Today I want to call your attention to two recent speeches, each by an experienced U.S. diplomat. Both of these men had lengthy, varied, and distinguished careers, both served as ambassadors to important U.S. allies, and both are solidly rooted in a realist view of foreign policy. For all these reasons, their remarks are well worth pondering.

The first is by retired Ambassador Charles ("Chas") Freeman, who served the U.S. government in a variety of capacities over more than thirty years. And he would be serving our country today as chairman of the National Intelligence Council had he not been the target of a vicious and baseless smear campaign by prominent figures in the Israel lobby. (Obama's failure to defend the appointment was an early warning sign of his spinelessness on this general issue).

In any case, Freeman recently gave a fascinating lecture at the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, entitled "America's Faltering Search for Peace in the Middle East: Openings for Others?" Apart from being beautifully written, it is also one of the clearest and most common-sensical analyses of our predicaments there that I have read recently. Here's just one small excerpt (you really owe it to yourself to read the whole thing):

In foreign affairs, interests are the measure of all things. My assumption is that Americans and Norwegians, indeed Europeans in general, share common interests that require peace in the Holy Land. To my mind, these interests include -- but are, of course, not limited to -- gaining security and acceptance for a democratic state of Israel; eliminating the gross injustices and daily humiliations that foster Arab terrorism against Israel and its foreign allies and supporters, as well as friendly Arab regimes; and reversing the global spread of religious strife and prejudice, including, very likely, a revival of anti-Semitism in the West if current trends are not arrested. None of these aspirations can be fulfilled without an end to the Israeli occupation and freedom for Palestinians.

Needless to say, the fact that someone with his experience, insight, and independence of mind was blackballed from further public service tells you a lot about why U.S. foreign policy keeps spinning off the rails.

The second talk that I recommend is by Robert Blackwill, who served as U.S. Ambassador to India and on the National Security Council during the Bush administration. (Interestingly, both Blackwill and Freeman were aides to Henry Kissinger at earlier stages in their careers). Blackwill recently delivered the second annual Ernest May Lecture to the Aspen Strategy Group, on the topic of "Afghanistan and the Lessons of History." Not surprisingly, his talk draws on many of the insights that May and Richard Neustadt developed about the perils of misplaced historical analogies and sloppy historical reasoning, but he offers plenty of intriguing nuggets of his own. And the "lessons" he draws about our Afghan experience ought to be on the desk of every ambitious "nation-builder" in Washington. Here they are:

• Ensure that the U.S. commitment in blood and treasure is clearly commensurate with U.S. vital national interests and does not push aside more important strategic challenges.
• Keep U.S. policy objectives feasible. No dreams allowed.
• Take into account that local realities dominate global constructs.
• Stay out of long ground wars in general, and especially stay out of long ground wars in Asia.
• Reject the notion that America has the capability to socially engineer far-off societies fundamentally different from our own.
• Be cautious about making counterinsurgency the U.S. Army's core competence. Interacting with exotic foreign cultures on the ground, not to say dramatically changing them, is not exactly America's comparative advantage.
• Accept that diplomacy is almost always a better instrument of U.S. national purpose than the use of military force.
• Remember that often purported worst case consequences of U.S. external behavior don't ever happen, not least because we remain the most powerful and resilient country on earth.

There's a lot of wisdom in those two speeches, and I recommend them highly. Among other things, they remind us that while you don't have to be a realist to say smart things about foreign policy, it sure helps.

Two posts from today’s blogosphere offer spot-on responses to yesterday’s tragic killings in Hebron:

From Mitchell Plitnick’s “The Third Way:”

I very much appreciate President Obama condemning yesterday’s murders of four settlers in the South Hebron Hills.

But that condemnation would be an awful lot more meaningful, to myself and to many others I’m sure, if we saw similar outrage in Washington when Israel killed over 700 Palestinian non-combatants in Operation Cast Lead. Or when a border policeman killed Bassem Abu Rahmeh by firing a gas cannister directly and intentionally at him. Or for any of the 100 Palestinians killed since the end of Operation Cast Lead (many of whom were killed as combatants, to be sure, but 32 of whom were not taking part in hostilities nor were counted as “targeted assassinations”).

