Labels

Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Hussein Ibish. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Hussein Ibish. Sort by date Show all posts

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Israel, the Palestinians, and the One-State Agenda- Speaker: Hussein Ibish, Senior Fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine

http://farescenter.tufts.edu/events/lectureSeries/2010Feb10.asp

Israel, the Palestinians, and the One-State Agenda
Wednesday, February 10, 2010, 5:30PM
Cabot Intercultural Center, 702, The Fletcher School

Speaker: Hussein Ibish, Senior Fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine
Co-Sponsors: Middle Eastern Studies Major and the International Relations Program

Summary

Hussein Ibish, author of several studies on anti-Arab discrimination, delivered a talk on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and his perception of the proposed "one-state solution." Ibish currently serves as the Senior Fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine and the Executive Director of the Hala Salaam Maksoud Foundation for Arab-American Leadership, and has published widely on topics related to political freedom and the Middle East. Ibish discussed his book, What's Wrong With the One State Agenda?

Ibish's book examines the arguments espoused by Palestinian activists, chiefly those on college campuses in the United States and the United Kingdom, for abandoning the goal of a creating of a single democratic state in all of Israeli and the occupied Palestinian territories. Ibish rejects the one-state solution as untenable, and believes it is a "strategic blunder for Palestinians and friends of Palestine." Yet the pro-Palestinian camp has never before challenged this goal of seeking an independent Palestinian state by replacing Israel with a single unified state that includes rights for its refugees. Instead, the idea's main critics have been on the Israeli right and historians such as Benny Morris, whose book rejecting the one-state solution is denounced by Ibish as "a racist tract, assuming that Palestinians are an incorrigible people who are unfit to be dealt with."

The idea of a single bi-national state is not new–Jewish settlers in the 1930s discussed it–but it has never been a significant part of the Israeli political discourse. Ibish attributes the intellectual and emotional impact of the second intifada's shocking violence to the emergence of the one-state idea as a potential solution. The second intifada led to the rise of Hamas in the Palestinian territories, the election of a right-wing Israeli government, and the rise of intense religious rhetoric on both sides.

Ibish points out that the vast majority of Israeli Jews would never accept a one state solution, because it would mean the end of their state. The idea of ceding Gaza to Egypt and the West Bank to Jordan is equally untenable because it would pose an existential threat to both countries. Like the one state solution, this is not really a "solution" at all because one or more of the parties will never agree to it without some sort of compulsion. Most fundamentally, Ibish asks that if Israel has not been compelled or convinced to end the occupation thus far, how can it be compelled or convinced to dissolve itself through one state solution?

Ibish believes that there is a responsibility incumbent on all actors in the conflict, as well as outside observers, to do all that they can to end the occupation. Otherwise, he feels the inevitable conclusion will be a religious war. Peace becomes impossible only when a majority of people think it is, and Ibish does not believe that we are at that hopeless juncture yet. While both sides want peace, the problem is that they do not believe each other.

According to Ibish, ending the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories is unlikely, difficult, and easy to reject as unworkable. Ibish explains: "But I think we have to make it work. We can make it work. Because the alternative is extremely gruesome and difficult for everyone." He feels that adding the bottom-up, institution building agenda enacted in August 2009 in the West Bank, which compliments a top-down, diplomatic agenda and has real political implications, can be transformative. This method of institution building can unilaterally build the framework of a Palestinian state, in spite of the Israeli occupation, along with support from the outside world, and under American protection. "You can think of it as the Palestinian answer to settlement building – and it is actually that," he says of this two-pronged peaceful and diplomatic strategy for bringing about an eventual end to the conflict.

Back to Lecture Series >

~

THE American Task force on Palestine: Sign up to receive the World Press Roundup!

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

ATFP Briefing: Richard Wright, the Director of the UNRWA New York Representative Office will join Andrew Tabler from WINEP and ATFP's Hussein Ibish to discuss the dire situation of those Palestine Refugees trapped inside Yarmouk, including updates on recent interventions by UNRWA

UNRWA photo and film archive for Palestine refugees

email from our good friend HUSSEIN IBISH

Dear colleagues,
 
Please join us tomorrow from 1-3 PM for an ATFP event at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, to discuss the plight of Palestine Refugees in Syria, with a particular focus on the ongoing siege of the Yarmouk refugee camp. Richard Wright, the Director of the UNRWA New York Representative Office will join Andrew Tabler from WINEP and me to discuss the dire situation of those Palestine Refugees trapped inside Yarmouk, including updates on recent interventions by UNRWA.


Please let me know if you have any questions.

Yours, Hussein


The American Task Force on Palestine (ATFP) will be hosting a briefing on Palestinian Refugees in Syria and the crisis at Yarmouk on Wednesday, January 22 from 1-3 PM. The event will be held in the Zenger Room at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor, Washington, DC 20045.

Panelists will include Richard Wright, the Director of the UNRWA New York Representative Office; Andrew J. Tabler, Senior Fellow at the The Washington Institute for Near East Policy; and ATFP Senior Fellow Hussein Ibish. 

