James J. Zogby: "Today’s Trump/Netanyahu meeting was an embarrassingly gross “log-rolling” exercise in flattery. Netanyahu says he nominating Trump for Nobel Peace Prize. Trump calls Netanyahu “the greatest man alive.” It made me sick. Meanwhile the genocide of Palestinians continues"

James J. Zogby

@jjz1600

Today’s Trump/Netanyahu meeting was an embarrassingly gross “log-rolling*” exercise in flattery. Netanyahu says he nominating Trump for Nobel Peace Prize. Trump calls Netanyahu “the greatest man alive.” It made me sick. 

Meanwhile the genocide of Palestinians continues

*Log-rolling

Logrolling is the trading of favors, or quid pro quo, such as vote trading by legislative members to obtain passage of actions of interest to each legislative member. In organizational analysis, it refers to a practice in which different organizations promote each other's agendas, each in the expectation that the other will reciprocate. In an academic context, the Nuttall Encyclopedia describes logrolling as "mutual praise by authors of each other's work".

"For the White House to allow pro-Israel “word police” to define what is & isn’t acceptable language is a dangerous abuse of power" James J Zogby ... & Annie's Notes about the real meanings of some very crucial words that are being badly misconstrued by Biden & the Zionist Word Police

 James J. Zogby

@jjz1600

So the president is now condemning the word “intifada” as hate speech. It literally means “shaking off,” as in removing the shackles of the past. For the White House to allow pro-Israel “word police” to define what is & isn’t acceptable language is a dangerous abuse of power

What the “word police” say can’t be said: apartheid, genocide, ethnic cleaning, settler colonialism, “from the River to the sea…”, & now intifada. The list keeps growing as a way to shield Israeli policies from criticism. & to equate this w/ antisemitism is so wrong.

 

 ~~~~~~

 Annie's Notes about the real meanings of some very crucial words that are being badly misconstrued by Biden & the Zionist Word Police

 

 

Dove of Peace w Key ASA copyright 2009

Intifada- shaking off

 

From the River to the Sea-  Freedom, equality & respect everywhere for everyone- empowering the rule of fair and just laws.

Apartheid- 1940s: from Afrikaans, literally ‘separateness’, from Dutch apart ‘separate’ + -heid (equivalent of -hood):  SEGREGATION

Ethnic Cleansing- the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial, or religious groups from a given area, with the intent of making a region ethnically or religiously homogenous.

Settler Colonialism- Settler colonialism occurs when colonizers invade and occupy territory to permanently replace the existing society with the society of the colonizers

 Genocide is the intentional destruction of a people^[a] in whole or in part.  

In 1948, the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". These five acts were: killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group. Victims are targeted because of their real or perceived membership of a group, not randomly

Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin coined the term genocide in his 1944 book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, combining the Greek word γένος (genos, "race, people") with the Latin suffix -caedo ("act of killing"). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

 

Semite, name given in the 19th century to a member of any people who speak one of the Semitic languages, a family of languages spoken primarily in parts of western Asia and Africa. The term therefore came to include Arabs, Akkadians, Canaanites, Hebrews, some Ethiopians (including the Amhara and the Tigrayans), and Aramaean tribes.

 

Notice that indigenous Arab Palestinians, including Arab Christians, are being erased -ethnically cleansed- from historic Palestine while also being intentionally and persistently excluded from the definitions of antisemitism:

 

Antisemitism- hostility to or prejudice against Jewish people. The term anti-Semitism was coined in 1879 by the German agitator Wilhelm Marr to designate the anti-Jewish campaigns underway in central Europe at that time. Nazi anti-Semitism, which culminated in the Holocaust, had a racist dimension in that it targeted Jews because of their supposed biological characteristics—even those who had themselves converted to other religions or whose parents were converts. This variety of anti-Jewish racism dates only to the emergence of so-called “scientific racism” in the 19th century and is different in nature from earlier anti-Jewish prejudices.

"For decades now, Israel has been strangling East Jerusalem denying its Palestinian inhabitants freedom, opportunity, dignity, and hope, with devastating impact. Before Israel closed Jerusalem off from the rest of the West Bank in 1994, the city had served as the hub of Palestinian life." James Zogby

[AS ALWAYS PLEASE GO TO THE LINK TO READ GOOD ARTICLES IN FULL: HELP SHAPE ALGORITHMS (and conversations) THAT EMPOWER DECENCY, DIGNITY, JUSTICE & PEACE... and hopefully Palestine (& America)]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-zogby/strangling-jerusalem_b_8367818.html?utm_content=buffer1f65a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Strangling Jerusalem

James Zogby  President, Arab American Institute; author, 'Arab Voices'
Posted: 10/24/2015 7:40 am EDT 

We have been witnessing an epidemic of violence in Jerusalem. There have been killings and near fatal attacks in Israel and elsewhere in the occupied Palestinian lands, but it is Jerusalem that has been the epicenter of the violence. This tragedy has been compounded by the fact that most US analysts and political leaders have been dead wrong in their simplistic, myopic, or, at times, even bigoted assessments of what is happening and why.

For example, The Atlantic's Jeffery Goldberg says the violence has been caused by Palestinian "paranoia" and their refusal to acknowledge "the national and religious rights" of Jews. Bret Stephens, writing in the Wall Street Journal, accuses the Palestinians of "blood lust". For their part, Members of Congress have been jumping all over each other to see who can issue the harshest denunciations of the Palestinian Authority for incitement and/or not doing enough to control the situation.

In reality, the roots of the violence in Jerusalem are deeper and far more complex. For decades now, Israel has been strangling East Jerusalem denying its Palestinian inhabitants freedom, opportunity, dignity, and hope, with devastating impact. Before Israel closed Jerusalem off from the rest of the West Bank in 1994, the city had served as the hub of Palestinian life. Not only was the city important for its religious role, all of the major Palestinian economic, social, cultural, educational, medical, and service institutions were located in the city.

