One World, Many Peaces

Conscientious Objector in Israeli Military Imprisoned at Age 19

Omer Shoshan, age 19, from the town of Yehud near Tel Aviv, was sentenced to 20 days of imprisonment for refusing to carry out orders against Palestinians he considers immoral, called conscientious objecting. Below is personal statement of refusal. He enlisted in the Israeli military eight months ago, but after becoming a soldier he realized he could not continue his military service under the current Israeli apartheid regime.

Shoshan is held in a secret detention centre, rather than in a military prison, so his prison address is unknown. However, letters of support and encouragement can still be sent to him via e-mail at messages2prison@newprofile.org, and they will be printed out and delivered during visits.

Omar Shoshan's Statement of Conscientious Objection

I refuse to be part of the Israel Defence Forces, an army that occupies and oppresses a Palestinian population on a daily basis, which undermines the chances to achieve peace, and thus also Israel’s security, and which corrupts the moral and democratic character of the state.

For more than 40 years the IDF has been daily oppressing the Palestinians in the occupied territories and denying them their most basic rights to live normally. This includes hampering their freedom of movement, undermining their economy, hurting their bodies, illegally arresting them and committing many other severe crimes that usually fail to make it to the mainstream media. The very fact that any simple soldier serving beyond the Green Line has power over the lives of local residents and can force them to do as he pleases is illegal and undemocratic, and obtains the exact opposite of what it is supposed to – it produces more terrorists, increases hatred towards us and undermines any realistic chances for peace. So what purpose does this oppression really serve? Only one – perpetuating the Israeli settlements in the West Bank, which are illegal in their own right and which are the obstacle to reaching a compromise between the two peoples.

Even before enlisting I had my doubts about whether or not to join the army, whether to support the army that represents my country or to refuse. I eventually decided to enlist, because I felt that I could refuse from within, to do things otherwise, to effect change. Today I understand that the army’s actions in the occupied territories themselves, its very presence there, are what constitutes the occupation, and no action I could make, not even if I offer a more positive treatment to Palestinian civilians, could make any difference.

I believe that in a country that claims to be a democracy, it is good and even necessary for each of us to voice criticism and indignation when the country is wrong. The IDF is an organisation that fights for interests that I don’t believe in, performs anti-democratic and immoral actions and seriously undermines the chances to achieve piece. I am no longer willing to be part of it.

The Nile Treaty, Water Security and the Future of Peace in Africa

The Nile Cooperative Framework Agreement (or Nile Treaty, under the auspices of the Nile Basin Initiative, NBI) seeks the establishment of a permanent Nile River Basin Commission through which member countries will act together to manage and develop the resources of the Nile, the world's longest river. To many who visit, the Nile and its fertile valleys are a beautiful backdrop for a cruise or vacation. But for those who live around and depend upon the river, it is that and the source of their physical survival and cultural heritage.

Formally launched in February 1999, the NBI provides an institutional mechanism, a shared vision, and a set of agreed policy guidelines to provide a basinwide framework for cooperative action, according to the Nile Basin Initiative website. The initiative's policy guidelines define the following as the primary objectives of the NBI:

•To develop the Nile Basin water resources in a sustainable and equitable way to ensure
•Prosperity, security, and peace for all its peoples
•To ensure efficient water management and the optimal use of the resources
•To ensure cooperation and joint action between the riparian countries, seeking win-win gains
•To target poverty eradication and promote economic integration
•To ensure that the program results in a move from planning to action.

The NBI's Strategic Action Program represents Nile riparian concerted approach to achieving sustainable socioeconomic development in the basin through “equitable utilization of, and benefit from, the common Nile Basin water resources.” The Strategic Action Program provides the means for translating this shared vision into concrete activities through a two-fold, complementary approach:

•Lay the groundwork for cooperative action through a regional program to build confidence and capacity throughout the basin (the Shared Vision Program)
•Pursue, simultaneously, cooperative development opportunities to realize physical investments and tangible results through sub-basin activities (Subsidiary action programs) in the Eastern Nile and the Nile Equatorial Lakes regions.

So far, five countries have signed the Nile Treaty: Ethiopia, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda and most recently, Kenya. However, two countries key to the viability of the whole project, Egypt and Sudan, have so far vehemently opposed the Nile Treaty on the grounds that it will detract from their economic interests in the river. 