From Paul Woodward’s “War in Context:”

Whether or not Hamas had a role in yesterday’s attack it is too soon to tell. And even if some or all of the gunmen turn out to belong to the movement does not necessarily reveal a great deal about the level of command and control or political motives for the attack.

Whatever the motives, the outcome itself has opened political opportunities to each constituency that now portrays itself as a victim.

Given that the attack took place in an area controlled by the IDF, President Abbas could have taken the opportunity to point out that the attack underlines the fact that there can ultimately be no security solution to the political conflict. Instead, Palestinian security services have been quick to launch what is being described as one of the largest arrest waves of all time in the West Bank.

At the funerals of the four Israelis killed, settler leaders took the opportunity to push for settlement expansion, call for vengeance (a call which has already been acted upon), deny the existence of the Palestinian people and made a thinly-veiled appeal for ethnic cleansing…

When President Obama tries to press Benjamin Netanyahu to extend the so-called settlement freeze, the Israeli prime minister will no doubt tell him solemnly that in light of recent events, his hands are well and truly tied.

They shoot and we build has become the settlers’ slogan — one that is almost certainly to Netanyahu’s liking.

We’ve been here before, of course. We’ve been here so many times I’ve lost count. Most of what needs to be said about the upcoming Israeli-Palestinian peace talks was expressed in a poem written nearly sixty years ago by the late, truly great Yehuda Amichai.

In The U.N. Headquarters Headquarters in the High Commissioner’s House in Jerusalem, he described an early version of the Middle East peace process industry:

The mediators, the peacemakers, the compromise-shapers,
the comforters
live in the white house
and get their nourishment from far away,
through winding pipes, through dark veins, like a fetus.

And their secretaries are lipsticked and laughing,
and their sturdy chauffeurs wait below, like horses in a stable,
and the trees that shade them have their roots in no-man’s land
and the illusions are children who went out to find cyclamen
in the field
and did not come back.

After devoting more lines to sadly mocking this nest of illusionists, Amichai concludes:

And hopes come to me like bold seafarers,
like the discoverers of continents coming to an island,
and stay for a day or two
and rest…
And then they set sail.

There has been an unrelenting barrage of gloomy pronouncements about the Israeli-Palestinian talks. All manner of pundits from the right, left and center have explained why the talks will amount to nothing and might even do more harm than good, why only fools and impractical dreamers would permit our bold seafarers, our hopes, to arrive and remain.

One of the most thorough and convincing critiques comes from Donald Horowitz, a scholar who doesn’t seem to have any ax to grind (HT: Tom Mitchell). On the left, Juan Cole explains “how little Netanyahu is interested in real peace with the Palestinians” and offers compelling reasons to be scornful. On the right, Barry Rubin is equally convincing when he explains how “Palestinian Authority incitement to kill Israelis and destroy Israel” is a “powerful subverter of chances for peace.” (Note that he is talking about the PA, not Hamas).

Just wander around the blogosphere for five minutes and you will find many more.

If you were expecting persuasive rebuttals, I’m sorry to disappoint you. I don’t disagree with any of these arguments for gloom. Daniel Levy probably doesn’t disagree either, although he bravely shoulders the burden of showing why the talks might defy expectations and amount to something:

(T)he main reason for hope rests with the potential that President Obama, having taken ownership of this issue, will pursue decisive leadership down the line. As a candidate, Barack Obama flirted with a definition of pro-Israel that was more sophisticated and more relevant to contemporary realities than the standard fare served up by pandering politicians (at a campaign stop with Jewish leadership in Cleveland, Ohio, he suggested that pro-Israel need not only be defined as pro-Likud. In insisting that a two-state solution and comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace is in the U.S. interest, President Obama is advancing a narrative that was adopted rather late in the day by his predecessor and that is very much the consensus of the U.S. military…

…The seemingly plodding progress made by the Obama administration thus far can be more generously interpreted as the U.S. methodically walking the parties to a place where decisive U.S. intervention and presentation of U.S. proposals becomes more possible, more justifiable, and more likely to succeed. According to that view, this week represents another and particularly important step in that direction. American officials have openly acknowledged that bridging proposals might be forthcoming and are showing a greater commitment to being present in the room at negotiations than has been the case in past efforts.

