Here is a comment that I posted on NY Times columnist Nick Kristof's comment page regarding his op-ed piece in today's NY Times. (To read the piece, click here) As of now I am one of 233 comments most overwhelmingly positive. His normal number seems to be about 5. Something may be happening.
Dear Nick:
It pains me to say this in a country that claims freedom of the press as one of its core values, but thank you for your courage in writing this important piece. People like you and Jimmy Carter may force the debate in the U.S. that, as you say, rages in Israel. You will probably feel the rage of the usual suspects, but I guess that goes with the territory. This weekend we had a conference in our town on Darfur with Brian Steidle sponsored by our Jewish community at which your role in bringing this tragedy to the front was praised by all attending. I hope that my Jewish friends will feel as positive about you today as they did yesterday. With a new unity government in the Palestinian territories I hope that the PA will claim the only piece of vacant land in Israel/Palestine - the moral high ground. Acceptance by the PA of the Arab League proposal for a two state solution would put enormous pressure on the US/Israel to engage on the serious issues. Your leadership may be important in making something happen. We would then see if a two state solution is really possible. It is not clear to me how 300,000 Jewish settlers in the occupied West Bank can be made to disappear.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Friday, March 16, 2007
Who are the proliferators?
In the past few months there have been lots of discussions over adherence to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). (For more than you wanted to know click here) The U.S. has threatened Iran with dire consequences if it doesn’t live up to its obligations under the NPT. Hans Blix, the former chief UN inspector in Iraq, said at a recent lecture in Boise that who the violators are is not as clear as the U.S. government and media would have us believe. The NPT was negotiated in 1968 and signed and ratified by 188 nation states. Three states (Israel, India and Pakistan) neither signed nor ratified the treaty and proceeded to develop, test and deploy nuclear weapons (NW) outside the framework of the treaty. One (North Korea) ratified the treaty, broke it and then withdrew. The treaty has three basic pillars:
1. Non-proliferation - The 5 nuclear weapons states (NWS), Russia, China, France, U.K. and U.S, agreed not to transfer NW technology and not to use NW unless attacked with NW. Non- nuclear weapons states (NNWS) agreed not to receive, manufacture or acquire NW.
2. Disarmament – The NWS states agree to reduce and liquidate their NW stockpiles.
3. Peaceful uses – All states are allowed to develop nuclear technology for peaceful uses.
The treaty has been generally successful. In forty years no NNWS is known to have developed NW under the IAEA inspection regime. Several states (Israel, Pakistan and India) have never let them in and have developed NW. One (North Korea) kicked them out and then developed NW. The NWS, however, have done almost nothing to live up to their disarmament treaty obligations. All proposals at the Disarmament Conferences have been rejected by the NWS under one pretext or another. The NNWS have fumed over this failure and some have used it as justification for their own nuclear development programs. The UK recently said that it needed nuclear missiles to defend itself from Al Quada. As Hans Blix said: “Attacking Al Quada with NW is like trying to kill a mouse with a cannon”. (To see Iran’s reaction to this, click here.)The US/Israel have said that they need NW to defend themselves from Iran, a state whose leader has said that he wanted to “wipe Israel off the face of the map”. A better translation of his statement from the Farsi is “this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time”. This translation has a somewhat different tone; unfortunately it doesn’t meet the political agenda of the US and Israel. (For more on this, click here.) If, in forty years, the 5 NWS had made some effort to live up to their treaty obligations to reduce and liquidate their NW stockpiles, they might have more leverage with countries like Iran and North Korea who feel the need to defend themselves from the overwhelming power of their adversaries. Hans Blix argued that NW have outlived their usefulness and the time is right for disarmament. In this age of globalization, it is not as though China would want to blow up its best customer or that the U.S. would want to blow up China. Nobody in the U.S. would have anything to wear or any TV’s to watch.
1. Non-proliferation - The 5 nuclear weapons states (NWS), Russia, China, France, U.K. and U.S, agreed not to transfer NW technology and not to use NW unless attacked with NW. Non- nuclear weapons states (NNWS) agreed not to receive, manufacture or acquire NW.