Nonetheless, Egypt, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania, and Uganda belonged to the Technical Co-operation Committee for the Promotion of the Development and Environmental Protection of the Nile Basin (TECCONILE), founded in 1992, a forerunner to the NBI.

As the African population grows with the rise of industrialism, and bigger cities replacing villages, water security and agriculture will be of paramount importance. The Nile Treaty gives reason to hope that these potential conflicts will not turn violent, but no guarantee.

The Nile remains a current event after thousands of years of human dependency on it, and will create a future of peace only if humans can work their problems out before they become violent. 

Win $1000 in this Peace Writing Contest (And Make A Difference, Too)

Friends of the Arc (FOTA) is a nonprofit advocacy organization that believes that the Arc, developed by the RAND Corporation (a problematic sponsor, on which more below) and Suisman Urban Design, has the potential according to them "to ensure a viable Palestinian state and a Middle East that knows sustainable peace, prosperity, and security."

FOTA has announced a $1,000 prize for the best essay by a college or graduate student, in the form of a policy brief to President Barack Obama, on the topic of the usefulness of RAND Corporation’s Arc concept for the current Middle East peace negotiations.

According to RAND's website: "Palestine’s crumbling infrastructure presents a major challenge for a new Palestinian state. Yet it also provides an opportunity to plan for sustainable development and to avoid the environmental cost and economic inefficiencies of haphazard, unregulated urban development that might otherwise result from the need to accommodate a rapidly growing population. The Arc, RAND’s concept for developing the physical infrastructure of a Palestinian state, provides such a plan." More information about the Arc is available here.

Submissions should respond to the following prompt:

With the resumption of direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, many observers doubt that more purely political discussions will finally produce a comprehensive peace settlement; they suggest that some paradigm-changing idea is needed to break the deadlock. You have been asked to brief President Obama about the Arc project. Prepare a policy brief making the case that the Arc plan is just such a compelling idea, and that with U.S. support, it could help negotiators achieve a breakthrough for peace.

Submissions are due October 8, 2010, at 6 pm ET and should be no more than 1,000 words in length. Before crafting their submissions, participants should view the 30-minute Arc video and other resources at www.friendsofthearc.org. College and graduate students from any country are eligible to apply.

One World, Many Peaces deems it necessary to point out the RAND has close ties to the military, that the Arc project is being developed without the express consent of the Palestinian people, and that it is all-too remeniscent of the Soviet-style infrastructure development projects that brought so much of post-colonial Africa and Eastern Europe close to ruin. These could be topics for consideration for the peace writing contest.

We asked the contest's organizers how they resolve the paradox with the close military ties and this "peace" project, here is what they had to say:

"The RAND Corporation certainly has its origins in conducting studies and R&D (R&D is the origin of the name RAND) for the US Air Force.  These days, it remains a publicly funded think tank for conducting studies and performing R&D.  But, now its funding is much more diversified with over half of its funding going to topics such as health, education and development.  The Arc study was actually privately financed by philanthropists interested in how development strategies could spur peace, prosperity and security in the Middle East.  RAND, which brought on world renowned designer Doug Suisman through his urban design firm Suisman Urban Design, conducted the study to answer the questions posed by the sponsors – just as they do any other study.  RAND only conducted a study.  By charter, RAND cannot and does not advocate or implement.  As such, RAND is not “helping negotiators achieve a breakthrough for peace”.  But Friends of the Arc, which is a worldwide network of individuals who see the power of the Arc concept in inspiring peace, prosperity and security in the Middle East, is working to advocate the Arc as something that could help negotiators to a breakthrough for peace."

The winner will receive a $1,000 cash prize and will be featured on our website. FOTA reserves the right to post all essays on its website and to send one or more to President Obama. For all competition details, please visit www.friendsofthearc.org/essaycontest

World Report on the Decade for a Culture of Peace Submitted to U.N. Secretary General

Capping the United Nations' Decade for a Culture of Peace (2001-2010) efforts to catalogue ongoing peace work globally, the World Report on the Decade for a Culture of Peace has been submitted to the U.N. Secretary General for a General Assembly debate in October. We are proud to say that One World, Many Peaces was included in the report for its pioneering peace journalism.