That helps. At least it helps a little bit. But even if the PA and Israel astonishingly come to terms under American auspices, given the deep political divisions within both peoples, and given the profound gaps in their narratives, it is unlikely that either party would be able to implement an agreement that would hold up in the near future.

If there is little hope for the short-term, though, that doesn’t mean the long-term prospects are entirely bleak. Lately, the popular analogy of this mess to the one in Northern Ireland has been demolished by many different commentators, including Horowitz and Levy. They point out the many differences between the players and the circumstances of the two conflicts. But they miss the most important point about the Republican-Unionist struggles, a more general and much much less complicated point: eventually, people in both communities just couldn’t take any more violence and turmoil. Eventually, the extremists on both sides decided that violence was counterproductive and gave up their maximalist demands.

Tom Mitchell is one of the few people around with a detailed knowledge of the nuances of both conflicts. In a message he sent to me that will eventually become part of a post, he wrote: “Peace in Northern Ireland came about only after the Republican Movement realized that a military victory was impossible and that there was a political cost to pay for the continued conflict.”

In a subsequent note, he gave one explanation of why the Republicans made that decision, a point that will make the left very uncomfortable: “British, and to a lesser extent Irish, intelligence did a very good job of infiltrating the IRA and INLA during the 1980s and early 1990s and thus were able to neutralize many IRA operations and imprison experienced terrorists.”

For a host of reasons, somehow both sides eventually grew tired enough to put aside centuries of resentment and bitter memories and sectarian passions.

There are any number of reasons why that kind of transformation probably won’t happen in Israel and the territories. But no one should assert with smug certainty that it will NEVER happen. Nor should anyone try to predict how long it will take. People and nations do change, change utterly. Grand ideologies are discarded and others replace them (e.g., China got fed up with Maoism and embraced free enterprise). Assumptions are overturned. Bitter conflicts somehow end (think France and Germany). That is not a very sophisticated political analysis, but that doesn’t make it less true. Right now, I confess it is the only reason for my bold seafarers to hang around.

So I will conclude with Yehuda Amichai, who, unsurprisingly, got it right decades ago. In “Sort of an Apocalypse,” he wrote:

And they’ll beat their swords into plowshares and plowshares into swords,
And so on and so on, and back and forth.
Perhaps from being beaten thinner and thinner
the iron of hatred will vanish forever.

Four Israeli Jews were killed on Monday near the Israeli settlement of Kiryat Arba on the West Bank. The victims - Yitzhak and Talya Ames (shown above), Kochava Even Chaim and Avishai Shindler - were all from the Israeli settlement of Beit Haggai in the South Mount Hebron area of the West Bank.

That this was an attempt by Hamas to derail peace negotiations is clear. That this is a tragedy for the families and friends of the victims is clear. That this is a vile act to be condemned by all decent people is clear.

What is less clear is why these killings have been so widely covered in virtually all Western media? What is less clear is why this proves that Israel has "no partner for peace." Why these killing prove - in the words of Rabbi Dov Lior, who spoke at at the funeral - that "God, [must] avenge the spilled blood of [his] servants. There is an army, which must be used. [It is a] mistake is to think that an agreement can be reached with these terrorists. Every Jew wants peace, but these evildoers want to destroy us. We need to give them the right of return and return them to the countries from which they came." ?

Why is it that the Jews - everyone of which "wants peace" - have killed 28 Palestinian civilians in the West Bank since the end of operation Cast Lead (Jan. 19 2009) while the Palestinians, who have killed 8 Israelis (including these last 4) in the same area in the same period, are labelled a gang of unrepentant terrorists? And, for the record, in Gaza, since Jan. 19, 2009, Israelis have killed 74 Palestinians, while Palestinians have killed 3 Israelis.

Why is it that none of these Israeli killings have garnered major headlines, and no one (well no one but Hamas that is!) has said these Israeli killings proves that the Palestinians have "no partner for peace?"

And lest you think all the Palestinian civilians killed by the Israelis where terrorist caught in the act, here are four names and stories of Palestinian victims who seem at least as innocent as Yitzhak Ames, Talya Ames, Kochava Even Chaim and Avishai Shindler.