Jerusalem was Palestine's heart, and the flow of people in and out was its lifeblood. Jerusalem's people and its businesses and institutions were sustained by Palestinians from the West Bank who entered daily to work or shop, to visit or take advantage of the services it provided. And Palestinians from the rest of the West Bank were, in turn, nourished by all that the city had to offer. The choking impact of the closure was felt almost immediately. It became so difficult and humiliating to pass through checkpoints to get into Jerusalem... READ MORE

"It is critically important to have a broad strategic vision of the future that embodies the values and aspirations of your people. And it is equally important to be able to project how you can see that vision being implemented in the short term. " James Zogby of AAI...

"Thinking about the future means we do not create "false idols" of the past or present. It means that we understand that we are human, subject to God's laws, and that we do not allow ourselves become so arrogant as to subject God to our own whims and fancy. It also requires that we reject the temptation to use means that contradict the very ends we seek to accomplish."

[AS ALWAYS PLEASE GO TO THE LINK TO READ GOOD ARTICLES IN FULL: HELP SHAPE ALGORITHMS (and conversations) THAT EMPOWER DECENCY, DIGNITY, JUSTICE & PEACE... and hopefully Palestine]

http://www.aaiusa.org/dr-zogby/entry/the-importance-of-vision/

The Importance of Vision

Monday May 19, 2014

A few days ago, I spent an afternoon with members of the Syrian opposition delegation visiting Washington. They briefed me on their many meetings with the Obama Administration (including a lengthy session with the president) and with members of the Senate and Congress. We also discussed problems they are facing on the ground in Syria and issues with their messaging strategy.

At the very end of our wide-ranging conversation, a leader of the delegation surprised me with a few unexpected questions. He asked "What is your long-term vision for the region— from Iraq to Lebanon— how do you see it in the future? And what do you see for us in the next three years?"

I was surprised, but I was also delighted, because these are exactly the questions that should be asked and answered by leaders on all levels of government and civil society across the Middle East.

It is critically important to have a broad strategic vision of the future that embodies the values and aspirations of your people. And it is equally important to be able to project how you can see that vision being implemented in the short term.  

My initial response might have been a bit flippant, saying that looking 100 years down the road I can see an Arab boy from Amman marrying an Israeli girl from Tel Aviv and taking a job and settling down in the suburbs of Damascus. But I quickly added that what I meant was that I envisioned a region at peace with itself, with integrated societies, economies, and open borders (or no borders, at all) allowing for the free movement of people and commerce.

Given the bloody wars of the last several decades and continuing tumult and tension, such a vision might appear to some to be fanciful. There will be naysayers who will go so far as to argue that it is not in the genetic makeup of this or that side to ever accept such a peace or integration. But I am convinced that they are wrong. No group of people is uniquely indisposed to peace and integration and no people are immune from the inevitable pressures of history.

In this regard, the Middle East is not exceptional. It is true that the region is plagued by war and upheaval— but then what region of the world has not been so plagued. Much the same despair was once widespread across Europe. That continent had, for centuries, been the setting for bloody conflicts that pitted nations and sects against each other, culminating in the 20th century's two devastating world wars. Who, in the midst of the last century's horrors, could have imagined a Europe at peace with itself?

In the past few decades, Europe formed an economic union and then ended a Cold War that had divided the continent. Though still not a "perfect union," it is impossible to ignore the profound and positive transformations that have occurred and are still unfolding across that once tormented region. 

  

What is important is that, in the midst of conflict, people be given a vision of the future and the possibility of change, precisely so that they not surrender to despair. Projecting such vision can inspire and motivate societies to move forward, rejecting the paralysis that comes from feeling trapped by present day "realities". By projecting a progressive vision of the future, leaders are also able to present a stark contrast between the idea of the world they seek to create with notions advocated by those operating without such a vision.

When applied to the conflicts raging across the Levant, the matter becomes clearer.  

What, for example would be Bashar al Assad's vision of the future? And who would want to live in the future projected by ISIS or Jabhat al Nusra? Is there anyone who hopes that Lebanon one hundred years from now is still divided by sect, with power monopolized by the same families who have governed their clans or regions for the past century? And is there any future in the exclusivist, irredentist notions advocated by hard-line Israelis or their counterparts in the Palestinian camp? 

Having a progressive vision of the future allows one to challenge those who can't think beyond the dead-end constraints of the present. It rejects those who for reasons of power and personal privilege want to freeze current realities or elevate them to the status of the eternal, and those whose blasphemous distortions of religion cause them to envision the future as a return to an idealized past.

Thinking about the future means we do not create "false idols" of the past or present. It means that we understand that we are human, subject to God's laws, and that we do not allow ourselves become so arrogant as to subject God to our own whims and fancy. It also requires that we reject the temptation to use means that contradict the very ends we seek to accomplish.  

This leads me to consider my Syrian friend's second no less important question, which is to envision the Levant in three years’ time. In some ways, this is a more difficult challenge because it forces us to directly confront the constraints of the present day. While I believe that 100 years from now there will be no latter-day "al Assad" on the scene, no "religious" fanatics tormenting those who are "less pure", no clan leaders or ultra-nationalists— they are precisely the characters who define present day life. 

They must be defeated— but how they are defeated matters. That's why a future vision based on values is important. Fighting evil with evil, repression with repression, or fanaticism with fanaticism, is a no-win proposition. New ideas matter and so do new means by which to bring those ideas to life.    

I thank my Syrian friend for asking his thoughtful questions and for the discussion that followed. It provided us both an opportunity to reflect on means and ends and goals. The very fact that he asked these questions made me appreciate his leadership. I would love to hear this challenge put to other leaders, on all levels, across the Levant. Their answers would be revealing.

Washington Watch: The Choice We Face, the Debate We Must Have

 [AS ALWAYS PLEASE GO TO THE LINK TO READ GOOD ARTICLES IN FULL: HELP SHAPE ALGORITHMS (and conversations) THAT EMPOWER DECENCY, DIGNITY, JUSTICE & PEACE... and hopefully Palestine]

http://www.aaiusa.org/dr-zogby/entry/the-choice-we-face-the-debate-we-must-have/

 Dr. Zogby

The Choice We Face, the Debate We Must Have

Monday May 12, 2014

I was deeply disturbed last week when US Secretary of State John Kerry, in response to criticism from former Senate colleagues, felt compelled to walk back his warning that Israel risked becoming an "apartheid state" if it failed to make peace with the Palestinians. What troubled me most was that Kerry, after acknowledging that many Israelis have offered the same warning, apologized for using the word "apartheid" saying that "it is a word best left out of the debate here at home." In other words, Israelis can have this debate, but we can't.