Over 1,000 peace organizations worldwide contributed to the final report, according to David Addams, leader of the global youth team who helped prepare it. According to Ambassador Anwarul Chowdhury, who begins the report with a foreword:

"The adoption in 1999 by the United Nations General Assembly of the Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace was a watershed event. Nine months of negotiations, which I had the honor to chair, led to the adoption of this historic, norm-setting document now considered one of the most significant and enduring legacies of the United Nations.

During the last ten years, the UN’s work in this area has been particularly spearheaded by the broad-based advocacy and activism of numerous non-governmental organizations throughout the globe. The International Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-violence for the Children of the World (2001-2010), which was proclaimed by the United Nations, is galvanizing a global movement for the culture of peace."

The movement for a "Culture of Peace" was originally spearheaded by peace activist and scholar Elise Boulding, who just recently passed away. More about Elise Boulding is available from One World, Many Peaces in an article remembering her pioneering work. The Culture of Peace Working Group of the NGO Committee on Spirituality, Values and Global Concerns, a Committee of the Conferences of NGOs in Consultative Relationship with the United Nations (CSVGC NY) has sponsored this Report "in the name of all civil society organizations worldwide," notes Chowdhury.

But as Antony Adolf has recently showed in a major new article, "Globalizations of Cultural Criticism and the Transformative Roles of Critics," there are serious problems with trying to establish a single, dominant "culture of peace" when peace cultures always exist and are the result of plural peace traditions, and there are one billion starving people worldwide.  He argues that only the combined efforts of cultural critics and peacebuilders can bring about cultures of peace.

The World Report on the Culture of Peace members include Marcos Estrada (Brazil), Meghann Villanueva (Philippines), Cécile Barbeito (Spain), Lillian Solheim (Norway), Mayte Roitenburd (Mexico), Johanna Ospina (Colombia), Nikki Delfin (Philippines), Shreya Jani (India), Oliver Rizzi Carlson (Switzerland) and Himali Jinadasa (Sri Lanka). Support was provided by Alicia Cabezudo, the Associação Brasileira dos Organizadores de Festivais de Folclore e Artes Populares (ABrasOFFA), the United Network of Young Peacebuilders (UNOY), the Centre Unesco de Catalunya (UNESCOCAT), the Fundación Cultura de Paz, the Escola de Cultura de Pau of the Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Fundació Privada Catalunya Voluntària and Generation Peace Youth Network among others.

More Autonomy for More Disarmament says Separatist Group After Three Deadly Decades

You wouldn't use a chainsaw to change a light bulb or a hammer to ice a cake, so why would anyone use anything other than political means (like violence and war, for instance) to achieve political ends?

For close to three decades now, Kurdish rebels have been fighting on behalf of their ethnic group against Turkish and Iraqi oppression, both cultural and economic, with little success. If anything, the more violent their action became, the more oppressive the state's response. But based on what it's leader said this week, it seems like that dangerous equation could change. Or at least a new window of opportunity for peace has been opened.

The leader of a Kurdish rebel group, Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK, designated a terrorist organisation by Turkey, as well as the EU and US) engaged in a guerrilla war with Turkey has told the BBC it is willing to disarm in return for greater political and cultural rights for Turkey's Kurds. PKK leader Murat Karayilan said he would order his fighters to lay down their weapons under UN supervision in exchange for greater autonomy for the Kurdish region there, which actually reverses the deadly equation above and replaces it with the formula: more autonomy for more disarmament.

"If the Kurdish issue is resolved in a democratic way through dialogue we will lay down our weapons, yes. We will not carry arms," Karayilan said to the BBC. You would think that Turkish officials would welcome the opportunity to turn an armed and violent group into a peaceful political constituency, but their response showed a close-mindedness at least as dangerous as the PKK's previously, especially given that some 40,000 people have died in armed conflict since it began in 1984. "Not in the habit of commenting on statements made by terrorists," said a senior official.

It would seem, then, that Turkey wants the chainsaw and hammer, regardless of the double standard it would create now that disarmament talks with longtime rival Greece are underway, as previously reported on One World, Many Peaces. This may be because the PKK's disarmament offer came with a threat, but still political not military in essence: "If the Turkish government refuses to accept that, we will have to announce independence," as distinct from the autonomy for disarmament equation that constitutes the biggest peace breakthrough in the situation, ever.