Ziad Badawi Musa al-Joulani
40 year-old resident of Shu'fat, East Jerusalem district, killed on 11.06.2010 , East Jerusalem district, by bullets. Additional information: Killed by Border Police gunfire after the car he was driving struck a border policemen in Wadi al-Joz, East Jerusalem.

Muhammad Feisal Mahmoud Quareq
19 year-old resident of 'Awarta, Nablus district, killed on 21.03.2010 , Nablus district. Did not participate in hostilities. Additional information: Killed with his relative Saleh Qawariq by soldiers' gunfire while looking for scrap metal on farmland east of 'Awarta.

Muhammad Ibrahim 'Abd al-Qader Qadus
15 year-old resident of 'Iraq Burin, Nablus district, killed on 20.03.2010 , Nablus district. Did not participate in hostilities. Additional information: Killed by soldier's gunfire during a demonstration held by residents of Iraq Burin in their village.

Bassem Ibrahim Ahmad Abu Rahma
31 year-old resident of Bil'in, Ramallah and al-Bira district, killed on 17.04.2009 , Ramallah and al-Bira district, by a tear gas grenade. Did not participate in hostilities. Additional information: Killed during a demonstration against the separation barrier.

New York, September 1, 2010−As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas head to Washington to resume direct negotiations, OneVoice is encouraging people on both sides to remain optimistic.

After failure upon failure of previous direct talks, it has taken 20 months to get each side to sit down again, and the Obama administration is keeping quiet on their strategy for success. If these talks merely amount to posturing and fail, reviving them yet again could take years. Infusing the negotiations with hope requires unprecedented commitment by Netanyahu and Abbas to go beyond talk of compromises, to actually make compromises

There are strong feelings of skepticism from Israelis and solid notions of anger and resentment from Palestinians in the region. Tal Harris and Samer Makhlouf, the executive directors of OneVoice Israel (OVI) and OneVoice Palestine (OVP) both believe that it is important to instill hope in their communities and give these negotiations a chance despite a history of failed negotiations.

“There is no better alternative to ending the conflict than through a negotiated agreement. We will push for a meaningful process that yields one,” said Harris.

OVI will work hard to promote the positive aspects of these negotiations, presenting how necessary compromise is. For example, on the topic of Jerusalem where Palestinians hope to have East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state, OVI will show how 35% of Jerusalem is already Palestinian. Most areas in East Jerusalem are places that Israelis don’t go anyway so compromising on this factor is worth the alternative of not compromising and letting situations on the ground worsen.

OVP Executive Director Samer Makhlouf agrees on the importance of supporting this round of negotiations, if for nothing else than to take another shot at reaching a final agreement that solves all final status issues in accordance with the international resolutions and laws.

“We don’t support these negotiations unconditionally and we are 99% sure they will fail, but let’s not be so pessimistic. We aim to turn the negative energy into positive energy,” said Makhlouf. He says that many Palestinians feel they were “blackmailed” into these negotiations and that it’s not just the extremists who are opposing them but even the moderates who support two states. The streets are filled with demonstrations but nevertheless OVP feels it’s their role to promote confidence in these negotiations because what the people want is a serious process that ends the occupation and establishes a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital.

“Convincing the public to give these negotiations the benefit of the doubt is one of the most difficult issues we’ve faced, and we feel as though we’re swimming against the current,” said Makhlouf. “Our role though is to inspire people and give them hope and we will try and do our best.”

One topic that both Harris and Makhlouf agree will hinder the progress of these negotiations is the potential lift on the freeze of settlements. Makhlouf explains that it won’t make sense for him to tell Palestinians to support direct negotiations if settlements continue to be built, similar to what Abbas is saying about the talks.

“You can’t say two states and then build on the second state,” explains Harris.

During this time, both offices turn to the power of OneVoice’s Imagine 2018 campaign to encourage people to think about what they want the future to look like. Highlighting to the general public, as well as the politicians, the different possible realities if a peace agreement were to be reached or not emphasizes that there is no better formula to ending the conflict than to negotiate the interests of both sides

 “To the people who are sarcastic, we have to show them what they don’t get because of the occupation and instead show them that they deserve more than that,” said OVI Executive Director Tal Harris.