January 22, 2014 
 1:00-3:00 PM
 
The National Press Club
Zenger Room
529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor
Washington, DC 20045
 
Palestinian refugees in Syria, especially at the Yarmouk refugee camp outside of Damascus, are facing a dire humanitarian crisis. 18,000 refugees are trapped in Yarmouk and there have been many reported deaths due to attacks, starvation, and lack of medicines and fuel.

On December 20, UNRWA Commissioner-General Filippo Grandi warned that "It is my responsibility to inform the international community that humanitarian conditions in the besieged refugee camp of Yarmouk are worsening dramatically and that we are currently unable to help those trapped inside. If this situation is not addressed urgently, it may be too late to save the lives of thousands of people including children."

On January 15, Secretary of State John Kerry said, "[in] Ghouta and other parts of the country, such as Yarmouk refugee camp, civilians are dying of malnutrition. That is absolutely unacceptable. If the regime can allow access to United Nations and international weapons inspectors, surely it can do the same for neutral, international humanitarian assistance.” 

This ATFP panel will examine the crisis from numerous angles, including its humanitarian and regional components, and place it in the context of international responsibilities towards the victims.

Hussein Ibish, PhD
Senior Fellow
American Task Force on Palestine
http://www.americantaskforce.org/

Mobile: +1 (202) 438-7297
Twitter: @ibishblog
Skype: hussein.ibish
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/hussein-ibish/48/206/725
Blog: http://www.ibishblog.com/
 

Monday, April 5, 2010

In Growing Gardens for Palestine... The American Task Force on Palestine


Growing Gardens for Palestine

Hallway leading towards Dr. Ziad Asali's office

"With the turbulence surrounding diplomacy and the Middle East peace process, it is more urgent than ever for civil society to unite around the obvious reality that a conflict-ending solution can only be attained through the creation of a Palestinian state living side by side with Israel in peace and security.

The two-state solution became official US policy under President George W. Bush, and it is today seen as a national security priority under President Barack Obama. It has been adopted internationally by the United Nations, the Middle East Quartet, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the Arab League and by successive Israeli governments.
" Build a partnership for Middle East peace within the United States By Ziad Asali

Dr. Ziad Asali of ATFP in his office

This past Saturday my husband Jaffar and I had a delightful visit with Dr. Ziad Asali the founder of the American Task Force on Palestine, his fascinating wife Nailia, and the brilliant Hussein Ibish, having arranged to stop by to see their 7th floor offices in Washington DC and to have a chat.

Dr. Hussein Ibish & Nailia Asali of ATFP

I went with trepidation- and I left totally impressed. These people really do know how to listen and speak to America, they know how the system works and how to influence policy in positive ways for Palestine AND America.

Impressive views from ATFP office windows

I feel honored to have been in their 7th floor offices, to have seen the intriguing artwork on the walls, gazed out the big windows to the busy city below- and sat in comfort in Dr. Ziad Asali's office as we spoke easily about awkward and difficult topics.

Ziad & his wife Nailia are charming, kind, compassionate, thoughtful, well informed, well educated people... both are very bright and experienced- seasoned but not cynical- obviously modest and interesting people indeed.

Hussien Ibish in his office

Dr. Ibish told me privately that "in all their work with the Arab-American community over decades, and for the past seven years at ATFP both Ziad and Nailia have been completely volunteers and have never taken a penny of compensation for their efforts. On the contrary, they've devoted a good deal of their private resources to helping to found and sustain this organization."
(Visit their webpage to help keep them going- click on KEEP ATFP INDEPENDENT if you want to donate online or to find information on how to make a donation via mail, wire, fax or phone)

Dr. Ziad Asali has a knack for attracting and valuing the best and the brightest and he has assembled a highly competent team of articulate people, right in the heart of Washington DC where they can confer and do the most good.

They have compelling priorities: They believe in a healthy and serious debate to define and defend the national interest. Not long ago Dr. Asali testified before Congress (ATFP Press Release), and Dr. Hussein Ibish has been very busy with speaking engagements on college campuses. Ibish wrote a book, published this past year, patiently explaining what is wrong with the one-state agenda

The ATFP is dedicated to "advocating that it is in the American national interest to promote an end to the conflict in the Middle East through a negotiated agreement that provides for two states - Israel and Palestine - living side by side in peace and security".... furthermore the "ATFP is strictly opposed to all acts of violence against civilians no matter the cause and no matter who the victims or perpetrators may be. The Task Force advocates the development of a Palestinian state that is democratic, pluralistic, non-militarized and neutral in armed conflicts." http://www.americantaskforce.org/about_us

ATFP's website is a treasure trove of up to date, highly relevant information, news and opinion concerning Palestine. They don't use cheap tricks- they use hard work, careful analysis and diplomacy to do what they can to help end the contentious Israel/Palestine conflict...for every one's sake.

They are Golden Rule people through and through: By wisely nurturing a totally civilized, reasonable and sustainable conversation they are creating real respect for a real Palestinian state.


