Common Ground News Service
Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH)
for constructive & vibrant Muslim-Western relations
25 April - 01 May 2007
The Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH) aims to promote constructive perspectives and dialogue about Muslim–Western relations. CGNews-PiH is available in Arabic, English, French and Indonesian. To subscribe, click here.
For an archive of past CGNews articles and other information, please visit our website at www.commongroundnews.org .
Unless otherwise noted, copyright permission has been obtained and articles may be reprinted by any news outlet or publication. Please acknowledge both the original source and the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Inside this edition
1) In the footsteps of Muhammad by Amien Wangsitalaja
Amien Wangsitalaja, a graduate student at the Universitas Negeri Jakarta (UNJ) in Indonesia, considers the celebration of the Prophet Muhammad’s birth each year as “a challenge by Muslims to recognise and absorb the ethics that the Prophet lived by and, more importantly, to internalise and actualise them.” He looks to the Qur’an and the life of the Prophet to explain what these ethics are and how they play out in our world today.
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 24 April 2007)
2) Arab and US publics share Iraq war concerns by James J. Zogby
James J. Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute in Washington, DC, finds common ground between Arab and American publics over the conflict in Iraq. Highlighting the recommendations made by the majority of respondents in each country polled, he stresses the need for a new approach by the US government based on the conclusions of the Iraq Study Group.
(Source: Middle East Times, 12 April 2007)
3) Muslims must help discredit Al-Qaeda’s ideology by Hussein Solomon
Hussein Solomon, a lecturer at the University of Pretoria in South Africa and director of the Center for International Political Studies, explores whether Al-Qaeda still exists as such and, if not, what it has become today. Describing its current form and the real grievances that nourish it, Solomon asks what Muslims, and the West, can do to defeat it.
(Source: bitterlemons-international.org, 17 April 2007)
4) Understanding Turkish secularism by Mustafa Akyol
Mustafa Akyol, a journalist based in Turkey, looks at the record of religious tolerance in the Muslim world and asks “whether this intolerant attitude is an integral component of Islam as a religion or a historical attitude retained from pre-modern times”. Considering the example of Turkey and the Ottoman Empire as well as more recent events relating to the pope’s Regenburg address, he answers the question: can Muslims, and Christians live together?
(Source: First Things, March 2007)
5) British shed by Mark Rice-Oxley
Christian Science Monitor correspondent, Mark Rice-Oxley, describes why the UK is no longer using the term “war on terror”. Emphasising the power of words, he explains the implications of using this phrase and takes a stab at finding an alternative.
(Source: Christian Science Monitor, 18 April 2007)
1)In the footsteps of Muhammad
Amien Wangsitalaja
Jakarta - The birth of the Prophet Muhammad is celebrated every year by Muslims around the world though there was no particular instruction by the Prophet to do so. During the festive celebration, the story of his life is retold and verses praising him are sung everywhere. A question arises: to what extent is the ummah, or the followers of Islam worldwide, embodying the example of the Prophet?
It is disappointing to see much of the ummah trapped in formal or outward religious appreciation at the expense of appreciation of substance. Many seem to invoke the name of the Prophet without ever trying to understand the values which Muhammad lived by, feeling moreover righteous in their application of Islam in a diverse society even as the means employed contradict Islamic values and principles. The celebration of the birth of the Prophet must, in this light, be viewed as a challenge by Muslims to recognise and absorb the ethics that the Prophet lived by and, more importantly, to internalise and actualise them.
The Prophet Muhammad was a living example of the capacity to spread peace in every social interaction, to live in harmonious coexistence with members of similar or different ethnic or religious groups, and with subjects of other nations. These values should encourage the ummah to act as ambassadors of peace and supporters of law and justice, and to actively eradicate social pathologies. Such ethics, legitimised and raised high by the precedent of historical awareness and activism in Islam, would enable the ummah to better integrate with the rest of society and endow it with a tolerant ideological identity that would, in addition, safeguard the reputation of the ummah from the stigma of being widely supportive of extremism and terrorism.
Historical awareness and activism in the life of the ummah is also stressed by one of the most respected Indonesian Islamic scholars, Prof. Dr. Kuntowijoyo, in his books The Islam Paradigm: An Interpretation for Action (1991) and Muslim Political Identity (1997), particularly when discussing the subject of the Prophet’s ethics and the question of the extent to which a believer can reach his or her capacity in the way of Muhammad. So what is the Prophet’s example and how can it be applied by the ummah?