This affair brought to mind a comment I heard from former Senator Joseph Lieberman back in 2000 in which he acknowledged that it was easier to debate issues like settlements and Jerusalem in the Israeli Knesset than to have the same debates in the US Senate. The question is, how can the US lead Israeli-Palestinian peace-making when we can't criticize Israel or have an honest debate about their policies?  

For more than two decades now America has assumed for itself a unilateral role in Israeli-Palestinian peace-making. During all that time our leadership has repeatedly been tested. And all too often, we have come up short. Our inability to pursue peace, independent of domestic political considerations, has had dramatic consequences. Not only have we failed to help resolve the conflict, we have also contributed to a deterioration in the political environment in both Israeli and Palestinian societies and to harming the image of our country in much of the world. Even when presidents have tried to make a difference, as many have, going back to President Ford, they have been slapped down by a Congress more focused on short term political expediency than protecting the long-term interests of the United States. In the process they have repeatedly compromised our nation's stated commitment to universal human rights and democracy.

In the eyes of much of the world, we have become like the crowd in Hans Christian Anderson's "The Emperor's New Clothes". We see only what we want to see, and deny what we find uncomfortable to acknowledge. For decades, we turned a blind eye to the daily realities confronting Palestinians living under a brutal and humiliating occupation. Even when we did acknowledge these abuses of human rights, we failed to demonstrate the resolve needed to challenge Israeli behavior.

It is not merely a problem of our weakness and inability to publicly criticize Israel. It is as if we cannot bring ourselves to see Palestinians as full and equal human beings and to stand up and defend them when their rights are so flagrantly violated. We decry settlements when they are announced, then call them "realities" when they are built. In other conflicts around the world: we defend innocent civilians who are victimized by collective punishment; we defend those who are imprisoned without charge or expelled from their homes without any due process; we decry "ethnic cleansing" and other violations of international human rights law; and we maintain that it is the right of refugees to return to their homes and to reclaim lost property. But we do not accept the same rights for Palestinians. We have put Israel above the law, an exception to the rules; and we have acted as if Palestinians have no rights at all. Nations who aren't furious with our double-standard toward Israel just dismiss our policies with a rueful "well that's the way the US is."

The result of this gross imbalance in our approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is everywhere in evidence. Both societies have become driven by pathologies that we have either enabled or encouraged by our policies. Israelis behave like spoiled children, while Palestinians behave like abused children.

Listening to the debate inside Israel is as instructive as it is depressing. To be sure, there are Israelis who continue to champion human rights for Palestinians, but they do not have the upper hand. Within the ruling government coalition, the dominant trend is to reject any recognition of Palestinian rights and any acceptance of even the most minimal withdrawal from the occupied territories. Not unlike spoiled children, they have internalized the fact that there are no sanctions for bad behavior.  Congress will always have their back, giving them what they want.

Meanwhile, Palestinians have internalized the idea that nothing they ever do will be good enough to earn the support of the United States. For them, there is no reward for good behavior. Since Congress will never have their back, moderate Palestinian leader feel exposed and vulnerable, while hard-liners are emboldened to act out their anger and frustration, oftentimes in outrageous and deplorable ways.   

US military leaders, from Generals Schwartzkopf and Zinni to Patreaus, not caught up in the mind-numbing game of our politics have been warning us for decades that our failure to press for a just peace continues to cause grave damage to our standing and our ability to work with Arab allies to protect our interests.

With the "peace process" at an impasse, America has a choice to make. Instead merely of pushing for an extension of open-ended negotiations, it is time to decide whether we can muster the resolve to put our foot down and speak the truth to Israelis about their behavior and its consequences. Congress may scream and political operatives may squirm, but if we are serious about peace then we must show the way with decisive leadership.

Coddling the Israeli right, only emboldens them - they know how to take advantage of an opening and play for time. Firm pressure from America, will empower progressive Israelis who understand the deep hole being dug by their irredentist leaders. They should be supported in their efforts to make change. A firm challenge from America will help spur needed debate and change in Israel.

A decisive stand by America will also empower progressive Palestinians who are, at this point, under siege from Israel, on the one side, and Palestinian extremists and cynics, on the other. Moderates have little to show for their efforts and desperately need support. With America showing seriousness and resolve, we will strengthen the hand of Palestinians who have chosen the path of peace, non-violent resistance, and negotiations. 

Will all this come to pass? While I'm not counting on it,  I know that without such leadership, we will surely fail. If we cannot muster up the strength to challenge Israel and play a constructive role in peace-making, then we ought to get out of the way and let the Palestinians take their case to the International Criminal Court and let the world community decide how to resolve this conflict that has lasted too long and taken too many Israeli and Palestinian lives.

***

Washington Watch is a weekly column written by AAI President James Zogby, author of Arab Voices: What They Are Saying to Us, and Why it Matters, a book that brings into stark relief the myths, assumptions, and biases that hold us back from understanding the people of the Arab world.

The Arab American Institute: The US Should Accept Palestinian Unity

The Arab American Institute (AAI) strongly supports genuine efforts towards a just, lasting and comprehensive resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that will result in two states, Palestine and Israel, living side by side in peace and security.

 [AS ALWAYS PLEASE GO TO THE LINK TO READ GOOD ARTICLES IN FULL: HELP SHAPE ALGORITHMS (and conversations) THAT EMPOWER DECENCY, DIGNITY, JUSTICE & PEACE... and hopefully Palestine]

http://www.aaiusa.org/dr-zogby/entry/the-us-should-accept-palestinian-unity/

Dr. Zogby: The US Should Accept Palestinian Unity

Monday April 28, 2014

While Palestinians celebrated the reconciliation agreement signed between Fateh and Hamas, the reactions in Washington and Israel were reminiscent of the biblical "weeping and gnashing of teeth."

American political commentators were dumbfounded by the news of the pact, terming it "a dark day", "a setback for peace," or "a serious complication." Members of Congress, meanwhile, were uniform in their threats to withhold aid if the Palestinian Authority goes forward with the unity arrangement. 