The Palestinian State and Institution Building Program
Documents detailing the state and institution building program of the 13th Palestinian Government, including the overall plan and priority interventions for 2010.

FOLLOW IBISH & the ATFP

"The fact is that the one-state argument completely lets Israel off the hook with regard to settlements. First, if it's one state, it hardly matters where people live (it might be a civil tort about payments for expropriated lands, at most). Second, if it's a single state, they're not settlements, because there is also no occupation. Third, it allows the Israeli right to say that the occupation is defensive and legitimate and so are the settlements because all forms of Palestinian nationalism are antithetical to the continued existence of Israel, a member state of the United Nations. All arguments about settlements and occupation immediately go right out the window. People who advocate a single state need to understand this clearly." Hussein Ibish


Become my friend on <span class= Become Hussein's friend
Follow <span class= Follow Ibish on Twitter
*************************

Sign up to receive the World Press Roundup!

Keep up to date with what is going on in the Middle East with ATFP's World Press Roundup



copyright ©2010 Anne Selden Annab


Thursday, April 8, 2010

ATFP Senior Fellow Discusses Palestine and the Art of the Possible at Monmouth University


Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact Information: Hussein Ibish
April 7, 2010 - 12:00am

A two-state negotiated agreement between Israel and the Palestinians is the only workable formula for peace, ATFP Senior Fellow Hussein Ibish told an audience of 50 at the ninth annual global understanding conference at Monmouth University. The address on the second day of the conference, April 6, 2010, touched on a number of themes centered around the idea of the art of the possible. Ibish explained in detail his view that alternatives to a two-state solution are all fanciful because one or more of the parties in question would simply not agree to them. "The one-state agenda is a nonstarter because the overwhelming majority of Jewish Israelis will never agree to this, and undoubtedly would fight against it violently," he said. "The so-called Jordanian Option, which is a wet dream of the Israeli ultra-right, in which Egypt and Jordan are forced to take responsibility for Gaza and parts of the West Bank that Israel doesn't want respectively, is equally absurd," he continued, "because both the Palestinians and the Egyptians and Jordanians will resist this with all possible means."

He urged the audience to treat any political idea with skepticism if it could not be accepted by one or more of the parties that would have to agree in order for it to function, or if it had no serious relationship to existing political, social, military and economic forces that can actually produce real outcomes. He repeated his now trademark analogy between the relationship between such fanciful ideas and actual political concepts, and the relationship between science and science fiction. Ibish said "we need a new term in the English language like "politic-ish" or "politic-esque" to describe ideas that appear to have the attributes of political notions tied to the real world but that actually have no relationship to really existing political, social, military and economic forces that produce real outcomes." He said, "good science fiction often has many of the attributes of science writing, and sound scientific ideas incorporated in their plots, but in the end it's deliberately fanciful and people can clearly see that. However, since the political register is largely subjective and much less empirically verifiable than most scientific ideas, it's much easier for people to get away with passing off wild fantasies as serious agendas without people understanding how fanciful they are. A neologism describing how what are at heart not really political ideas pose as serious political agendas might help clarify the point."

Ibish described the present impasse between the US and Israeli governments as a political but not a strategic crisis and said that while it would be resolved soon in all likelihood, further confrontations, or at least serious disagreements, were likely because the fundamental context for the US-Israel relationships had shifted. He said that while in the past American administrations including the Bush administration had viewed strategic relations in the Middle East as discrete problems to be dealt with on bilateral or trilateral bases, the Obama administration and the foreign policy establishment in Washington generally had re-conceptualized their model of strategic relations in the Arab and Islamic world. "The new hegemonic model can be compared to a kaleidoscope," Ibish said, "in which when one piece of the puzzle shifts, the entire pattern rearranges itself." He said they had correctly identified the issue of the occupation in Palestine at the center of this kaleidoscopic pattern because of its political and symbolic importance.

Ibish said that he expected proximity talks and other negotiations to resume in the foreseeable future, but that a breakthrough in the next 12 to 16 months was unlikely given the weakness of leaderships and the enormous differences of opinion between the parties. He said because of this, the state and institution building program of the Palestinian Authority is particularly crucial because it can provide momentum towards peace even when diplomacy appears to be stalled or moving too slowly. Ibish said the program calls the bluff of all parties, forcing them to reveal whether or not they were ever really committed to the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, because the program is a necessary step in that direction. "It calls the bluff of Palestinians because it asks them to channel most of their energies in this constructive, positive direction," he said, "and it calls the bluff of the Israelis because as this program develops it will be necessary for them to cede more and more of the attributes of sovereignty in greater and greater parts of the West Bank to the PA or kill the program and admit to themselves and others that they were never really in favor of the state of Palestine at all." He urged the audience to educate themselves about the program, to spread the word, to talk to members of Congress about the importance of supporting it, and to promote the idea of investing in Palestine.