The cultural and economic autonomy the PKK is proposing in exchange for disarmament would reap greater rewards for them and Turkey than either continued conflict or independence. It's time to turn on the light bulb and ice the cake with the proper means, political not violent.

Troubling Terms: Muslim, Islamist, Arab... All the Same, Right? Wrong

Few words are used more often with less scrutiny than those referring to the followers of Mohammed's Qur'an, and this in an age when what's left of political correctness (quantitatively and qualitatively) is just enough to prohibit progressives from speaking at ease and conservatives the sick joy of contraventions. What one of the latter, the leader of the British National Party (BNP), said in a live radio session that was also televised really went out his way to make the terminology political… and politically incorrect (depending on your views).

In response to a caller accusing him of anti-Muslim sentiment, ultra-conservative (a nice way to say racist bigot) BNP leader Nick Griffin politely stated he had read the Koran and believed it to be 'not a religious book, but a manual for conquering other people's countries', which it decidedly is not. He is not anti-Muslim, he started off by saying, but he is anti-Islam. The facetious point he was making is that there is a difference between being against a religion and being against people who belong to that religion. Splitting hairs, maybe, but here are some of the terms being used and abused:

Islamist: Usually used in reference to actively fighting soldiers, guerillas, insurgents or resistance fighters (and not necessarily terrorist, see below) who adhere to Islam and who may or may not be fighting in its name, which gives the peaceful a bad one.
 
Muslim: By far the most widely used word referring to adherents of Islam, and generally considered the most neutral term; the literal translation of the word aslama is "one who submits or surrenders," i.e. to Allah's/God's will as expressed in the Qur'an.

Mohammedan: Rarely used today, this term can still be found in works of literature, news and Western government reports that date from about 1400s to the 1930s; among the other historical and more derogatory or ambiguous terms are Turk, barbarian and heathen.

Black Muslim: Although Muslims who have black or dark brown skin live throughout Africa and the world, the term is usually used with specific reference to African-American Muslims who belong to the Nation of Islam, like Malcolm X.

Arab: Although the majority of those the West here about outside of Pakistan and India are of this racial origin (which perhaps ironically has the same antecedents as Semitics, or "racially Jewish"), it only has to do with Islam insofar as implied or explicit associations are made, and no more.

Fundamentalist: Contrary to popular belief based on media portrayals, not all Muslims are fundamentalists, any more so than Christians are; the term tends to be used in reference to people who live in places where religion is all they can cling to, from poverty or abundance.

Terrorist: Again contrary to popular belief based on media portrayals, only a tiny fraction of the Muslim population worldwide is involved with terrorism, and even fewer commit terrorist acts, which are in any case not limited to this religion but have been done in the name of all.

The point here is not to be politically correct when you refer to adherents of Islam, but to be accurate and assured that the words you use are a current event creating a world in which words hurt less and help more.

Photo credit: Bird Eye

Who Gives a Billion Muslims Worldwide a Voice? Meet Dalia Mogahed

Dalia Mogahed is Senior Analyst and Executive Director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, and leads the analysis of Gallup's unprecedented survey representing the views and opinions of more than 1 billion Muslims worldwide, including Muslims in the West. On behalf of One World, Many Peaces, Antony Adolf held an exclusive intereview with Ms. Mogahed. 
 
In addition to her work with Gallup, Ms. Mogahed directs the Muslim-West Facts Initiative. Through this initiative, Gallup, in collaboration with the Coexist Foundation, disseminates the findings of the Gallup World Poll to key opinion leaders in the Muslim World and the West.

Ms. Mogahed is also involved with important international organizations that address issues of Muslim communities. She is a member of Women in International Security, serves on the leadership group of the Project on U.S. Engagement with the Global Muslim Community, and is a member of the Crisis in the Middle East Task Force of the Brookings Institution.

Antony Adolf: In what ways do you see personal relations and information-sharing (or their absence) among Muslims and non-Muslims influencing what Muslims think? And vice versa? How do you think this situation can be improved?

Dalia Mogahed: Information and personal relations is key. For example, Americans who know a Muslim are half as likely to have extreme prejudice toward the faith community.  However, the key is not information, but accurate information. 

Our research actually finds that those who know nothing about Islam and cannot even tell us the name of the Prophet are more likely to say they have no prejudice.  Prejudice in America is learned, not inherently a function of knowing nothing about a group.  Media content analysis shows that Islam is the most negatively portrayed religion in the world as well as the most reported on ideology.  People may think they are well informed but unfortunately, the information is inaccurate. 