Israeli government reactions were predictably harsh in their criticism of the Palestinian move. Those on the far right, who never supported the "peace process" in the first place and who had threatened to abandon the Netanyahu government if he signed any agreement with the Palestinians, saw the Fateh/Hamas pact as justification to call for an immediate end to the peace negotiations. I detected more joy than anger in their overly-heated pronouncements. Prime Minister Netanyahu had undoubtedly the most disingenuous line of the day, asking of PA President Mahmoud Abbas "does he want peace with Hamas or peace with Israel?"— as if to suggest that "peace with Israel" was actually in the offing but for Abbas' "disappointing" decision.  

Putting aside all these displays of faux anger and misplaced regret, the Palestinians are right to celebrate. Reconciliation and national unity are not only good, in and of themselves, they are necessary if there is to be a lasting Israeli-Palestinian peace.

In the first place, the Palestinian people desperately want this unity in order to put their political house in order. They know that they have no viable future living in two captive Bantustans.  In the face of continued existential challenges, the public has been demoralized by their squabbling fractured leadership. Increasingly frustrated with their divided leaders' failure or inability to bring an end to occupation, there has been a growing sense that unity would provide a solution. In a world that was out of control, healing their internal division was the one thing they felt they could control. 

Unity, of course, is not magical and will not, by itself, produce independence. But the public's instinct was nevertheless right in understanding that unity, on the right terms, would be essential for independence.

It is also important to understand the degree to which the leaderships of both the PA and Hamas were facing challenges to their legitimacy. During the past seven years, Hamas had made a mess of their rump "statelet" in Gaza. Their indiscriminate rocket fire and deplorable use of suicide bombers, which they bizarrely termed "resistance", had only served to damage the Palestinian movement and image. At the same time, this behavior and the insecurity it created among Israelis had empowered Israeli hardliners enabling them to impose cruel collective punishment that brought increased suffering to the entire Gaza Strip.  

Hamas, reduced to badly managing an impoverished population, was facing growing dissatisfaction with both their ideology and their governance. Polls now show that this once popular Islamic movement had a significantly diminished support-base.

The Palestinian Authority, thanks to Israeli ill-will and intransigence has fared no better. They had made a strategic decision to pursue a non-violent path to liberation by cooperating with the US and negotiating with Israel. Their reward: they became financially dependent on the US and Israel; they were repeatedly humiliated by aggressive and acquisitive Israeli settlement expansion; and they continued to be subjected to Israel's efforts to impose its will on their every move. As a result, the Palestinian public had become increasingly cynical, despairing of the possibility of peace.  

And so in the face of a new breakdown in negotiations, Israel's refusal to deliver on a promised release of prisoners, and the announcement of yet another expansion of settlements, Palestinians turned instead to heal their divided polity.

From what we know of the terms of the Fateh/Hamas pact, it provides for the establishment of a national unity government of technocrats. This government will serve for several months preparing for national elections. The agreement also empowers President Abbas to continue negotiations and endorses his leadership in seeking a two-state solution that provides for peace between Israel and an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza with its capital in East Jerusalem.

While Israel has flat out rejected the reconciliation, the success of this effort to establish unity will depend on the US response. Up until now, the Administration has not formally rejected the agreement and has been somewhat circumspect in their comments. It would be a fatal error if, without finding out the exact terms of the reconciliation pact, the US were to have rejected it out of hand and punish the PA. Likewise, it would be an enormous error if the US were to force President Abbas to turn his back on the pact. This has happened before. At this point, such a move would not be accepted by the Palestinian public and would severely compromise the PA leadership.

If, as senior Palestinian spokesmen affirm, the terms of the agreement comply with the well-known Quartet conditions, the US would be well-advised to be supportive of the effort and insist that Israel continue negotiations with a now-strengthened Abbas.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu never tires of inventing new hoops through which he insists Palestinians jump. As he acknowledged a few weeks back, it's all part of a cynical game that he plays in an effort to kill the chances for peace....

[AS ALWAYS PLEASE GO TO THE LINK TO READ GOOD ARTICLES IN FULL: HELP SHAPE ALGORITHMS (and conversations) THAT EMPOWER DECENCY, DIGNITY, JUSTICE & PEACE... and hopefully Palestine]

http://www.aaiusa.org/dr-zogby/entry/netanyahus-games/

AAI was created to nurture and encourage the direct participation of Arab Americans in political and civic life in the United States.

Dr. Zogby

Netanyahu’s Games

Tuesday March 04, 2014

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu never tires of inventing new hoops through which he insists Palestinians jump. As he acknowledged a few weeks back, it's all part of a cynical game that he plays in an effort to kill the chances for peace.

First, he insisted on the need to maintain Israeli control over the Jordan Valley. Next came his pledge that he would not "uproot a single Israeli" from West Bank settlements, so that in addition to forcing Palestinians to accept Israel's annexation of whatever West Bank settlements are deemed "new realities," the Palestinians would also have to swallow the "right" of settlers to remain in their settlements after peace. Throw into this mix, Netanyahu's insistence that there be no Palestinian capitol in Jerusalem, and the object of his "game" becomes clear: set up demands and conditions so onerous and obnoxious that the Palestinians will have to say "no," thereby appearing to be the obstacle to peace.

Maybe the most troubling of all the Netanyahu "hoops" is his persistent demand that Palestinians must accept Israel as a Jewish State, the homeland of the Jewish people. While some in the West can understand the Palestinian refusal to cede the Jordan Valley or Jerusalem, or to accept that oftentimes violent settlers should remain in their settlements, they have difficulty understanding why Palestinians won't simply agree to recognize Israel as the "state of the Jewish people."

The problem for Palestinians is not in the name "the Jewish State"-- it is what the name means.
Palestinian spokespersons say that in forcing them to accept this designation, what Netanyahu wants is for Palestinians to accept the Israeli historical narrative and to deny their own. He wants, as we might say in American slang, the Palestinians to surrender and say "Uncle." This, they simply, cannot do.

Narratives are important for peoples and nations. They define reality and give meaning to history. I learned important lessons about the critical and definitional roles played by historical narratives in the Palestinian context through a series of personal encounters that occurred over 40 years ago.

It was 1971 and I had traveled to Lebanon to conduct research for my doctoral dissertation on the emergence of the Palestinian national identity. As part of my work, I spent time in Ein al-Hilweh, a massive Palestinian refugee camp in southern Lebanon.