Hussein Ibish in his ATFP office

Blogger visits ATFP office


Sunday, October 27, 2013

Why Muslims should love secularism: Though secularism is widely misunderstood as anti-religious and iconoclastic, all it means is the neutrality of the state on religious affairs

   "Muslims must recognize secularism as the only real path to religious freedom, rather than confusing it with an attack against religion."Hussein Ibish
[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.dailynewsegypt.com/2013/10/26/why-muslims-should-love-secularism/

Hussein Ibish
Hussein Ibish

By Hussein Ibish,

 
Now

Muslims should love secularism. But very few of them do, largely because they misunderstand what it stands for and would mean for them.

Secularism as an English term – in contrast to the French concept of laïcité – simply means the neutrality of the state on matters of faith. This bears almost no resemblance to the way in which most Arabs understand the term, whether translated as ‘almaniyya, ilmanniyya, or even dunyawiyya.

Secularism has become strongly associated in the Arab and broader Muslim worlds with atheism, iconoclasm, and anti-religious attitudes and policies. And in the process, one of the most important pillars of building tolerant, inclusive, and genuinely free Muslim-majority societies has been grotesquely misrepresented and stigmatised.

The first of these experiences was the overtly anti-religious attitude of the government of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, which was presented as “modernisation” and “secularism.”

The second is the objectionable and noxious French concept of laïcité, which also tends to be more anti-religious than neutral. This association has been particularly exacerbated by “secular” laïcité laws in France and elsewhere that oppressively prevent Muslim women from covering their hair in public spaces such as schools.

The third, and perhaps most damning of all, has been the misappropriation, abuse, and discrediting of “secularism” by regimes that placed Arab nationalism at the center of their authoritarian ideology. Socialist, communist, and fascist Arab regimes oppressed, abused, and waged wars against their own peoples and each other in the name of, among other things, “secularism.”

None of them were properly secular, of course, but they certainly were anti-Islamist. And that has set up the present-day dichotomy in contemporary Arab politics in which not only Islamists, but also many ordinary Muslims, instinctively mistrust secular politics.

The Syrian dictatorship is a perfect case in point. In the name of “secularism,” among other things, it is waging a brutal war of repression. But for various reasons, high among them Western and Arab government negligence, the opposition has become increasingly Islamist. The consequence has been increasing numbers of religious minorities, particularly Christians, reluctantly siding with the dictatorship, while growing numbers of Sunni Muslims are siding with various Islamist groups. Faux-secularism and Islamism mutually provoke and promote sectarianism.

What devout Muslims need to understand is that real secularism alone offers them something most of them seem to badly want: freedom. If there really is no compulsion in religion, only a secular society can provide that. Only in a secular system can Muslims be free to practice Islam exactly as they see fit. Any “Islamic” polity will of necessity be imposing a particular version or interpretation of Islam, which is an extremely heterodox set of traditions.

The claim that secularism is really just Christianity in disguise is manifestly false. The language is European, inherited from the Enlightenment. But both Western chauvinists and anti-Western demagogues badly misread the fact that although the specific language of modern human rights and freedoms is, for historical reasons, currently packaged in Western terms, this hardly means that they lack non-Western cognates, origins, or bases.

Since at least the 10th century, most Muslim societies have distinguished between political and religious authority, and it’s absurd to claim that religious freedom originates only or even mainly as a concept from the Protestant Reformation. There are deep roots in both traditional and modern interpretations of Islam that lend themselves to political secularism.

The Islamist project of trying to obliterate traditional heterogeneity within Islam and establish religiously-oriented states is misguided and totally inappropriate. In many Muslim-majority states, there remains a vast range of diversity of doctrine and practice that must be accommodated for even the Muslims to be free in religion. This is to say nothing of Christians, Jews, atheists, agnostics, and others who also have a right to freedom of both religion and conscience.

What would be the spiritual virtue of religious dogma that is imposed by the state? It would produce, at best, a false religiosity in many, practice without belief, and mere pretense. Religious leaders generally don’t care what people really believe (because they can never really know that) and instead concentrate on what people can and cannot do. But when such authority is asserted by the state, it demeans and abuses the very concept of faith by mandating the pretense of belief by force of law.

Secularism offers Muslims religious freedom, religious authenticity, and religious meaning. Imposing or privileging religion through state power invalidates all three. Muslims must recognise secularism as the only real path to religious freedom, rather than confusing it with an attack against religion.

Some Muslims can claim to have come by their suspicions about secularism honestly, through a series of unfortunate historical contingencies. But that doesn’t change the fact that, for all their fears, they should not only want, but in reality need, genuinely secular societies.

Hussein Ibish is a Senior Fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine.

The American Task Force on Palestine (ATFP) provides an independent voice for Palestinian-Americans and their supporters and advances human rights and peace.
  ATFP categorically and unequivocally condemns all violence against civilians, no matter the cause and who the victims or perpetrators may be.

Thursday, February 19, 2015

My letter to the NYTimes RE The ISIS Theater of Cruelty By HUSSEIN IBISH

Conscientiously refusing to, in any way shape or form, accidentally promote the image and ugliness of Daesh/ISIS/ISIL/The Islamic State (or whatever you want to call it), and I've blogged my unpublished letter with a beautiful painting by Magritte.