Kuntowijoyo bases his formulation on a verse in the Qur’an (Chapter: House of Imran, verse 110) where Prophetic or Muhammadan ethics mean “to prescribe what is right, forbid what is wrong, and believe in God”. The three elements of the Prophet’s ethics presented in this verse have a meaningful social significance. What is right in our daily life can be interpreted as anything from a very private action, for example saying a prayer or praising, remembering or invoking God; to a semi-social action, such as respecting one’s elders, behaving in a brotherly fashion toward others, assisting orphans; and finally to collective action, such as working to bring about an incorrupt government or building a social security system.
Kuntowijoyo generalises this aspect with humanisation and emancipation: in a more current context, righteousness can also be understood as humane behaviour in a cultural or social context, as economic development, and as political maturity. In daily realities, forbidding what is wrong in an Islamic context can be realised through, for instance, preventing drug abuse, discouraging revenge, eradicating gambling, abolishing usury, defending disadvantaged labourers or fighting invaders. Kuntowijoyo likens this principle with liberation, which can impact political life in addition to social and economic affairs. Faith in and love of God, meanwhile, is an aspect with a vertical dimension which Kuntowijoyo links to transcendence: in a world sailing fast towards materialism and secularism, the position of transcendence has become increasingly important. In other words, the Prophet’s ethics seek to infuse daily, even political, life with spiritual awareness.
The implementation of the three aspects of Muhammadan ethics in societal life would bring about a liberated ummah infused with the spirit of humanity based on the principle of transcendence. If Muslims are successful in internalising and actualising these ethics, our lives as a nation, society and state - whether political, economic, societal or cultural - would be freed from diseases such as crime and corruption that put a community’s health in jeopardy. Evoking memories of the Prophet on the anniversary of his birth is an incomplete exercise unless it is accompanied by an attempt to learn form Muhammad’s struggle to create a just and peaceful society. To do this, the ummah will need to engage in public issues with sympathy, not with cynicism, apathy or false righteousness – not by using force, anarchy or terrorism.
###
* Amien Wangsitalaja is the pen-name of Aminudin Rifai. He is a graduate student at the Universitas Negeri Jakarta (UNJ), Jakarta, Indonesia. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org .
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 24 April 2007, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.
2)Arab and US publics share Iraq war concerns
James J. Zogby
Washington, DC - By invading Iraq without a plan and without any clear understanding of the consequences that would result from this war, the George W. Bush administration has created a bind for itself and for the Middle East as well.
Significant majorities of Iraqis and Americans now want US forces to leave Iraq, arguing that the US presence there provokes the insurgency. Countering this view, however, is a sense that a premature US withdrawal from Iraq might cause the country to spiral into an even more deadly civil war that could then spill over into the broader region. Such a scenario, it is argued, would further embolden Iran, which is already seen as the major beneficiary of the Iraq conflict, leaving the entire Gulf region open to the ambitions of the Islamic republic.
These concerns, expressed by many in the US, appear to be shared in the Arab world as well. A recent poll in five Arab countries - Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan and Lebanon - found opposition to both US and Iranian roles in Iraq. The poll, conducted by Zogby International for the Arab American Institute, surveyed 3,400 people in the five countries, all of which are allies of the US.
In each of the five states, substantial majorities gave negative ratings to the roles played by the US in Iraq, ranging from 96 percent negative ratings in Jordan, 83 percent in Egypt and 68 percent in Saudi Arabia. Iran’s role fared no better with 78 percent of Saudis and more than two-thirds of Jordanians, Emiratis, Lebanese and Egyptians giving the Islamic republic’s role in Iraq a negative rating.
When asked what worried them the most about Iraq, almost 50 percent of those polled in each of the five countries said the prospect of the country splitting into three parts or descending into a civil war that would spill over into the broader region. The next greatest concern among the majority of those surveyed was the prospect of a permanent US occupation of Iraq. This view was held by 47 percent in Jordan, 38 percent in Egypt and by a quarter of Saudis.