While I was there, I interviewed refugees from dozens of towns and villages who had all left Palestine in 1948. Many told stories of armed Jewish elements coming into their villages creating panic, forcing them to flee.

I was struck by their resilience and their determination to keep their attachment to their land, their homes and their culture alive. They did this in so many interesting ways. In the camp, for example, Palestinians did their best to recreate their old life. Residents of villages clustered in neighborhoods that were named after the communities from which they had fled. In a simple walk down just one street you could pass through Haifa, Akka, Safad, Safsaf and Jerusalem. The homes in the camps might have been poor, but once inside them you had the feeling of being back in the village.

One of my most memorable encounters in that trip was my interview with Um Abed, the grandmother of the friend who had brought me to Ein al-Hilweh. As was common for her generation, she carried on a string around her neck the key to her home in Palestine, which had been appropriated by Israeli settlers in 1948. She told me her story -- a powerful tale of loss and pain.

At one point she asked if I wanted to see her home. When I agreed, she took out an old photo album filled with pictures of her home, her family, and the life they had lived back in Palestine. She pointed with pride to the wall her father had built and the tree her grandfather had planted. But then, with a touch of anger, she noted that the tree had been cut down by the Israelis who had taken the house. She learned of this from a photo a Swedish journalist had taken and shown her.

As I was leaving, her brother told me of their longing to return. "It's our home. We go back four generations in that house. I was born there and lived my entire life there. The Israelis, who never lived here, say they didn't forget after 2,000 years. For us, it's only been 25 years. How can we forget?"

Two weeks later, my work was done and I was on a flight back to the United States. I had flown from Jordan to London, where I caught a flight to New York. On that plane, I ran into a student, Sandra, I had taught the year before at Temple University. She greeted me with exuberance, "Oh, Mr. Zogby, I just had the most amazing experience! I went home this summer." Since I knew she was from Northeast Philadelphia, I asked what she meant. She explained that she had been to a camp in Israel. It felt so much like home, she wanted to return because, she said, she "belonged there."

The disconnect between the reality of Um Abed's loss and my former student's "discovery" defines the debate over "narratives." I will be honest and admit that I understand Um Abed's attachment to a home her ancestors built and the trees they planted. Her memories were too fresh and the key she wore a constant reminder of unbearable loss. To ask her to erase that memory, to reject her claim, and to deny her story is tantamount to asking her to cut off a limb.

There are hundreds of thousands of Um Abed's who feel deeply about their history and their rights. They have lost so much over the last century. In many cases all they have left is their narrative of the past and their hopes for the future. In their name, the Palestinian President cannot say "Uncle." Jumping through this Israeli hoop would be too costly.

Dr. Zogby: This Time Must Be Different

 20 Years After Oslo Paperback. Analysis of Israeli and Palestinian public opinion polls since the Oslo Peace Accords 20 years ago... Arab American Institute

[AS ALWAYS PLEASE GO TO THE LINK TO READ GOOD ARTICLES IN FULL: HELP SHAPE ALGORITHMS (and conversations) THAT EMPOWER DECENCY, DIGNITY, JUSTICE & PEACE... and hopefully Palestine]

http://www.aaiusa.org/dr-zogby/entry/this-time-must-be-different/

Dr. Zogby

This Time Must Be Different

Monday February 03, 2014

Two decades after Israeli and Palestinian leaders signed an interim peace agreement in Washington, DC, the task of achieving a final resolution to the conflict has become significantly more difficult. Not only have the physical impediments to peace grown--  for example, the number of Israeli settlers living on occupied Palestinian lands has increased three-fold to more than a half-million-- but the political ground today is less fertile than it was back then.

In 1993, surprised by their leaders' bold initiative, Israelis and Palestinians were quite hopeful. Twenty years later, the environment has become toxic, polluted by the ill-will generated by the negative behaviors of both parties. 

This reality must be factored into the calculus of peace-making. What will be important to consider is not just the terms of the "deal" reached by the Israeli and Palestinian negotiators, but their ability to "sell it" to their wary publics-- many of whom are distrustful of the "other side," no longer believing that peace is even possible.  

In my recently published book, 20 Years After Oslo, I review Israeli and Palestinian attitudes in the two decades that have elapsed since their leaders signed the Oslo Accords. The book lays out a twenty-year timeline and then traces how events that occurred during this period and the actions of both sides contributed to the erosion of both publics' support for peace.

Following up on that study, this week, I released the results of the latest Zogby Research Services (ZRS) polling of Israeli and Palestinian attitudes. What this newest poll demonstrates is the degree to which negative attitudes now prevail in both communities-- establishing how significant the loss of hope and trust has become.

Commissioned by the Sir Bani Yas Forum in the UAE, ZRS polled 1,000 Israelis and 1,000 Palestinians in late 2013. While we found areas where the sides disagreed, we also observed substantial areas of agreement-- almost always in their shared negative assessment of the prospects for peace.

For example, while majorities on both sides say they had been hopeful when the Accords were signed, today less than one in five Israelis and Palestinians say they view Oslo as a "positive development". Similarly, while a majority of Israelis and a plurality of Palestinians agree that a two-state solution is a desirable outcome, only one-third on each side believes that such an outcome is still feasible.

When asked what has accounted for this loss of hope, both Israelis and Palestinians demonstrated a remarkable shared understanding of the negative role played by their own and the "other side's" violence and the use of force in poisoning the environment. This may be one of the most positive signs emerging from the results of this poll. Both parties, for example, agreed that the following events or behaviors contributed to eroding their confidence in the prospects for peace: suicide bombings, rocket fire from Gaza, the second Intifada, the election of Hamas, continued settlement construction, Israel’s re-occupation of the West Bank, the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin, and Baruch Goldstein’s massacre of Palestinians in Hebron. Israelis and Palestinians also agreed that Israel and the United States did not do enough and should have done more to make the Oslo process work.

From the results of this poll, it is clear that the past 20 years have taken a toll on both Palestinians and Israelis. The leaders engaged in the current round of peace talks, therefore, must not only wrestle with the issues of maps, rights, and each other's security concerns, they also face an additional challenge. They must produce an agreement that will be accepted by their publics, and they must be able to convince their constituents that this effort will be different than what both sides now view as the failed Oslo process.