StandWithUs again attempts to take someone down, in this case Palestinian American author Ali Abunimah. As one might expect from such a hateful crew, they don’t do a very good job.

Abunimah responds to their dossier,

The StandWithUs dossier is a mishmash of biographical information about me, much of it taken from my own writing, but wildly distorted and wrapped in hostility. Its main purpose it to advise anti-Palestinian activists how to “expose” me. Parts of it are quite complimentary though: “When Ali Abunimah comes to your campus, be prepared for a sophisticated, smooth advocate of radical Palestinian positions.” It warns that my “calmness, highbrow style and constant references to international law and human rights cannot conceal [my] intense hostility about the very founding of Israel… .”

Abunimah notes the absurdity of their counter strategy, confronting him with questions about his own work! I have seen Abunimah speak countless times when I lived in Chicago, and I can testify that reciting the same questions he gets every time will not phase this “smooth sophisticate.”

The document points to the bankruptcy of the “anti-delegitimization” stategy. It requires bullying, ignorant attempts to suggest something sinister about people who stubbornly refuse to be caricatured. And with the existence of the internet, the absurdity leaks out, Abunimah can easily make them look ridiculous on his blog by, proudly for me, reposting the video  from Muzzlewatch of StandWithUs members shouting slurs at Jewish Voice for Peace and our allies. Such a contrast between StandWithUs’s bigotry and Abunimah’s forceful, thoughtful advocacy is all that is required for “delegimiatzation,” nothing sneaky is required.

Interesting press briefing by the indefatigable Geroge Mitchell: Instead of emphatically stating that Hamas has no role to play in the peace process (is he did in his last press briefing), Mitchell explained that while he does not expect Hamas … Continue reading →

Based on the past months of popular struggle in the West Bank which have included countless demonstrations, arrests, house raids, injuries and trips to the military courts, I find myself asking whether Israelis would like things to be better. The question is simple enough: do people here want to create a change so that the political situation will become less tense and perhaps everyone will have a brighter future of coexistence and cohabitation? On the eve of another round of ‘mirage’ peace talks, it is hard to find elements in Israeli society that feel the pressing need to change the reality of relations vis a vie Palestinian neighbors. The left is small and effectively meaningless compared with the majority of centrist Israelis who have become accustomed to the status quo concerning the occupation and Israel’s position in the world.

The sad reality is that the occupation and its horrific maintenance exists far in the back of Israeli minds. The issues barely enter daily conversation in Israel. Real debate only gets going in Israel after events like last night or the flotilla. This is usually a defensive conversation surrounding on the fear complex which this country lives on. While Israelis have little or no debate, the rest of the world is moving forward with creative ways to attack Israeli militarism against the Palestinians. The growing popularity of BDS around the world is an example of the sea change currently underway. In fact, BDS is almost unheard of in mainstream Israeli society. The reason for this is simple, awareness brings responsibility. With change also comes responsibility and this requires the embrace of reality. The sad fact is that many in Israel prefer the status quo of continued occupation, occasional attacks on Israeli civilians and the repression of an entire people to the prospect of embracing reality. The following book by Israeli socialist Akiva Orr explores the historical foundations of the trends I am touching on here.

Israel Myths

The current round of peace talks will have difficulty getting anywhere because Israelis do not want change. Part of the success of the Separation wall for Israeli society is that it has enabled the status quo to become entrenched. If Israel makes its own borders and builds a wall, the majority of people have little reason to embrace the reality of the occupation or the effects of the wall itself. In a way, it is the most profound manifestation of the Liberal Zionist call for a ethnically pure ‘Jewish and Democratic’ state. Israeli professor Gadi Taub in recent New York Times op-ed perfectly falls in line with this Liberal Zionist rationale as he argues to save Zionism. His simple refusal to understand the core ‘settler colonial’ component of political Zionism is yet another profound example of the unwillingness of Israelis to embrace reality and thus unwilling to make change. It is clear that Israelis do not want change because no one here is willing to take responsibility for our mistakes. Instead we prefer to hid behid our persecution complex and educate our children that the entire world hates us.