Given this input, what should the US do? About three quarters of Egyptians and Jordanians say “withdraw immediately”, a view shared by a 40 percent plurality in the other polled Arab countries. The US pursuit of diplomatic measures and its efforts toward unity in Iraq were the preferred options in Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Lebanon. There was no significant support for the current “surge” policy advocated by the Bush administration in any of the five countries in the survey.
What is significant in these findings is not only the degree to which the US approach in Iraq is perceived to have failed, but also the level of Arab opinion that is cognizant of the potential dangers down the road: namely, an increase in Iran’s regional influence and a wider-reaching Iraqi civil war. Fears of both consequences are most acute in those countries that are allies of the US and rely, in part, on US security cooperation.
What is so troubling is that the Bush administration pressed ahead with its military campaign as if unaware of the damage done not only in Iraq, but to longstanding US relations in the region.
Given all of this, the better course of action is that proposed by the Iraq Study Group (ISG). While many thought that the ISG had been forgotten, it was given new life last week in legislation passed by the US House of Representatives. Most press accounts focused only on the date for withdrawal of US troops set by the House bill. But an amendment added to the same legislation introduced by James Moran, the democratic congressman of Virginia, called on the administration to: “pursue the diplomatic strategy … recommended by the Iraq Study Group” that “calls upon the United States to [follow] a comprehensive ‘New Diplomatic Offensive’ designed to build an international consensus and support structure for stability in Iraq and the surrounding region. The ‘New Diplomatic Offensive’ is to engage all of Iraq’s neighbours, and address all the ‘key issues’ in the Middle East, including not just the situation in Iraq, but also in Lebanon, Syria, and Iran, as well as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict … The Committee supports this recommendation of the Iraq Study Group and urges the president to pursue it aggressively.”
This is the sound approach we should take. Neither a unilateral “surge” nor a precipitous withdrawal will undo this mess. Working with allies and neighbours of Iraq to achieve a degree of stability and political reconciliation is the only way forward out of this morass we have created for ourselves and for our friends in the region.
###
* James J. Zogby is president of the Arab American Institute in Washington, DC. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org .
Source: Middle East Times, 12 April 2007
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.
3)Muslims must help discredit Al-Qaeda’s ideology
Hussein Solomon
Pretoria - Al-Qaeda sprung into the popular conscience of the world with the attacks of 9/11. Since then, the organisation has taken a beating - many of its senior commanders were killed or arrested, others are in hiding. Given the various counter-terrorism initiatives, it has proven more difficult to source arms, to move money and to merely communicate.
Under these circumstances, the leadership of Al-Qaeda has become more diffuse, with local leaders in charge of command and control while Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri provide merely inspirational leadership through the odd audio and video recording. Thus, from being a tightly knit organisation, Al-Qaeda has morphed into a loose amalgamation of independent cells that may or may not receive direct support from the main organisation and which can operate independently from it.
According to the historian R.T. Naylor, “Al-Qaeda itself does not exist … [It] is a loose network of likeminded individuals [who] pay homage to the same patron figure who they may never have met and with whom they have no concrete relationship. They conduct their operations strictly by themselves, even if they may from time to time seek advice.”
This loose amalgamation of independent cell structures is increasingly the Al-Qaeda of the future and poses challenges to counter-terrorist officials the world over. This is not the terrorism of old. In the cases of both the Baader-Meinhoff Gang and the Japanese Red Army, neutralising the leadership of the organisation meant neutralising the entire organisation. Intelligence officials trying to penetrate the new Al-Qaeda can at best hope to neutralise an independent cell, while other cells continue to function. In the process, the war against terror will be measured in years, if not decades. Patience and perseverance will be watchwords in this new struggle for the future of humanity.
At the same time, this new and diffuse Al-Qaeda network also challenges the “leadership” of the organisation. Bin Laden has to rely on local leaders such as, until recently, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, with his ruthless gang of cut-throats in Iraq. Their excesses against both Sunnis and Shiites, however, reflect negatively on Al-Qaeda as a whole. Another organisational challenge confronting Al-Qaeda is that this loose network needs glue to bind the disparate parts together. That glue is ideology.