The Return (Le Retour) by René Magritte 1940 oil painting... WIKIART: "Rene Magritte’s witty and thought-provoking paintings sought to have viewers question their perceptions of reality, and become hypersensitive to the world around them."
RE: The ISIS Theater of Cruelty
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/19/opinion/the-isis-theater-of-cruelty.html?ref=opinion
[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]

Dear Editor,

Daesh/ISIS/ISIL/The Islamic State (or whatever you want to call it) has viral violent videos as part of their recruiting tool kit, but I think we must also assume they have a plethora of much more subtle propaganda and a whole arsenal of psychological warfare tricks aimed at silencing dissent:  Please don't let any one bully you away from publishing more- much much more- of the brilliant Hussein Ibish's exceptionally relevant and helpful analysis on the situation in the Middle East.

Sincerely,
Anne Selden Annab

NOTES
World Press Roundup: Middle East News

The Net ... a poem

Forwards ...a poem

The Connectors ... a poem

Mideast Quartet calls for speedy resumption of peace talks... "Pending the resumption of negotiations, the Quartet called on both parties to refrain from actions that undermine trust or prejudge final status issues."


Global Citizenship... laying the foundation for a culture of peace

Ziad Asali

STAY CONNECTED... Given the U.S. commitment to religious freedom, and to the international covenants that guarantee it as the inalienable right of every human being, the United States seeks to: Promote freedom of religion and conscience throughout the world as a fundamental human right and as a source of stability for all countries

The Golden Rule... Do unto others as you would have them do unto you

... Ibrahim's Estate... The Promised Land: In Celebration of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights & Peace Day

Tala Haikal: Empathy Is Essential to Humanity

Hussein Ibish: Non-violent resistance is Palestine’s most powerful weapon

ATFP Calls for De-Escalation between Israel and the Palestinians



 “Your living is determined not so much by what life brings to you as by the attitude you bring to life; not so much by what happens to you as by the way your mind looks at what happens.” Khalil Gibran (1883-1931), born in Lebanon, immigrated to the United States in 1895 where he grew up to become a beloved poet and respected writer.

"There is some good in the worst of us and some evil in the best of us. When we discover this, we are less prone to hate our enemies" Martin Luther King Jr. (1929 – 1968) American minister, humanitarian and social activist- a cherished leader of the Civil Rights Movement in the United States, whose inspiring words continue to influence and empower diplomatic efforts to bring more justice, more security, more peace and more jobs to more people, every one and every where.


Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Princeton University: Hussein Ibish, Senior Fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine to speak, March 31

Hussein Ibish, Senior Fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine to speak, March 31


Hussein Ibish, a Senior Fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine (ATFP) and Executive Director of the Hala Salaam Maksoud Foundation for Arab-American Leadership, will present a public talk titled, "A Real Plan to Build Palestine" at 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday, March 31, Dodds Auditorium, Robertson Hall, on the Princeton University campus.

From 1998-2004 Ibish was the Communications Director for the American-Arab Anti-discrimination Committee (ADC), the nation's largest Arab-American membership organization. From 2001-2004 he was Vice-President of the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom. He has written for the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune. He was the Washington, D.C. correspondent for the Daily Star (Beirut).

Ibish is author of "At the Constitution's Edge: Arab Americans and Civil Liberties in the United States" in States of Confinement; "Anti-Arab Bias in American Policy and Discourse" in Race in 21st Century America; “Race and the War on Terror,” in Race and Human Rights; and “Symptoms of Alienation: How Arab and American Media View Each Other” in Arab Media in the Information Age.

His most recent book is “What’s Wrong with the One-State Agenda? Why Ending the Occupation and Peace with Israel is Still the Palestinian National Goal” (ATFP. 2009). In the book, Ibish examines the arguments generally put forward by Palestinian and other Arab American proponents of abandoning the goal of ending the occupation and establishing a Palestinian state and instead seeking to promote a single, democratic state in all of Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories.

He has a Ph.D. in Comparative Literature from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

This event is sponsored by the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and is free and open to the public.

Friday, April 10, 2015

Comment I posted RE Hussein Ibish: The tragedy in Yarmouk

NOW: A man stands inside a demolished building in the Yarmouk Palestinian refugee camp in the Syrian capital Damascus on 6 April 2015. Around 2,000 people have been evacuated from the camp after ISIS seized large parts of it. (AFP/Youssef Karwashan)
The tragedy in Yarmouk: The Syrian Palestinian refugee camp has become "hell on earth"by
Hussein Ibish
https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/commentary/565103-the-tragedy-in-yarmouk
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]

[Dear...]

Heart breaking- but a very good column by Hussein Ibish.  I am glad Ibish has not abandoned Palestine and the refugees. 