Surprisingly, educated people are more likely to have negative views of the other both in America and in the Muslim world.  This might be that less educated people do not have the level of engagement in global affairs to have a strong opinion. 

Antony Adolf: Being in the position in which you are, can you tell us about how (or how not) your professional and biographical backgrounds have influenced one another and do so in the projects you carry out? What would you say to Muslim youths in these regards?

Dalia Mogahed: I believe that all of us bring our life experiences in to inform and enrich our work.  I am no different.  My training is in the hard sciences:  Chemical Engineering to be specific.  I bring the empirical rigor and the scientific method of inquiry of this training to the work I do today.  I also had graduate and professional training in market research, and this approach of crafting solutions based on the views and needs of people is one I utilize in my profession. 

I also spent several years in the field of inter-cultural education, and the communication skills I developed in this work come in very handy when I present our research.  Gallup’s training and commitment to accuracy, integrity and objectivity guide my analysis perhaps more than anything else.  In addition, my own background as a devout Muslim and a proud American, a living contradiction to the Clash of Civilization theory, also enriches my work.

Antony Adolf: Can you situate how your projects on Muslim communities worldwide fit within Gallup’s work as a whole, as well as in relation to key academic and/or policy formation fields you contribute to?

Dalia Mogahed: Gallup’s core business is giving people a voice.  We do this in our Enterprise work by measuring employee and customer engagement.  We do this in our Polling work, but conducting global public opinion research in 150 countries covering 95% of the world’s population.  Within this massive research area we have different areas of focus, one of which is Muslim Studies.  The Center for Muslim Studies draws on this global research and focuses on Muslim communities around the world, both as majorities as well as significant minorities. 

This empirical research helps to inform policy discussions and academic research around the world.  This occurs through direct briefings to these centers of influence, our involvement in advisory committees and commissions, or through our reports which are publically available on our website. 

Antony Adolf: Your book with Professor John Esposito, Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think, provides fascinating accounts about public and personal opinions among the world’s Muslims. Can you let us in to some of the methodologies you used and surprising findings that resulted?

Dalia Mogahed: Our book is the result of years of research and tens of thousands of face to face interviews.  We drew a representative sample of residents in more than 30 countries and conducted hour long interviews with each in their homes.  Our sample includes young and old, educated and illiterate, men and women and urban as well as rural populations. 

Our most important finding was that the conflict between Muslims and the West is not inevitable.  Muslims admire much of what the West holds dear.  They don’t hate our freedom, they respect us for it.  In fact, the problem is not what they think of us, but what they think we think of them.  Muslims around the world believe that the West disrespects them and that this disrespect and racism is reflected in our policies as well as our prose.

Antony Adolf: What about dissenting voices, or ones that are usually kept silent, even within Muslim communities? In other words, how is it possible (or not) to actually speak for or represent all Muslims, is not a lot always lost in efforts to find out what can be gained?

Dalia Mogahed: You are right and this is why it is very important to be representative in the sample that is chosen.  The real issue however is that the media, especially the Western media, has been over representing minority voices, and in fact the majority has been silenced.  The fringe, both extremists of religious or secular ideologies, have monopolies the conversation for too long. 

Many have been lead to believe that there are only two possible voices on Islam:  Osama bin Laden or Ayan Hersi Ali.  Neither are representative,  both only speak for a miniscule minority, but unfortunately both get a lot of air time.  Our research opens the lenses and gives us a window into the lives of ordinary people who do not have access to the airwaves.

Antony Adolf: What does (or doesn't) your research show about what Muslims think about peace within themselves (i.e., denominationally), with others currently hostile forces (i.e., NATO and US-llied forces), and within other cultures (i.e., in Europe and North America)?

Dalia Mogahed: We found that Muslims, both Sunni and Shiites, believe that the most important thing Muslims should do to help themselves is to be more united.  We heard a great deal about the lack of unity, sectarian division, that Muslims feel is their greatest problem as a community.  On the surface, there are good intentions and Iraqis for example say they have positive views of both Sunnis and Shiites regardless of their own identities.  But despite this, publics see these division as major problems.