The broader parameters of Al-Qaeda’s ideology are easily discernible: it is anti-Western and anti-Semitic. It seeks to destroy what it terms apostate regimes, like those in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. It is violent; it is opposed to tolerance and plurality and seeks the restoration of the caliphate. This is Al-Qaedism, a form of Muslim radicalism that shares many characteristics with other totalitarian ideologies of the 20th century. Given the importance of this ideology to the existence of the organisation, it is imperative that the struggle against Al-Qaeda also take the form of an ideological struggle. Here it is crucial that the Muslim ulama, or clergy, academics, journalists and teachers, all be at the forefront of the struggle. They need to discredit the ideology in order to reclaim the faith as their own. But in so doing, they will also be drying up the extremists’ recruitment pool - why give up your life for something you do not believe in?
But it is also imperative that Western countries understand that Al-Qaedism is nourished by real grievances. It is a fact, as King Abdullah II of Jordan stated in his recent address to the United States Congress, that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has poisoned relations between Muslims and Jews and between Muslims and the West the world over. Its speedy resolution is essential for the broader struggle against terror.
It is a fact that while talking about democracy, the US has allied itself with some of the most repressive regimes in the Arab world. This hypocrisy only fuels anger and magnifies the terror threat. It is also a fact that the combined GDP of 22 countries of the Arab League is less than the GDP of Spain; that 40 percent of adult Arabs are illiterate; that a third of the population of the broader Middle East live on less than $2 a day; and that only 2 percent of the region’s population has access to the Internet. The economic development of the Middle East is a vital necessity. History has demonstrated time and time again that the existence of a large and vibrant middle class is the natural bulwark against extremist thought.
In a nutshell, Al-Qaeda can only be defeated if its ideology is discredited by Muslims, and if the West recognises that this ideology, no matter how twisted and violent it is, reflects real grievances that need to be addressed if we are to achieve a world without terror and fear.
###
* Hussein Solomon lectures in the department of political science at the University of Pretoria in South Africa, where he is also director of the Center for International Political Studies. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org .
Source: bitterlemons-international.org, 17 April 2007, www.bitterlemons-international.org
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.
4)Understanding Turkish secularism
Mustafa Akyol
Istanbul - When thousands of furious Muslims rallied in the streets of the West Bank, Pakistan and Indonesia to protest Pope Benedict XVI’s Regensburg address, many commentators spoke with pessimistic alarm about the “clash of civilisations”.
But in fact the pope was not pursuing a clash of civilisations. “The true contrariety which characterises the world of today is not that among diverse religious cultures,” he noted in a 2005 address, “but that between the radical emancipation of man from God, from the roots of life, on the one hand, and the great religious cultures on the other.” He also alluded to the commonalities of the “great religions”, which “have always known how to live one with the other.”
Of course, in the past two decades the violence perpetrated by the proponents of Islamism - an ideology distinct from Islam as a religion - has created serious doubts about the potential of Islam to live in harmony with others. The reaction to the pope’s comments - which, ironically, used violence to proclaim that Islam is not violent - only vindicated those doubts.
Yet, a month after the Regensburg speech, thirty-eight Muslim scholars and leaders around the world signed an “Open Letter to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI”, which was a respectful and scholarly response to the issues he had raised about the Muslim faith. The letter clarified issues relating to violence and reason according to Islam and expressed an appreciation for the pope’s self-declared “total and profound respect for all Muslims.” The true Islamic goal, the leaders insisted, was to live together “in peace, mutual acceptance and respect.”
Less than two months after that, there came a face-to-face meeting between the Vicar of Christ and the followers of Muhammad. At Istanbul’s Sultan Ahmet mosque, Benedict was hosted by Mustafa Cagrici, the mufti of Istanbul and one of the signatories of the open letter. After taking a tour, the pope stood beside the mufti with his face turned toward Mecca “in a moment of meditation.”
Placing his hand on the gift of a ceramic tile inscribed with the words “In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful” in the form of a dove, he said, “Thank you for this gift. Let us pray for brotherhood and for all humanity.” “Your Holiness,” the mufti replied, “please remember us.”
What this suggests is that Christianity and Islam can live together. Yet it is undeniable that the present-day Muslim world has a bad record of religious freedom.
The question is whether this intolerant attitude is an integral component of Islam as a religion or a historical attitude retained from pre-modern times. Many think that intolerance is built into Islam, but the Qur’an decrees no sanction for apostasy and recognises the rights of Christians and Jews to worship according to their own traditions. There are “verses of the sword”, to be sure, but it is possible to argue that these verses refer only to those non-Muslims who have been belligerent toward Muslims in the first place. The Qur’an, in other words, makes a doctrine of just war and a live-and-let-live approach possible.