Israeli Brig. Gen. (res.) Oded Tira, former IDF artillery chief, has the unmitigated gall and impudence to urge that Israel attack Iran just before the Congressional mid-term elections when Pres. Obama’s hands will be tied in terms of any punishment he can mete out for the country’s misbehavior.  Here’s a little taste of what the Israeli Curtis LeMay proposes:

The clear conclusion is that we must attack.  The best timing would be in October before the U.S. Congressional elections.  The punishment that can be meted out to Israel on the eve of elections will be limited, if at all.  After November, it appears we will get, or so I hope, a Republican majority which will repay us handsomely for the attack and its aftermath.

I only wonder whether Haaretz has the guts to translate this garbage for its English edition.   This is not just incitement for war, it is egregious interference in U.S. political affairs.  Apparently, Tira and his IDF buddies have been sucking on the U.S. teat for so long they think they’re Americans with a right to topple our government at will.

The folks at Aipac might want to tamp down this sort of lunacy lest it enter into U.S. electoral politics and serve as a backlash that could put Jewish Republicans on the defensive.

Lest you say that Tira is a loose cannon, he is a loose cannon who was head of the Israeli Manufacturer’s Association and is an influential figure in business and military circles.

Besides this particular bit of nuttiness, last April Tira wrote in Haaretz that Israel should not only attack Syria due to the SCUD missiles it supposedly supplied to Hezbollah, but that Israel should topple the Assad regime.  In other words he advocated another 1982 Lebanon style invasion and usurpation of Syrian sovereignty.

To a hammer, everything looks like a nail.  To an artillery officer every nation that blocks Israel’s interests looks like a target to be bombed into submission.  Whether or not you argue that Tira is a warmonger, you can’t argue that his views aren’t common among the Israeli generalariat.  Even more than in the U.S. army, Israel’s current crop of generals welcomes war and the opportunity to redeem themselves for their past failures, and the ability to test out new weapons systems on the Muslim enemy.  To warriors like this, an Israeli holy war against Islam undoubtedly looks almost attractive.

What I don’t understand and never have understood is how an Israeli general can argue that Israel would effectively be able to fight on so many military fronts simultaneously when during the Gaza and Lebanon wars it didn’t fight effectively on a single front.  Has he given the least thought how Israel would assault Iran and invade Syria, all the while withstanding the tumultuous reception such news would receive among Palestinians, in Lebanon, etc.  These guys are generals.  They’re supposed to have brains and use them.  Where is the intelligence?

Related posts:

1. Clarion Fund Mystery Donor to Inject Millions in November Elections Throgh Iran Mushroom-Cloud Propaganda Film Those of you who read this blog during the last...
2. Cordesman on Folly of Israeli Attack on Iran Back in May, Reuven Pedatzur, a lecturer in political science...
3. Military Attack on Iran Will Set Reform Back 50 Years Yesterday, I organized a series of media and public events...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

For a while there in the spring, I was periodically blogging about Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Strength to Love. Then I stopped. I’m not entirely sure why, other than that I hit a chapter that really didn’t speak to me — and as previously admitted, I sometimes have a hard time following through on projects.

Be that as it may — that’s enough of that, then! Time to get back to it. Each post about the book can be read independently, but if you’re interested, previous installments can be found here.

Chapter ten – How should a Christian view Communism?

Well. Having initially swooned, and swooned again, and then kept right on swooning over Strength to Love — I sure did hit a brick wall with chapters nine and ten.

Chapter nine was, I’m sorry to say, just a little too Christian for me — and given that Dr. King was a pastor, and that “chapter nine” was initially a sermon, well, it takes a lot of gall for me to complain that chapter nine was too Christian, frankly.

Moreover, looking back at my notes, I find great wisdom to guide even so blatant a non-Christian such as myself — for instance:

Fatalism… is based on an appalling conception of God, for everything, whether good or evil, is considered to represent the will of God. A healthy religion rises above the idea that God wills evil…. The embracing of fatalism is as tragic and dangerous a way to meet the problem of unfulfilled dreams as are bitterness and withdrawal.