While I understand Ibish's call is for the international community, I have to wonder what exactly is the international community- is it formal governments worldwide, or is it mainly people speaking out to persuade their peers and elected leaders and newspapers to promote preferred story lines?   I can not help but think of all the many "pro-Palestine" activist individuals who constantly knock support away from diplomacy and state building efforts for Palestine.  Why are one-staters, anti-Israel Jewish activists and Islamists, who all tend to scorn negotiations, never ever held accountable for prolonging the Israel-Palestine conflict?

How many reasonable able advocates has Palestine lost, and how many good arguments for negotiations and statehood simply are not being made because 'pro-Palestine' in America has been hijacked by anti-state activists?

Seems to me the real Imperialism of today is a conglomeration of all the many "pro-Palestine" activist inciters weighing in to exasperate racism, religious bigotry, extremism, escalating conflict... further disenfranchising people connected to Palestine, and alienating America (and donors for UNWRA), rather than giving people concerned about the very real plight of the Palestinians the tools to help build a future with good jobs and real freedom based on a just and lasting peace for both Israel and for Palestine.

I wish more people had given more public support to American Task Force on Palestine efforts... I wish more people understood the vital importance of diplomacy and dialogue... and citizenship. American Task Force on Palestine might not be super active today, but all the many wise words, honest insights and good advice written through the years by Ibish & Dr. Ziad Asali (and others) remain in view providing a glimmer of hope that reasonable arguments for a real Palestine can still be made.

Sincerely,
Anne Selden Annab

NOTES

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Knesset of Fools - By Hussein Ibish | Foreign Policy

"...When the Knesset itself says it does not recognize the difference between any effort to boycott Israel and those that target the settlements, it invites the rest of the world to see things in the same light. It encourages those who would not stop at expressing disapproval of the occupation but wish to target Israel and Israelis generally. Moreover, by making Israel indistinguishable from the illegitimate settlement project, it raises the banner of delegitimization higher than any group of non-Israeli activists could ever have hoped to." Hussein Ibish
Knesset of Fools - By Hussein Ibish | Foreign Policy



FB FYI ATFP's Hussein Ibish is honored and deeply humbled to be included in Foreign Policy's Twitterati 100: A who's who of the foreign-policy Twitterverse in 2011 - http://k7.3x.sl.pt/

Monday, June 14, 2010

Ibish: “The last thing the Palestinians need is for Turks and Iranians, or even the Arab states, to be hijacking or manipulating their national cause"

Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact Information: Hussein Ibish
June 14, 2010 - 12:00am

On June 8, ATFP Senior Fellow Hussein Ibish spoke at a seminar for approximately 30 students at the Elliott School at George Washington University, hosted by the National Council on US-Arab Relations. Ibish spoke about evolution of US perspectives on Middle Eastern regional dynamics and peace, and about the present strategic situation with regard to Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. He told the audience that the current Israeli government and some of its supporters in the United States were struggling to deal with a new reality, in which the American foreign policy establishment and military has adopted a new perspective on Middle Eastern regional dynamics which emphasizes the interconnectedness of all developments. He emphasized that “because the situation between Israel and the Palestinians has much more political and symbolic resonance than anything else throughout the region, it has therefore assumed an even greater significance in American planning.”

Ibish said this new perspective was “largely a consequence of the ongoing and unsuccessful wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which had forced the foreign policy and military establishments to look again at the model they were using to understand regional dynamics and to adopt a more holistic approach.” He told the students that American experts generally now recognized that because events in Palestine are more likely to impact dynamics involving Iraq, Iran, Turkey, other parts of the Arab world or even Afghanistan, than the other way around, this renews attention on the need for an end to the conflict and the occupation. He said that this means that the argument about “linkage” that began in late 1990 in the run-up to the first Gulf War has been institutionally and generationally resolved, and that linkage is now an accepted phenomenon by a consensus of the foreign policy establishment. However, he said “the form of linkage that has become a consensus is different than earlier versions that sought to simply link the Israeli occupation with US foreign policy challenges,” and that “the linkage that has prevailed in contemporary American thinking is a much broader model in which everything is linked to everything else.”

Ibish said that what this means, as a practical matter, is that, like all other Middle East actors, Israeli policies and conduct are now viewed as important elements in shaping US strategic position in the region. However, he emphasized that this is a new reality for Israel and its US supporters, since in the past the US-Israel relationship has mainly been understood in terms of the bilateral special relationship and also in terms of domestic US politics. He said “there is now a third register, that of regional strategic dynamics, in which Israel's policies and conduct are being viewed, and this new dimension has not been fully accommodated or appreciated by the current Israeli government.”

Ibish told the students all of this explains why the Obama administration has been emphasizing Middle East peace from the outset and refuses to be deterred by setbacks or false starts. He said that given this perspective, for the United States Middle East peace is not optional, it is imperative, and that the Israelis do appear to have fully understood the urgency and importance that Washington now attaches to this issue. He also said that the Palestinians and other Arabs were being judged by the same yardstick in terms of their cooperation with American peace efforts, and that the Palestinians could and should do more to present themselves as dynamic partners with the Obama administration in the pursuit of peace, whether or not Israel is being cooperative at any given stage. He added that the recent crisis over the Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla and its fallout demonstrate that Turkey is interested in an expanded and possibly hegemonic role in the region and is now competing with Iran for “ownership” of the Palestine issue through symbolic and largely meaningless gestures that outbid all Arab parties. Ibish said that “the last thing the Palestinians need is for Turks and Iranians, or even the Arab states, to be hijacking or manipulating their national cause for their own parochial purposes.”