The more established interpretation, however, has not been so generous. The infusion of politics into religion has skewed the tradition. Islamic jurists, the creators of shari’a, not only introduced non-Qur’anic concepts such as the ban on apostasy but also developed the “method of abrogation” to bypass the peaceful verses and uphold the verses of the sword. They also adopted several laws from Sassanid Persia, including the specifications for the second-class status of conquered Jews and Christians.
The emergence in the West of such ideas as equal citizenship and religious freedom, however, changed the balance, making the Islamic world look backward. But it did take measures to improve itself, so that Jews and Christians gained equal citizenship rights and religious freedom was guaranteed. Importantly, the Ottoman Empire wasn’t abandoning Islam by reforming shari’a laws but modernising from within the tradition.
This modernisation ended with the demise of the empire in World War I. From its ruins, all post-Ottoman states, except Turkey and Saudi Arabia, were colonised by European powers, a phenomenon that would breed anti-colonialism and anti-Westernism throughout the region.
The early Turkish Republic was influenced not only by the legacy of Ottoman reforms but also by the French Enlightenment and its radically secularist worldview. Early Republican elites asserted that religion is an “obstacle to progress” and incorporated laïcité, the French notion of secularism, which allowed no role whatsoever for faith in public life.
This stance drove Turkey into an acute problem: in one decade, Islam was replaced by a new public faith based on Turkishness and the cult of personality created around Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. The cult of Mustafa Kemal, along with the official illiberal secularism, ensures not separation of mosque and state but the domination of the mosque by the state and the suppression of religious believers.
On his return to Rome, Benedict XVI recounted his four days in Turkey. “I have returned,” he noted, “with a heart full of gratitude toward God and with sentiments of sincere affection and esteem for the people of the beloved Turkish nation.” He summarised the two concerns that will shape the future of Turkey - and of the Muslim world: “On the one hand, we must rediscover the reality of God and the public relevance of religious faith; on the other, we must ensure that the expression of this faith be free, exempt from fundamentalist distortions and capable of firmly repudiating every form of violence.”
###
* Mustafa Akyol is a journalist in Istanbul, Turkey. This abridged article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org . The full text can be found at www.firstthings.com .
Source: First Things.com, March 2007, www.firstthings.com
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.
5)British shed
Mark Rice-Oxley
London - Britain is rapidly backpedalling on the “war on terror”. Not the global effort to subdue so-called jihadists, but the three-word phrase, much used by President Bush, which the British establishment now fear is ill-defined, over-simplistic and excessively martial and Manichaean.
Government ministers were quietly instructed several weeks ago to avoid using the term, but matters were brought into the open Monday when a senior cabinet minister rejected the phrase during a speech in America.
Hilary Benn, the Blair government’s international development secretary, told a New York think tank that the concept of a war on terror sends out the wrong message on two levels: it encourages terrorists by dignifying their cause, and it suggests that only military measures could be a useful response.
“In [Britain], we do not use the phrase ‘war on terror’ because we can’t win by military means alone and because this isn’t us against one organised enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives,” Mr. Benn told a meeting in New York organised by the Center on International Cooperation.
His remarks may hint at a subtle political shift in Britain as it prepares for Prime Minister Tony Blair to hand over the baton some time this summer. Mr. Blair’s close alliance with Mr. Bush has been deeply unpopular in the Labour Party, much of which is appalled at the Iraq campaign. When Blair leaves office, Finance minister Gordon Brown is likely to be crowned his successor, but a lively race for party deputy is shaping up. Benn is one of the leading candidates.
“The more dovish people in the cabinet have probably always been uncomfortable with this phrase,” says Michael Moore, a Liberal Democrat MP, who dislikes the “war on terror” tag. “The ‘war on terror’ signals to the centre-left in Britain an American construct which is in danger of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy, as though the more we say it the more we will create these kinds of enemies.”
He says the phrase does not address the complexities of terrorism. “We need to recognise a broad set of destabilising factors, mostly driven by extreme poverty and an inequitable share of the world’s resources,” says Mr. Moore. “For us it’s a more complex feature of globalisation, but to call it a ‘war on terror’ is a mistake.”