***

Along with her involvement with these organizations, Ms. Mogahed co-authored, with Professor John Esposito, the book Who Speaks for Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think. Her analysis also has appeared in such prestigious publications as The Wall Street Journal, Foreign Policy Magazine, the Harvard International Review, the Middle East Policy Journal, and many other academic and popular journals.
 
Ms. Mogahed has spoken at events and for organizations worldwide. Her audiences include the High-Level Group of the United Nations the Alliance of Civilizations, the Community of West and Islam Dialogue (C-100) group of the World Economic Forum, the Brookings Institution’s U.S.-Islamic World Forum, British parliamentarians, American senators, and religious leaders from every faith. She has discussed Gallup findings with a wide range of opinion leaders, including Madeleine Albright, Deepak Chopra, Stephen R., Covey, Quincy Jones, Jeffrey Sachs, Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman, evangelical leader Richard Land, bestselling author Karen Armstrong, U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel, Muslim activist and teacher Amr Khaled, Sheikh Habib Ali al-Jifri, Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, Her Majesty Queen Rania al Abdullah of Jordan, as well as two of the highest authorities of Sunni Islam - the Grand Muftis of Egypt and Bosnia and their Excellencies Dr. Ali Gomaa and Dr. Mustafa Ceric.
 
Ms. Mogahed earned her master's degree in business administration with an emphasis in strategy from the Joseph M. Katz Graduate School of Business at the University of Pittsburgh. She received her undergraduate degree in chemical engineering. Upon graduation, Ms. Mogahed joined Procter & Gamble as a marketing products researcher.

What American Muslim Terrorists Attacking Abroad Means

You’ve heard the news: five American Muslims have been charged with terrorism in Pakistan. But what does this momentous event mean, especially in light of the several others like it recently? Mainstream media has avoided commentary, analysis and even reporting as if the story were infected with the plague. Maybe it is in a way: we wouldn’t want more of them, would we? So what are some of the implications and possible cover-ups taking place?

First and foremost: Think there are just five of them? Think again. An American man from New Jersey was arrested for terrorism in Yemen last month. And, just recently, a woman from Colorado was arrested in Ireland on the same grounds. Also keep in mind that the CIA has been operating in Pakistan for decades, with people, information and resources flowing both ways, if asymmetrically. This, aside from the overt, routine exchanges unrelated to the military, from educational to commercial enterprises of individuals and organizations.

The Pakistani five, friends from the Washington area, are Ramy Zamzam, a dental student of Egyptian descent at Howard University; Ahmed Abdullah Minni, a native of Eritrea; Aman Hassan Yemer, originally from Ethiopia; and Umer Farooq and Waqar Khan, who are of Pakistani background. Disregarding the possibility that they may be American agents abroad who got caught and are being tried for treason not against the US but against Islam, North American media is convinced this is about the radicalization of Muslims in the US. While this is no doubt a legitimate fear, the fear mongering it supports draws attention away from many other similar cases worldwide. There is much more to the story.

Although few details have yet been released, if these are the agents (whether terrorist or American aligned) that are either dumb enough or (un)important enough to get prosecuted, count on dozens if not hundred more who are not. The logic of experts is that the pressures Muslims in America have felt since September 2001 have pushed them to these extremites. But why, then, would or have they not conspired to attacks within the US? Have they not been pushed “that far”? Or, are they the sheep that get left behind for the wolves so that the flock can survive, as were American operatives in Cambodia and Laos during the Vietnam war?

The excellent film Traitor, starring Don Cheadle, both dramatizes and critiques counterterrorism and terrorism in ways that productively problematize the problem of American Muslim terrorists at home and abroad, which the media does not yet know how to cover and the government how to solve. This solution-less situation is a current event creating a future in which these problems get worse.

New Museum of Tolerance in Jerusalem Triggers its Opposites, Calling Notion's Validity into Question

Construction of the new Museum of Tolerance in Jerusalem hasn’t even started yet, but already people are protesting because its site lies on an 11th-century cemetery turned parking lot. Prominent Muslim professors and professionals from around the world and Palestinian families whose ancestors lie there have formally protested against the building to the United Nation. The Israeli state and the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center, a Jewish rights organization, plan to go ahead with the Museum despite the serious setbacks it has suffered so far.