Friday, May 14, 2010

Beyond negotiations: Palestinian strategies for advancing peace by Hussein Ibish

Beyond negotiations: Palestinian strategies for advancing peace
by Hussein Ibish
13 May 2010

WASHINGTON, DC - The Obama administration was successful in arranging for the resumption of Palestinian-Israeli negotiations through “proximity talks”, which began last week, but expectations in all quarters are correctly low for any near-term breakthrough. Consequently, Palestinians have been systematically developing a new set of peaceful strategies to achieve independence and advance a resolution to the conflict.

Since the UN General Assembly meeting in the fall, the whole thrust of American policy has been to try to get the parties back into negotiations, with the apparent hope that this would then create its own dynamic and open spaces for significant progress.

The idea of “proximity talks” in which Americans would speak alternately to Israeli and Palestinian negotiators who would not meet directly, came out of the administration’s efforts to find a way for the Palestinians to return to negotiations with Israel without a complete settlement freeze. This is, of course, an unfortunate throwback to the pre-Madrid era. An even worse throwback is the renewed Palestinian reliance on “approval” from the Arab League for what ought to be strictly Palestinian decisions regarding negotiations with Israel.

With expectations for the talks being what they are, all parties are wondering whether or not the Americans have a “Plan B”. Washington is currently embroiled in significant debates about the alternatives. One camp is urging the possible development of a broad-ranging and specific US peace plan. Another is cautioning against raising expectations and counselling that no significant progress is possible under the present circumstances. A third possibility is for the United States to internationalise the process by calling a peace summit at the end of the year in the event of a continued stalemate.

The Palestinian leadership is committed to negotiations but has no confidence they can achieve anything significant immediately given the present political climate and makeup of the Israeli cabinet. At the same time, they are resolutely opposed to armed struggle or another violent intifada. Because of this conundrum, they have been developing a series of creative alternative strategies designed to complement diplomacy and provide additional sources of momentum towards peace.

The most important of these is the state and institution building programme adopted in August 2009 by the PA cabinet, which includes creating a fully functioning bureaucracy and the institutional, economic and infrastructural basis for a successful, independent Palestinian state.

The idea is that as negotiations proceed slowly for the meanwhile, Palestinians can build the framework of their state, making independence not just a theoretical possibility but a potentially practical reality. It calls the bluff of all parties, challenging them to assess if they were ever serious about their stated commitment to a peace based on a Palestinian state.

In addition, the PA has been increasingly promoting nonviolent protests and civil disobedience in the West Bank targeted at the occupation. These protests, such as those at villages affected by the West Bank separation barrier, highlight abusive Israeli policies, and confront the occupation in a proactive but peaceful manner.

A third tactic in this emergent peaceful strategy to confront the occupation are various economic measures aimed at ridding the Palestinian economy of settlement goods, encouraging European and other states to boycott settlement products and preventing Palestinians from working in settlements. The economic aim here is to replace the settlement elements of the Palestinian economy with indigenous ones, providing alternatives to the Palestinians subsidising the settlements themselves and simultaneously expanding the Palestinian economy. All these measures are designed to emphasise the distinction between Israel itself and the occupation, and focus attention on the contradicting interests of most Israelis on the one hand, and extremist settlers on the other. Palestinians are saying to ordinary Israelis, “Our policy is not aimed at you or your country but at the extremist settlers whose activities, because they are antithetical to peace, are in the end are as damaging to you as they are to us.”

All this means that, while the Palestinian leadership is committed to a negotiated agreement, they are not relying solely on American leadership or Israeli sincerity and are developing parallel, complementary tracks that they can control and which bolster diplomacy.

All parties seriously committed to a two-state agreement, especially the international community, should welcome and support these new Palestinian initiatives, especially the state and institution building program.

###

* Hussein Ibish is a Senior Fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine and blogs at www.ibishblog.com.
This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 13 May 2010,
www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.

Common Ground News Service

by Hussein Ibish
In the fifth article in our series on religious freedom in the Israeli-Palestinian context, Hussein Ibbish from the American Task Force on Palestine contends that in a future Palestinian state, religious freedom will be possible only if the state structure is founded on secular values.
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 28 January 2010)

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Which Way Forward for Palestinian Liberation? One state or two? A discussion with Hussein Ibish and Joel Kovel about Israel/Palestine


Which Way Forward for Palestinian Liberation?

One state or two? A discussion with Hussein Ibish and Joel Kovel about Israel/Palestine and the way forward.