What is clear from both this ZRS poll and the review of the last 20 years of Israeli and Palestinian opinion is that neither side can do this alone. If peace is to have a chance, external players (involving more than the United States) have a critical role to play - as guarantors, as “incentivisors”, and as arbiters. The time to begin that intervention is now-- to help prepare the ground. Waiting until the negotiations run their course or a US framework agreement is announced will be too late. 

Dr Zogby of AAIUSA: Myths That Are Impediments to Peace

[AS ALWAYS PLEASE GO TO THE LINK TO READ GOOD ARTICLES IN FULL: HELP SHAPE ALGORITHMS (and conversations) THAT EMPOWER DECENCY, DIGNITY, JUSTICE & PEACE... and hopefully Palestine]  

http://www.aaiusa.org/dr-zogby/entry/myths-that-are-impediments-to-peace/

 Tuesday January 21, 2014

In a meeting I had this week with a congressional candidate, I was reminded of the power of the myths that define conventional wisdom about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the challenge they pose for rational discourse. In rapid succession my visitor rattled off a number of statements revealing how much he didn't know about the conflict and how steep the climb for those who seek a just peace.

My guest's views of the conflict were both distorted and unshakable. They also reflected the attitudes of too many lawmakers in Washington. He was convinced, for example, that "Arafat turned down the best offer ever and turned to violence;" that "Palestinians would never accept to live at peace with Israel;" and that "President Abbas was incapable of selling any peace agreement to his people."

Despite holding firm with these mind-numbing negative views, my visitor insisted that he was a "peacenik" and expressed hope that US Secretary of State John Kerry's efforts would bear fruit, helping to bring about an end of the conflict. As disconcerting and irrational as this disconnect might be, it represents for many candidates an easy way out. It puts them in a position where they don't have to challenge the most hardline elements among pro-Israel voters, while at the same time still feigning support for peace.

I argued, for a time, with my visitor knowing full well that I wouldn't make a dent. After deciding I'd had enough, we parted and I resolved to write about this frustrating encounter.

My first observation is that the myths that defined my visitor's views of the conflict are ahistorical. A prime example is the fervently held notion that "Arafat turned down the best offer ever and turned to violence." This was first put forward by then President Clinton in 2000. It was a great applause line, but it just wasn't true. Rob Malley (a Clinton NSC official who was at the Camp David negotiations) debunked this "best offer ever" myth in his brilliant debate with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak in the New York Review of Books (August, 9, 2001). The Mitchell Report (commissioned by Clinton and presented to President Bush in 2001) put to rest the "turned to violence" portion of this myth.

Reality is far more complex than the myth would allow. Barak's offer at Camp David was never clear -- he wouldn't commit it to writing. Nevertheless, despite the impasse at Camp David, Israeli and Palestinian teams continued to engage in prolonged negotiations at Taba that came quite close to an agreement. But with elections looming, Barak suspended the Taba talks. He lost the election and that was the end of the negotiations. Arafat didn't reject a "deal;" negotiations were aborted before they could conclude with a "deal."

Arafat did not start the violence in response to Camp David. The spark that ignited the second Intifada was Sharon's provocative demonstration at Jerusalem's Haram ash-Sharif. After Palestinian demonstrators were killed by Israeli guards, the Palestinian street erupted, quite spontaneously, owing largely to pent up frustrations with the hardships of the occupation and failure of the peace process to deliver much hoped-for change.

The myths are also disturbingly racist since they imply that Palestinians are, by their nature, angry, violent and not to be trusted. The pervasiveness of this myth is, by itself, one of the major impediments to peace. The reality is that Palestinians are real people who have endured dislocation, dispossession and decades of a cruel occupation. Of course they are bitter and angry -- not by their nature, but by the reality of their circumstance. By suggesting that it is the Palestinian nature, the myth absolves the Israelis of any responsibility and implies that no matter what changes might occur, Palestinians will always be a threat.

My visitor's myths are also apolitical, implying that the conflict is existential and not a political matter that can be resolved. The problem, in the way the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been framed in the West, is that Israelis are seen as the full human beings with hopes, rights and the need for security, while the Palestinians are seen only as a problem to be managed and dealt with so that the Israelis can live in peace.

If Palestinian rights are acknowledged, then just solutions can be found to issues like property rights, sovereignty and self-determination. To the extent that these rights are trumped by Israeli concerns, then Palestinian concerns are ignored or given short shrift. To the extent that proposed solutions only address the needs of Israelis, Palestinians will reject them and no self-respecting Palestinian leader will be able to "sell crumbs" to his constituency.

In the end, these myths are also self-justifying and self-defeating. If we say we want peace, but treat Palestinians as less deserving of rights than other people and, therefore, offer them "take it or leave it" proposals that are humiliating, then, of course, they will be rejected. The believers of the myths can then feel justified in their conviction that Palestinians really don't want peace and the conflict will continue. That is why holding these views about Palestinians while still claiming to support peace and a "two state solution" is also self-defeating.

The real challenge for peacemakers is to reflect on the vision projected by President Obama in his Cairo and Jerusalem speeches -- to recognize the equal humanity and rights of both peoples and to forge solutions based on that reality and not on myths.

"While attention is paid to the religious dimension of the city, Jerusalem was more than that. It was the Palestinian's metropol - the hub of their commercial and cultural life. It was the center of the West Bank, housing the region's major employers, and its medical, educational, financial, and social institutions. And so, when in 1994 Israel severed Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank it was as if the region had lost its heart. To understand the significance of this closure, imagine the impact on residents of northern Virginia and Montgomery County, Maryland if they were suddenly cut off from entering Washington, DC." Dr. Zogby of AAI

AAI Remembering Nelson Mandela’s Extraordinary Legacy

 [AS ALWAYS PLEASE GO TO THE LINK TO READ GOOD ARTICLES IN FULL: HELP SHAPE ALGORITHMS (and conversations) THAT EMPOWER DECENCY, DIGNITY, JUSTICE & PEACE... and hopefully Palestine]

http://www.aaiusa.org/dr-zogby/entry/mandela-and-arafat-ii/
Dr Zogby

Mandela and Arafat II

Monday December 16, 2013

Last week, I wrote a piece about a poster that has been hanging in my office for more than two decades.  It features a photo of Nelson Mandela embracing PLO Chairman Yasir Arafat taken when the two leaders first met following Mandela's release from prison. The poster also included a quote from Mandela in which he likened his struggle against apartheid to the struggle of the Palestinian people. I noted that I was pleased to have had the poster signed by both men.

