts to explosions throughout a country that is as beautiful as it is resilient, full of friends and stories.

Clearly, Hizbollah crossed a not-so-imaginary line when they kidnapped 2 Israeli soldiers from the wrong side of Lebanon’s southern border and, as Israel retaliated, followed with rocket attacks on increasingly-civilian targets in northern Israel. Clearly, Israel has been raining bombs on strategic targets in Lebanon causing great damage to infrastructure throughout the country at the cost of many civilian lives. The political commentators calmly discuss events day and night and consider greater implications and root causes.

Watching these discussions, it is hard to see any space for a resolution that will be satisfactory to both parties. In fact, it is hard to see any opportunity for a resolution at all. Sitting here in the heat and humidity of a Lebanese summer with the sporadic relief of air conditioning when the electricity comes on, I imagine those in the bomb shelters in northern Israel must not feel very different.

Empathizing with our neighbours to the south is not so popular up here, but it seems that we have a few things in common at the moment. Not only are there mounting civilian deaths in each country, but individuals are tense and hot, waiting and watching, on both sides of the border. In addition, my limited experience living in a country being bombarded by another is that having bombs dropped on you doesn’t quite generate goodwill for the perpetrator.

As a result, military bombardment is only a short-term distraction from a more complicated problem. It has disastrous side effects not only for those involved, but for anyone with an interest in the Middle East. These days, this “anyone” is generally a good proportion of the world population -- it is East and West alike. This is obvious from the amount of press coverage and international attention that has been given to this situation. The international community, or more accurately American and European governments and the UN Security Council, are going to play a significant role in the outcome of this conflict.

And here we come to the most pressing question: what is the most effective role for this larger Western contingent? First of all, the international community needs to call for a ceasefire immediately and empower the Lebanese government to deploy the Lebanese army in the south to deal with the situation internally as they have indicated they are prepared to do. By refusing to pressure both sides of the conflict to stop, they are indirectly sanctioning the continuing volley of missiles from both parties and perpetuating anger and hatred that will linger long after the explosions stop.

Second, longer term solutions need to be considered. This most recent flare-up is not an isolated problem. In the aftermath of the Israeli incursion, the Lebanese will not only have to rebuild, they will have to continue their national dialogue around this event and all its implications sitting squarely on the table. Meanwhile, Israelis will still find themselves living between two angry populations. The international community needs to publicly support opportunities for dialogue and facilitate it when necessary.

Third, the human element must be addressed. There are people on each side of the conflict, people who can influence the actions of their governments and local leaders. At the moment there is very limited interaction between Lebanese and Israelis. It is unreasonable to believe that this will change instantly with the cessation of violence, however human stories need to get out and in forums where Lebanese and Israelis are able to come together – in online chat rooms, in comment sections of regional newspapers, and in the diaspora – interaction must be encouraged and enabled. International media and high-level spokespeople can be powerful vehicles to get diverse stories and opinions on both sides into the spotlight in a non-inflammatory way, beginning a process that can lead to greater communication between groups.

As I sit here in front of a stunning sunset signalling the end of yet another day and the beginning of another night, I listen in the dark for the sound of explosions. We hope this will be the last such night. These neighbours will still have to live beside each other tomorrow.

###
* Juliette Schmidt is a Canadian citizen working in Beirut for Search for Common Ground. She is Assistant Director of the Partners in Humanity programme. This article is distributed by the Common Ground NewsService (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org (http://www.commongroundnews.org/).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), July 18, 2006)
Visit the website at www.commongroundnews.org (http://www.commongroundnews.org/)
Distributed by the Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH).
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.

**********

ARTICLE 3
Time for America to put its diplomatic muscle where its mouth is
Daily Star Editorial

Beirut, Lebanon - This week has given a sense of just how quickly things can change in the Middle East. In a matter of hours, a relatively confined conflict in the Gaza Strip erupted into a two-front war, posing a dangerous threat of even wider escalation. But perhaps the most startling development of late is that the United States is at least publicly trying to take a relatively balanced approach to the conflict unfolding in Lebanon.

Expressing concern for Lebanon's "fragile democracy," US President George W. Bush urged the Israelis to show restraint during their siege, stressing that precautions should be taken so as not to weaken the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. Likewise, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also urged Israel to show concern for the democratically elected government of Lebanon, as well as infrastructure and innocent civilians.

It is the least that they can do, considering the suffering that we Lebanese have endured as a result of US policies. For 15 years, we were trampled under the weight of Syrian oppression, via an occupation that had been approved by Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, in exchange for Damascus' cooperation in the 1991 war in Iraq. We were emboldened by the younger Bush's decision to terminate America's policy of sanctioning Syrian hegemony over Lebanon. We took to the streets, demanding Syria's withdrawal and the return of democracy to our country.

From that point forward, we became a focal point in Bush's democracy scorecard, as he proudly boasted that his policies had helped achieve democratic advancements around the region. Lebanon was held up as a shining example of the fact that the people of the region have a real desire to live in free and democratic states. And we trusted Bush when he promised that he would do everything to protect and advance our aspirations.

But now, our fledgling independence is under fire. Only a little over a year since we started making our own decisions and trying to forge a sense of national unity, we have been hit with a crisis of unexpected proportions. Our fledgling government, which like any 1-year-old is still struggling to stay on its feet, is under fire. Our civilians, who had no part in the decision to abduct Israeli soldiers, are being killed. Our infrastructure, which has only recently been built, is being destroyed.

Yet even now, as Israel