Host:
Type:
Network:
Global
Date:
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Time:
7:00pm - 9:00pm
Location:
Street:
1414 East 59th Street
City/Town:
Chicago, IL


Description

Hussein Ibish is a senior fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine and is the executive director of the Hala Salaam Maksoud Foundation for Arab- American Leadership. Ibish has written for several newspapers, including the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune and was the Washington, DC correspondent for the Daily Star (Beirut). Ibish will discuss his recent book, What's Wrong with the One State Agenda? Why Ending the Occupation and Peace with Israel is Still the Palestinian National Goal.


Joel Kovel
is professor emeritus of social studies at Bard College, editor in chief of Capitalism Nature Socialism, a scholarly international journal of eco-socialism & eco-feminism, and author of several books including White Racism and The Enemy of Nature. He will be discussing his most recent book Overcoming Zionism: Creating a Single Democratic State in Israel/Palestine.


Hosted by the University of Chicago Platypus Affiliated Society. Cosponsored by UChicago Students for Justice in Palestine and the International House Global Voices Lecture Series.

inquiries about this event should be sent to chicago@platypus1917.org

International House
Platypus Affilated Society
http://chicago.platypus1917.org/which-way-forward-for-palestinian-liberation/

Persons with disabilities that may need assistance should contact the Office of Programs & External Relations in advance of the program at 773-753-2274.

Free and Open to the Public.

RSVP online at the Facebook event.


Saturday, July 10, 2010

More on [a] conversation with Ibish:"I think it's obvious how much the Palestinian citizens of Israel have to gain in any peace agreement..."

More on conversation with Ibish
Media Mention of Hussein Ibish in The Meretz USA Blog - July 8, 2010 - 12:00am
http://www.americantaskforce.org/daily_news_article/2010/07/08/1278561600

The Web editor of In These Times required a 2,500 word limitation for the online article. The ISRAEL HORIZONS version, pending for the fall, will include almost all of my discussion with Hussein Ibish. What I particularly regret having had to exclude from the ITT piece is the following further response from Hussein Ibish to my question on how he felt about the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state:

... it's perfectly reasonable and morally appropriate for everybody to be concerned and interested about the rights of the Palestinian minority of Israeli citizens in Israel proper. But I don't think this is an appropriate subject for negotiations between Israel and the PLO. It introduces another complication in an already overburdened negotiation agenda and blurs the crucial distinction between Israel and the occupation that should be the basis for all Palestinian diplomacy.

People worry about the status of Palestinian citizens of Israel in the context of a two-state agreement, but I completely fail to understand the logic of this. Israel's Palestinian citizens already have a legal status that allows them to pursue their rights within the Israeli political and legal system, and they've been partly successful in doing that already. It strikes me that not only is this the path forward for them to secure their full rights as Israeli citizens, but that nothing conceivable could possibly strengthen their position more than the realization of a two-state end of conflict agreement. Of course there will always be ethnic and religious discrimination because of certain prejudices in Israel and everywhere around the world.

I don't think we should kid ourselves that human beings are suddenly going to become reasonable creatures across the board. However, it seems to me that most of the systematic and onerous forms of discrimination against the Palestinian citizens of Israel have their origins in the fact that these Israelis have kinship, narrative, cultural and ideological ties to the other side in a conflict. In other words, they're considered a possible fifth column, a potential security problem, as well as an anomaly within the "Jewish and democratic state."

It seems to me obvious that an end to the conflict would largely, and over time probably entirely, remove this powerful and definitive obstacle to the complete integration of Palestinian citizens as full citizens of Israel without legal forms of discrimination, and raise the barriers to their participation in all sectors of society. Moreover, Palestinian citizens of Israel would no longer be cut off from the Arab world, as they largely have been until now, but would rather be poised to be Israel's ambassadors to the Arabs, literally and figuratively, especially in terms of business and commerce, as well as culture. In fact, I think it's obvious how much the Palestinian citizens of Israel have to gain in any peace agreement, even if their specific issues are not subject to negotiation, and I just don't understand how people fail to see this. I think the issue is raised really in order to criticize the concept of negotiations and a negotiated agreement rather than out of any thoughtful, serious approach to advancing the real, practical interests of the Palestinian citizens of Israel.

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

My letter to the Guardian RE A real plan to build Palestine by Hussein Ibish


RE: A real plan to build Palestine, The PA's proposal to unilaterally build the framework of a Palestinian state is a legal, peaceful response to Israel by Hussein Ibish
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/02/palestinian-state-build-israel

Dear Sir,

Ibish asks the crucial question "Do we really mean what we say about the importance of peace based on the creation of a Palestinian state, and are we willing to act on it?"

And I hope the answer is yes- a heartfelt firm YES that helps create positive momentum for a real Palestine invested in peace and prosperity:

A fully accountable Palestine focused in on being the best it can be- no matter what.

A secular and safe Palestine that strives to be democratic, pluralistic, non-militarized and neutral in armed conflicts- for armed 'resistance' has only brought haunting sorrow and suffering and painful exile to the children of historic Palestine.

A turn the page Palestine, opening a new chapter with the potential of many happily ever afters.

Sincerely,
Anne Selden Annab