Or:

We Negroes have long dreamed of freedom, but still we are confined in an oppressive prison of segregation and discrimination…. Must we, by concluding that segregation is within the will of God, resign ourselves to oppression? Of course not, for this blasphemously attributes to God that which is of the devil. To cooperate passively with an unjust system makes the oppressed as evil as the oppressor. Our most fruitful course is to stand firm with courageous determination, move forward nonviolently amid obstacles and setbacks, accept disappointments, and cling to hope.

Or:

Our refusal to be stopped, our “courage to be,” our determination to go on “in spite of,” reveal the divine image within us.

Our refusal to be stopped, our courage to be, reveal the divine image within us — that is something, right there. It is our fight, our struggle to repair the world, that demonstrates God’s mark on us. Not our habits, not our sexual interests, not our willingness to read Scripture or pray — but our willingness to wrestle with imperfection and try to bring the world in line with Divine justice.

So, chapter nine wasn’t really all that bad, even for me.

But I’m supposed to be writing about chapter ten.

How is a post-Cold War semi-socialist Jew supposed to approach a chapter entitled “How should a Christian view Communism”?

As with chapter seven, I find Dr. King too glibly rejecting of non-believers (yes, I did just call Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. “glib.” I’m not comfortable with this), too contemptuous of those who are not spiritual (“…humanism thrives on the grand illusion that man, unaided by any divine power, can save himself and usher in a new society…”). Plus which, there’s a whole lot of “we need to pledge ourselves anew to the cause of Christ” — and with all the will in the world, that’s kind of a problem for me, isn’t it? As a believing Jew and the wife of a deeply moral atheist, here, finally, is a place where I just can’t get on board.

But I think I have to understand that that’s just the way it is. I think that we (I) need to learn to be more comfortable with the fact that we speak differently with different audiences. As genuine as Dr. King was being with his own congregation, he would never have exhorted me to pledge myself anew to the cause of Christ — much as I can only imagine he didn’t exhort his good friend Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, one of the giants of American Jewish thought. I think also that we (I) need to learn to be more comfortable with the fact that, occasionally, those whom we admire greatly will say things with which we entirely disagree — that such is human experience.

And even so, even here, where I have jumped off the train for a station or two, I find words that I want to hold close and knit into my synapses:

Any religion that professes to be concerned with the souls of men and yet is not concerned with the economic and social conditions that strangle them and the social conditions that cripple them is the kind the Marxist describes as “an opiate of the people.”

And:

Destructive means cannot bring constructive ends, because the means represent the ideal-in-the-making and the-end-in-progress. Immoral means cannot bring moral ends, for the ends are pre-existent in the means.

To both, I can only say: amen, amen — and endeavor to act on humanity’s spiritual duty to engage directly with the reality of human suffering, in my life, my political activism, and my Judaism.

Surely Dr. King would not argue with that.

Huge “way to go” to my colleague Rachel Barenblat (aka “The Velveteen Rabbi”), who recently posted this story on her blog:

Last week, a drunk man barged into the Al-Iman masjid in Astoria, Queens, and urinated on the prayer rugs. I tweeted about it, horrified at this display of Islamophobia (and also just plain atrocious behavior.) On Thursday, @stumark suggested that we raise money to replace the prayer rugs at the Al-Iman mosque in Queens. On Friday, I posted to this blog and to twitter asking for donations toward reimbursing the mosque for the costs of steam-cleaning their prayer rugs. My hope was to raise a few hundred bucks as a gesture of interfaith good will, a way of showing this one Muslim community that the actions of that drunk man do not represent the beliefs of most Americans.

While it’s a story that begins with a pathetic act of Islamophobia, thanks to Rachel it has a very happy ending. Make sure to read all the way to the end and donate accordingly.

New York, August 31, 2010−OneVoice Palestine (OVP) recently collaborated with Palestinian filmmaker, Muayad Alayan, receiving film training and guidance to help make Palestinian visions for OneVoice’s multiplatform Imagine 2018 campaign.

 
A scene from Alayan's film, Lesh Sabreen.

Alayan was first drawn to filmmaking after attending a film workshop as an 11^th grade student in Jerusalem. Since then he has created award-winning films and documentaries and has initiated a series of film workshops for youth in Jerusalem and the West Bank. His most recent work, Lesh Sabreen, tells the love story of two young Palestinians and the constraints of their love due to living in a socially-conservative, economically deprived, and Israeli-controlled community.