2. Disarmament – The NWS states agree to reduce and liquidate their NW stockpiles.
3. Peaceful uses – All states are allowed to develop nuclear technology for peaceful uses.
The treaty has been generally successful. In forty years no NNWS is known to have developed NW under the IAEA inspection regime. Several states (Israel, Pakistan and India) have never let them in and have developed NW. One (North Korea) kicked them out and then developed NW. The NWS, however, have done almost nothing to live up to their disarmament treaty obligations. All proposals at the Disarmament Conferences have been rejected by the NWS under one pretext or another. The NNWS have fumed over this failure and some have used it as justification for their own nuclear development programs. The UK recently said that it needed nuclear missiles to defend itself from Al Quada. As Hans Blix said: “Attacking Al Quada with NW is like trying to kill a mouse with a cannon”. (To see Iran’s reaction to this, click here.)The US/Israel have said that they need NW to defend themselves from Iran, a state whose leader has said that he wanted to “wipe Israel off the face of the map”. A better translation of his statement from the Farsi is “this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time”. This translation has a somewhat different tone; unfortunately it doesn’t meet the political agenda of the US and Israel. (For more on this, click here.) If, in forty years, the 5 NWS had made some effort to live up to their treaty obligations to reduce and liquidate their NW stockpiles, they might have more leverage with countries like Iran and North Korea who feel the need to defend themselves from the overwhelming power of their adversaries. Hans Blix argued that NW have outlived their usefulness and the time is right for disarmament. In this age of globalization, it is not as though China would want to blow up its best customer or that the U.S. would want to blow up China. Nobody in the U.S. would have anything to wear or any TV’s to watch.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
The New "Axis of Evil"
The BBC recently polled 28,000 people from around the world inquiring which countries they felt had a positive influence and which countries had a negative influence. (For the entire article, click here) The top four (or bottom four depending on your viewpoint) for negative perception were Israel, Iran, North Korea and the United States. Those with the most positive perceptions were Canada, Japan and the European Union. Some commentators have explained the difference between the countries as based on the degree of engagement (some might call it meddling) in world affairs. I am inclined to think that the difference is more related to the emphasis on the use of soft power rather than on hard power. This week two young 
people (an Arab Muslim man and a Jewish woman) from the Israeli village of Neve Shalom/Wahat al-Salam spoke in our community. Neve Shalom/Wahat al-Salam is a village of 50 families half way between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv that has been intentionally established to have Arabs and Jews living alongside one another in peace. (To learn more about this, click here) When they discussed the fact that they get no help or encouragement from the Israeli government (the government refuses to sell them any more land to expand and gives the school the least amount of money they legally can) the Rabbi asked the question “What about support from Hamas; do they help you?” After pointing out that Hamas is a political movement in the occupied Palestinian territories and not in Israel, Naomi said “Hamas has nothing to do with us; we are just trying to live together in peace with justice.” Ahmed said; “I agree with almost nothing they say, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t talk to them and try to find a way forward." When Naomi was asked what her Jewish friends say when they find out that she grew up and lives in Neve Shalom/Wahat al-Salam and works to help Palestinian prisoners she said: “They say ‘Oh, you must be one of those’.” When Ahmed was asked “What needs to be done for you to have more impact?”, he said “The governments , not just the Israeli government, need to pick up on this model. We can help show that people of religious and ethnic differences can live alongside each other in peace, but only our governments can make a big difference.” Perhaps we need more of “those” to encourage the new “Axis of Evil” to pick up on this model of peace with justice and try to move it forward with soft power and not guns and armies.
people (an Arab Muslim man and a Jewish woman) from the Israeli village of Neve Shalom/Wahat al-Salam spoke in our community. Neve Shalom/Wahat al-Salam is a village of 50 families half way between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv that has been intentionally established to have Arabs and Jews living alongside one another in peace. (To learn more about this, click here) When they discussed the fact that they get no help or encouragement from the Israeli government (the government refuses to sell them any more land to expand and gives the school the least amount of money they legally can) the Rabbi asked the question “What about support from Hamas; do they help you?” After pointing out that Hamas is a political movement in the occupied Palestinian territories and not in Israel, Naomi said “Hamas has nothing to do with us; we are just trying to live together in peace with justice.” Ahmed said; “I agree with almost nothing they say, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t talk to them and try to find a way forward." When Naomi was asked what her Jewish friends say when they find out that she grew up and lives in Neve Shalom/Wahat al-Salam and works to help Palestinian prisoners she said: “They say ‘Oh, you must be one of those’.” When Ahmed was asked “What needs to be done for you to have more impact?”, he said “The governments , not just the Israeli government, need to pick up on this model. We can help show that people of religious and ethnic differences can live alongside each other in peace, but only our governments can make a big difference.” Perhaps we need more of “those” to encourage the new “Axis of Evil” to pick up on this model of peace with justice and try to move it forward with soft power and not guns and armies.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Watch where you are going
Recently this picture of Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz inspecting troop deployments in the Golan Heights has made the rounds of Israeli and international media. (For the whole BBC article click here.) Mr. Peretz has received a lot of criticism and ridicule for looking through binoculars with the lense caps still on. (It is good to have something to laugh at occasionally in this part of the world.) It does seem to me, however, that this is a great metaphor for the whole situation in the Middle East. The U.S. cannot see the civil war in Iraq and therefore cannot figure out what to do. Israel can’t see that without justice for the Palestinians, there will not be peace. The Palestinians can’t see that without security for Israel, there will not be peace. Israel can’t see that without dealing with the issue of the Golan Heights, there will not be peace with Syria. It is not only lens caps, however, that keep people from seeing the path to peace. All parties are looking back at their history and are focused on past injustices, real and perceived. This hindsight affects their perspective on the present problems. When Linda Biehl, the mother of Amy Biehl who was killed by black rioters in South Africa, spoke to high school students in our town about her forgiveness of the perpetrators, she said: “I can’t do anything about the past; I can only affect the future.” Looking back at the past instead of ahead for opportunities is like trying to drive on the road to peace looking in the rear view mirror. If we did that in our cars and hit a tree, the police would probably say: “Why weren’t you watching where you were going?” Maybe when the peace process hits a tree we should ask the same question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)