Paul Wilkinson, a terrorism expert and author of “Terrorism versus Democracy: the Liberal State Response,” says the catchphrase raises public expectations that there is “a kind of battlefield solution to the problem of terrorism.”
The term gives terrorists a boost by making them feel “they are genuinely involved in a war, as they claim, and that they are soldiers, warriors, engaged in some kind of noble cause,” Prof. Wilkinson adds. Terrorists can, and indeed have, exploited such linguistic grandstanding.
But some terrorism experts are exasperated at the semantic debate, fretting that officials are fiddling while Rome burns. “It’s OK for Mr. Benn to say it’s not a war, but that’s not how the enemy sees it,” says M.J. Gohel, a terrorism expert and director of the international Asia-Pacific Foundation think tank. “The 9/11 attack was a declaration of war on the Western world and on secular democracies, and repeated statements by Al Qaeda and the global jihad movement have indicated clearly that they are at war.”
Bob Ayers, a security analyst at London’s Chatham House think tank, says Britain shouldn’t get hung up on America’s proclivity for the word “war”. “The US used the term ‘war on’ in many things – war on poverty, war on terror, war on drugs,” he says.
“When you use the word ‘war’, it’s the term to describe mobilising the assets of the nation state,” Mr. Ayers adds. “It includes military forces, but is not exclusively military. In the Second World War, Britain waged a war against axis powers, but it wasn’t just military. It was economic, political, psychological warfare – hearts and minds.”
And in any case, he says, what’s the alternative?
Nothing quite as snappy is the answer. The European Union, notes Wilkinson, prefers to talk in terms of the “struggle against Al Qaeda”, which he says avoids ambiguity by pinpointing the most dangerous network and by indicating that it is not just about war in its traditional sense.
Moore says he would prefer to talk about “confronting international terrorism” and recognising “the different roots that give rise to that.”
Otherwise, he says, he prefers “the so-called war on terror”.
###
* Mark Rice-Oxley is a correspondent for the Christian Science Monitor. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org .
Source: Christian Science Monitor, 18 April 2007
Copyright © The Christian Science Monitor. For reprint permission please contact lawrenced@csps.com .
Youth Views
CGNews-PiH also regularly publishes the work of student leaders and journalists whose articles strengthen intercultural understanding and promote constructive perspectives and dialogue in their own communities. Student journalists and writers under the age of 27 are encouraged to write to Chris Binkley ( cbinkley@sfcg.org ) for more information on contributing.
About CGNews-PiH
The Common Ground News Service - Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH) provides news, op-eds, features and analysis by local and international experts on a broad range of issues affecting Muslim-Western relations. CGNews-PiH syndicates articles that are constructive, offer hope and promote dialogue and mutual understanding, to news outlets worldwide. With support from the Norwegian, Swedish and US Governments and the United States Institute of Peace, the service is a non-profit initiative of Search for Common Ground, an international NGO working in the fields of conflict transformation and media production.
This news service is one outcome of a set of working meetings held in partnership with His Royal Highness Prince El Hassan bin Talal of Jordan in June 2003.
The Common Ground News Service also commissions and distributes solution-oriented articles by local and international experts to promote constructive perspectives and encourage dialogue about current Middle East issues. This service, Common Ground News Service - Middle East (CGNews-ME), is available in Arabic, English, and Hebrew. To subscribe, click here.
The views expressed in these articles are those of the authors, not of CGNews or its affiliates.
Common Ground News Service
1601 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite #200
Washington, DC 20009 USA
Ph: +1(202) 265-4300
Fax: +1(202) 232-6718
Rue Belliard 205 Bte 13 B-1040
Brussels, Belgium
Ph: +32(02) 736-7262
Fax: +32(02) 732-3033
Email : cgnewspih@sfcg.org
Website : www.commongroundnews.org
Editors
Leena El-Ali (Washington)
Juliette Schmidt (Canada)
Rami Assali (Jerusalem)
Chris Binkley (Dakar)
Emmanuelle Hazan (Geneva)
Nuruddin Asyhadie (Jakarta)
Andrew Kessinger (Washington)
Translators
Françoise Globa (Geneva)
Rio Rinaldo (Jakarta)
Azmi Tubbeh (Washington)