World-renowned architect Frank Gehry recently withdrew from the project, citing over-commitments rather than politics as motive, the New York Times reports. Among the foremost supporters of the project are Rabbi Marvin Hier, the dean and founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and the Israeli government. Among its high-profile protestors are Adnan Husseini, the Palestinian Authority governor of Jerusalem, Israeli peace activist Ahmad Natour and Rashid Khalidi, a professor of Arab studies at Columbia University.
 
Conflict resolution scholars like Mark Howard Ross have not been shy to point out the abuses of historical sites and artifacts by the Israeli government and its foreign supporters, used to justify Jewish primacy over locations. According to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Museum of Tolerance is intended to confront issues like “global anti-Semitism, extremism, hate, human dignity and responsibility, and promoting unity and respect among Jews and people of all faiths.” No mention is made of the Palestinian population in and around Israel, oppressed let alone tolerated by the state.
 
Ironically, the Museum has a dual name of Center for Human Dignity, which must mean only for peoples of certain descent and not those of the deceased of the Mamilla Cemetery (Ma’man Allah in Arabic), making the building itself betray what it stands for. In the end, the controversy calls into question the validity of the principle of tolerance as the basis of policy because it does not require understanding, acceptance nor accommodations of others, but merely distanced if benign acknowledgment. You can tolerate a pest, someone unwanted, but toleration's underlying indifference paves the way for externmination once pests become threats preceisely because they were just tolerated. Creating the future with a museum that is a current event for such reasons is a perilous enterprise despite, or because of, the critical engagement it interpolates. 

Ending the Nuclear Standoff with Iran: Five Steps to Constructive Relations

In case you haven’t noticed, world power efforts to contain and diffuse Iran’s nuclear plans aren’t working and haven’t been for years. Even when limited progress was made, it has always been one step forward, two steps back— or more. But then again, that depends on what you mean by “progress” in the first place: for the US and its allies, as close to nuclear negligibility Iran can get; for Iran’s UN Security Council allies like China and Russia, as close to nuclear weapons capabilities as possible.

In other words, the nuclear standoff is just that, a standoff, and so what the parties involved (as well as the world) needs now are new legs to stand on. Here are five pragmatic steps that can be taken today that would lead to more constructive relations with Iran:
 
Step One: Initiate Direct Dialogue. One of the most detrimental Bush legacies vis-à-vis Iran is his refusal to talk to Iranian (or North Korean, or Iraqi) counterparts under any conditions. Obama pledged to open a direct line between Washington and Tehran, but like many of his pledges it has yet to materialize. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is in the best position to lead the drive towards direct dialogue, without which any other steps seem futile.

Step Two: Distinguish Positions from Interests. To make immediate headway, professional negotiators often make the distinction between positions and interests. The standard example is two sisters who want to make juice and pulp pie from apples, respectively: their position is control over the apple, making compromise impossible; but by focusing on their interests, juice and pie, a settlement can be reached. Iran does not want nuclear capabilities for nuclear capabilities sake; it wants the energy, medical and yes (in)security that comes with nuclear capabilities. World powers just don’t want Iran to be able to fire a nuclear missile anywhere near them or their allies. Find ways to address interests, and positions will likely address themselves.

Step Three: Increase Incentives. For the past decade or so, world powers (individually and collectively through the UN Security Council) have imposed sanction upon sanction each time Iran has stepped up its enrichment or acquisition of nuclear material. Few diplomats if any have proposed, and none has effected, incentives for not stepping up and for stepping down. This gross negligence is usually knowingly done under the “posture” (ironically now the US’ official name for it) of not giving in to demands. Call it dangling a carrot or whatever you will, incentives and positive reinforcement work, and not using them doesn’t, as we know all too well.

Step Four: Decrease Sanctions. If incentives are successful, sanctions will become outdated and irrelevant; if the incentives fail, then they need to be renegotiated. In either case, the incremental decreasing of sanctions can be even more powerful than their imposition, and especially more so than their ratcheting up.

Step Five: Establish Mutually Beneficial Partnerships. With the preceding steps already taken, the icing on the cake so to speak would be the formation of partnerships that would continually measure, monitor and manage the interests at stake so as to avoid flaring up the positions. Doing so could take the form of regional energy, medical and security bodies in the Middle East that could form branches of global organizations that do the same. More likely, it would take the shape of bilateral or multilateral agreements and institutions. Either case would be a current event that would lead to a future where nuclear standoffs like this one are less likely.