Describe how art can serve as a means to conflict resolution, according to you and your work.

I believe that every human being needs to find a medium for self expression, and especially for people living in conflict situations. Self expression is essential, both to document, change and even to survive. For me, cinema is the medium I choose. I do not think that cinema can directly serve as a means to conflict resolution, but it is definitely important in bridging divides and telling stories both to the world as well as to the “other” part in the conflict.

Are you part of a wider community of artists using art to make sense out of, process, and perhaps offer creative solutions for the conflict?

There have been several works and experiments by different artists and organizations. I think all are necessary, but I do not personally believe that it can bring direct solution for conflicts. It is however the best way to provide people with a different perspective and a different point of view or dimension to things.

What do you think about when creating art that involved or relates to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Who are you speaking to or reaching out to?

In my films I always try to reach to my people first, and then to the world and of course the Israelis. We as Palestinians need to tell our stories. In conflict situations, each side tries to boycott, censor and even oppress your voice or your story, especially by the occupying side. I believe it is important to insist on getting your story across by any means necessary.

Does politics have a role in art and what part does art play in politics?

Politics can sometimes oppress art or at best influence it and guide it in a certain direction for political benefits. Art challenges politics and no matter how critical it can be, it will be more peaceful. Several Palestinian filmmakers have been imprisoned, denied entry into Palestine and even deported sometimes for political reasons by the Israeli Authorities.

How does OneVoice’s message of two states for two peoples affect your opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

For a long time I believed in a one-state solution for both sides. At this point in life, the situation is very complicated in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and I believe a two-state solution is necessary, even if for a certain period of time until a one-state situation can be possible.

Tell us how you were first drawn to art and your journey of establishing yourself?

My very first experience in filmmaking was at the I am You are filmmaking workshop as an 11^th grade student in the Jerusalem cinematheque. The workshop involved twenty Palestinian and Israeli students from both sides of the city. Both sides produced films of their stories to screen and share with the other side of town.

Would you art change if there was a resolution to the conflict?

Art will continue to reflect human stories and experiences. I hope that once a resolution is achieved we will reflect on happier and more peaceful realities.

Leila, left; Dr. Najwa Adra, right

Dance Workshop & Discussion: Leila of Cairo and Anthropologist Najwa Adra
Wednesday, September 1, 2010 6:00 pm at Alwan for the Arts

Workshop: 6:00-8:30 pm
Discussion: 8:30-10:00 pm

This evening of dance and discussion provides an opportunity much needed in the bellydance scene: to both embody the feeling of Egyptian raqs sharqi through movement and music, and also to speak to the controversial issues surrounding the dance through dialogue with experts. Alwan welcomes acclaimed dancer Leila of Cairo, and esteemed scholar Najwa Adra, to kick off its 2010-2011 season of culturally contextualized, quality dance and performance.

Dance Workshop with Leila of Cairo

Understanding Classical Egyptian Music for Dance

6:00-8:30 pm

The historic songs of Oum Kalthoum, Abdel Halim Hafez and Warda can be intimidating for dancers of all levels. Join Leila as she navigates through the musical structure of these complex compositions. Explore Egyptian versus Western interpretation of these songs, and utilize Egyptian technique to express the music and ultimately, yourself, within the dance.

Take advantage this rare opportunity to learn with Cairo-based, American-born Leila, who has won over Egyptian audiences with her dance, film and stage appearances.

Discussion with Najwa Adra PhD and Leila

Raqs, What’s the Point? Diverging Bellydance Traditions in Egypt and the U.S.

8:30-10:00 pm

This discussion focuses on differences of perception, meaning, context and technique of the dance known simply as raqs or raqs sharqi in the Arab world, and as bellydance in the US. Leila draws upon her experiences as a US-born dancer who has an exceptionally successful career as a performing artist in Eygpt, while Najwa highlights related issues from her fieldwork research, writings and lifetime of participating in social dance traditions of the Arab world. The talk-back will touch upon notions of authenticity, cultural appropriation and orientalization in the dance. Come with questions and comments! (more…)