Some readers raised objections to the piece and made disparaging remarks about the Palestinian leader - the kindest of which was to point out the obvious fact that "Arafat was no Mandela." While that statement was, of course, true, it missed the point. I wasn't comparing Arafat to Mandela, I was quoting Mandela who was pointing out the similarities between the South African and Palestinian peoples' struggles.

Some of the other comments were so ignorant of history and reality and so focused on the failings of Arafat that I was reminded of a time eighteen years ago when I was testifying at US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the state of the Palestinian economy. After I finished my remarks, a Senator challenged me asking, "Why aren't the Palestinians able to get their economy going? Why can't Arafat be more like South Africa's Nelson Mandela or Russia's Boris Yeltsin?"

The questions were "no brainers" that could only have been asked by someone who was either unaware of the Palestinian reality or so blinded by prejudice that they could not or would not see that reality even it were pointed out to them. I thought it best to assume that my questioner was simply unaware and so I answered respectfully. 

The fundamental difference between Arafat's situation and that faced the South African and Russian leaders was that when Mandela and Yeltsin assumed the presidency in their respective countries, they inherited states that were fully sovereign entities with functioning institutions and sustainable economies. They controlled their own borders, were able to freely import and export goods, collect revenues, and establish mutually beneficial state-to-state relations.  

In contrast, what the Palestinian leader received as a result of his agreement with the Israelis were several tiny cantons of densely populated and largely underdeveloped areas of the West Bank and Gaza that remained surrounded by Israeli-controlled territories. Palestinians did not control their borders and were, therefore, unable to conduct normal commerce with the outside world.  

In my capacity as co-chair of Builders for Peace (a project launched by then Vice-President Al Gore to promote private sector investment in the Palestinian territories), I had learned first-hand how Israeli control over imports and exports and even the movement of goods within the territories created severe impediments to investment and economic development in the West Bank and Gaza. 

Additionally, within a year of the signing of their agreement with Israel, Israel denied most Palestinians access to Jerusalem and its surrounding areas. While attention is paid to the religious dimension of the city, Jerusalem was more than that. It was the Palestinian's metropol - the hub of their commercial and cultural life. It was the center of the West Bank, housing the region's major employers, and its medical, educational, financial, and social institutions. And so, when in 1994 Israel severed Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank it was as if the region had lost its heart. To understand the significance of this closure, imagine the impact on residents of northern Virginia and Montgomery County, Maryland if they were suddenly cut off from entering Washington, DC.

The two realities - the Palestinian and the South African - were so profoundly different. The only way they might have been comparable was if Mandela had become the mayor of Soweto, with the apartheid regime still governing the rest of the country. But Mandela and the ANC did not assume control of just the areas of the country populated largely by blacks, he and his movement won the right to compete in elections and then the right to govern the entire country.

In contrast, the best that Arafat could hope for and what he agreed to settle for was the right to establish an independent state on the 22% of Palestine that Israel had occupied in the aftermath of the 1967 war. That is what he believed he would get. But what he got instead was the "right" to establish a captive "provisional self-governing authority" on less than one-fifth of that 22% - with limited rights to operate beyond those areas.

By the time I was testifying (about three years after Palestinians had signed their agreement with the Israelis), Palestinian income levels had declined, unemployment had sharply increased, as had Israeli settlement expansion in the occupied lands, and Palestinians had grown restive and increasingly frustrated at the failure of peace to change the quality of their lives.  

There were, to be sure, profound errors made by the Palestinian leader - not the least of which was the trust he placed in the agreements he signed. But the mistakes in judgment, the lack of strategic vision, and the reliance on violence do not, alone, explain the reasons for the Palestinian dilemma. Arafat was handed a bad situation over which he had little control and few tools at his disposal and told that he was expected to perform like Mandela and Yeltsin! He was, in reality, being set up to fail. To place the blame solely on his shoulders is either ignorant of reality or just downright cruel.    

Washington Watch Archives »

Dr Zogby: Focus on Palestinians’ Rights

http://www.aaiusa.org/dr-zogby/entry/focus-on-palestinians-rights/

Focus on Palestinians’ Rights

Monday October 28, 2013

Palestinian and Israeli negotiators are meeting in the latest chapter of the decades-long saga of on-again, off-again peace talks. With no leaks, and even less optimism, there is only speculation about how the talks are going or whether any agreement is even possible.

Here in the US, supporters of the Palestinians are engaged in a sometimes heated but rather pointless debate as to what the "deal" should include or whether no deal is the best outcome – since that result, some say, would lead inevitably to a one-state solution.

However, that entire discussion is unedifying, a waste of energy and an evasion of responsibility.
 I do not mean that the outcome doesn’t matter. But everyone should acknowledge that the ultimate resolution of the conflict will not depend on that debate. Instead of exhausting ourselves arguing about what we can’t control, we should be focused on what we can do – shine a light on the daily injustices visited upon Palestinians, and mobilize support for those whose human rights are being abused.

There are human rights groups in Israel and Palestine that are engaged in this effort. They are documenting cases of land confiscation and home demolitions; cases of prisoners held without charges or trial; instances where vigilante gangs of settlers have desecrated mosques, cut down olive trees and beaten or killed Palestinian youngsters; and recording incidents in which the military has used collective punishment or excessive force or humiliated Palestinian civilians. The victims of these illegal and immoral behaviors deserve our attention. Their cases should be taken up. Their names need to be known. They should be supported until the injustice ends. 

In 1977 I and others formed the Palestine Human Rights Campaign (PHRC). Because no then-existing human rights group would adopt Palestinian cases, we took it upon ourselves to look into individual cases of Palestinians who had been tortured, had had their homes demolished, had been detained for prolonged periods without charges or who had been expelled from their homeland.

Back then, in the US discussion about the conflict Israelis were understood to be full human beings, but Palestinians were not known. Americans knew Israelis as real people who had hopes and fears. Palestinians, on the other hand, were an abstraction with whom few Americans could identify.

And so Palestinians were presented either in negative stereotypes, or merely as a problem to be solved. We hoped to remedy this by putting a human face on the Palestinian people.

Many of the Arab-American and Palestine support groups that existed back then were engaged, as many are now, in endless arguments about issues over which they had no control: which "political line" was the most correct or what should be the form of governance for the future Palestinian state.

And back then, much of the American liberal left was largely silent on Palestinian issues. Those who were engaged focused their efforts on setting up "dialogues" in the hope of promoting reconciliation between Arabs and Jews.

When the PHRC came into existence, we were denounced by both groups. On the one hand we were told that we had "sold out" because we ignored ideological debates and weren’t "pure" enough. But the peace groups kept us at arms-length, too, saying that by challenging Israel’s behavior we made Jewish groups defensive and uncomfortable, thereby frustrating the effort to create a “no fault” dialogue.

After 36 years, the situation is much the same today. The debate over one or two states rages in some quarters, while liberals who by now have embraced the notion of a two-state solution continue to shy away from any controversy and refuse to address Palestinian human rights. The former effort is wasted time and energy. The latter is an abdication of morality. Meanwhile Palestinians are still unknown, and their rights are still being violated.

As long as Palestinians are not known, discourse about the issue in the US will remain hopelessly one-sided. When Israeli humanity is presented as confronting the Palestinian "problem" you can guess who wins. If Americans can't see or identify with the Palestinians who lost their homes and lands, who were humiliated in front of their children at checkpoints, or who were abused and denied basic rights as prisoners, then all they will care about is how to insure security for Israelis.

To correct this situation, what is required is an embrace of justice and human rights, or as one of my early mentors, Dr Israel Shahak (founder of the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights) put it "to fight for equal rights for every human being".

Whether there will be one state or two states will be decided, if it even can be, by the negotiators. But meanwhile, what of the victims? Who will speak for them? Who will give those who suffer the hope that their cries for justice will be heard? And who will inform the US public that it is not only Israeli humanity that is threatened by the absence of peace? In fact, Palestinians have paid, and continue to pay, an enormous price.

Recognition of this reality is a key ingredient in the search for a just peace, because only when Palestinians are known and their rights are fully recognized will the US feel the need to press for balanced peace that recognizes the rights and needs of all.

Washington Watch Archives »

Arab Myths Distort Understanding Of American Policy

[AS ALWAYS PLEASE GO TO THE LINK TO READ GOOD ARTICLES IN FULL: HELP SHAPE ALGORITHMS (and conversations) THAT EMPOWER DECENCY, DIGNITY, JUSTICE & PEACE... and hopefully Palestine]

http://www.aaiusa.org/dr-zogby/entry/arab-myths-distort-understanding-of-american-policy/

Arab Myths Distort Understanding Of American Policy by Dr James Zogby:  As I attempted to demonstrate in "Arab Voices: What They Are Saying and Why It Matters" we, in the West, are still mystified by the Arab World. Absent real understanding, our public discourse and, too often, our policy debates are informed by crude myths and negative stereotypes of the region, its culture, and its people.

Monday September 23, 2013

Dr James Zogby

 

As I attempted to demonstrate in "Arab Voices: What They Are Saying and Why It Matters" we, in the West, are still mystified by the Arab World. Absent real understanding, our public discourse and, too often, our policy debates are informed by crude myths and negative stereotypes of the region, its culture, and its people.

I have noted on other occasions that much the same is true in the Arab World. Having just returned from the Middle East, I continue to be struck by how much of the Arab World's political discussion about American policy is myth-based.

There are two persistent myths that influence Arab perceptions about why and how America does what it does in the world. The first is that they think we are smart—that we know what we are doing and intend the consequences of our actions. The other myth is a variation of the first, and that is that we are all-powerful and can do almost anything—so when we do something and make a mess or when we don't act, there must be a reason.

These myths are both ill-founded and dangerous. Ill-founded because, to be quite honest, we aren't that smart and, therefore, sometimes blunder. And dangerous because they all too often given birth to fantastic conspiracy theories in an effort to make sense out of the disastrous consequences of American policy mistakes.

Both of these myths, after having been given a real run in conversations about the horrific war in Iraq, are again on full display in analyses of US policies toward Egypt and Syria. In discussions about both situations, assumptions are made that American policies are informed and intentional with the resultant consequences having been anticipated.

In the case of Egypt, one line of thought begins with "America supported the Muslim Brotherhood". As it is developed, the argument is made that the US saw (or hoped for) the creation of a "Sunni crescent" in the Middle East as a check against Iran and its allies.

As evidence for this assumption, some point to the simple fact that President Obama recognized the elected Muslim Brotherhood President, Mohamed Morsi, and continued US assistance programs to Egypt. Adherents of this view believe that their case gets stronger when they note that in the lead up to Tamarrod, the US Ambassador to Egypt addressed a public gathering in which she actively discouraged demonstrations, suggesting that political activists should, instead, strengthen opposition political parties and prepare for the next election. A few days later, the Ambassador paid a visit the Muslim Brotherhood headquarters to meet with the group's leader.

Then, after the military deposed Morsi, the Administration didn't immediately embrace the transition and instead sent a high ranking State Department official to urge reconciliation and political compromise. Case closed.

The reality, however, was far more complex. One the one hand, it was entirely reasonable for the US to attempt to work with the elected government of the largest and most strategically important Arab country. America has important interests to protect in the region and sees peace, stability, and progress in Egypt as a key component to those interests. It might also be seen as reasonable that a US official would caution against potentially destabilizing demonstrations and, for the same reason, after the military action of July 3rd, urge the parties to seek some level of accommodation and a restoration of civil order.

Where fault can be found is with American intelligence failing to understand the depth of Egyptian frustration with the Morsi government and the degree to which its agenda had alienated the population. The bottom line is that as difficult as it may be for those who would rather comfort themselves with the certainty of myths and conspiracy theories, America didn't have a clue what was going on in Egypt and was operating in the blind on autopilot. No conspiracy, just mistakes in an effort to protect interests.

I have also been struck by the myths playing out in reaction to the admittedly awkward scenario that developed over the threats to bomb, then not bomb, Syria. It wasn't the "America's smart" myth that played out here, it was myth of the "America, the all-powerful"...READ MORE