One Voice poll captures the concerns of both Israeli's and Palestinian's

One Voice did a poll which has some very interesting results pertaining to peace between Palestinians and Israelis. The poll captures some of the major interests and positions of both parties and could be very useful for purposing or crafting a peace plan or positive change in the region. Some of the results included:

"Table 1. Problems of ‘substance’ for the Israel/Palestine peace process expressed as per cent ‘Very significant’."

1st
Palestine: Establishing an independent sovereign state of Palestine 97%
Israel: Security for Israel 77%
2nd
Palestine: The rights of refugees 95%
Israel: Agreement on the future of Jerusalem 68%
3rd
Palestine: Agreement on the future of Jerusalem 94%
Israel: Rights to natural resources 62%
4th
Palestine: Agreement on managing Holy sites 91%
Israel: Agreement on managing Holy sites 57%
5th
Palestine: Security for Palestine 90%
Israel: Agreeing borders for Israel and Palestine 49%

For the entire poll and more information please check out:
http://onevoicemovement.org/programs/documents/OneVoiceIrwinReport.pdf

Nonviolent Palestinian protester is shot by IDF

In this video a group of nonviolent Palestinian protesters from the village of Bil'in are attacked by IDF (Israel Defense Forces) and one of the protesters is shot and killed. It is very sad that they cannot even protest nonviolently without the threat and possibility of being killed in the process. Please share this video. To watch the video paste the link below into your browser.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlbzuZ_50mU

Western Media’s Portrayal of Suicide Bombers

It is important to be weary of the Western media's coverage of suicide bombers, especially the way the media groups them all together and makes them out to all be Islamic fundamentalists. Western media has emphasized strongly that Islamic fundamentalist suicide bombers believe they will have 72 virgins and unlimited sex in heaven. The problem with this notion is that while yes it is true this type of statement completely undermines suicide bombers. The problem with this is that not all of the suicide bombers are the same. Some are fundamentalists while others are not and some are fighting for a cause, like in Palestine, while others would fit into the definition of "terrorist". I am not attempting to defend suicide bombers but rather I intend only to differentiate them and look at the ways in which Palestinian suicide bombers legitimize their actions.

First of all Palestinian suicide bombers cannot be grouped with Islamic fundamentalist suicide bombers and categorized exactly the same with exactly the same motives. There is a difference, for example, between fundamentalists and the Palestinian group Hamas. Fundamentalists want to spread Islam to every corner of the globe and believe that jihad is the violent struggle to do this and thus it has no boundaries. Hamas only justifies jihad against Israel because they believe that Israel is oppressing them, that Israelis killed civilians first so Palestinians can in turn kill Israeli civilians, and that jihad will last until Palestine has recovered the land lost in 1967. Thus for Hamas jihad is about justice and liberation; they feel oppressed by Israelis who in their view have invaded Palestinian territory. They feel that after trying many options jihad and faith in God are the only measures left which will be effective. Hamas also seeks a democratic government thereby they do not deny all Western ideas as do fundamentalists. Therefore Hamas is not a fundamentalist Islamic group, at least not in the way it’s normally defined, and so it’s more than ignorant to group Hamas suicide bombers and Islamic fundamentalist suicide bombers into one big group.

The second problem is that while this notion of virgins and sex is often promised to suicide bombers, who are considered martyrs, it dehumanizes and delegitimizes them completely. By portraying them as sex crazed people who would kill themselves for sex in heaven is more than insulting. In any society where people are killing themselves readily something is wrong. To dismiss the deaths as motivated by sex does not even make sense if you honestly think about it. There is more to the problem than this and such notions are dangerously stereotypical.

This type of view ignores the dilemma Hamas faces about killing civilians. In Palestine in particular and with Hamas, killing civilians is a critical dilemma for suicide bombers since it is denounced in the Quran. The justifications normally used are that Israel is a military society in which civilians and soldiers are difficult to differentiate and Israelis killed Palestinian civilians first so Palestinians are justified in doing the same.

Also ignored is the sense of desperation on the ground. Many Palestinians have reported they are willing to die for Palestine because it is better to them to die than to live in the current oppressive conditions in Palestine. They are frustrated and believe that nonviolence as well as peace processes have been tried and exhausted and nothing has happened. They believe secular ideas will not work since they have not worked yet and so they are turning to Islamic groups like Hamas for hope. Many Palestinians feel they are fighting for liberation against an oppressor just as Americans fought the British and just as many others fought for their freedom. For this reason they do not understand why all their attacks against Israel are labeled as terrorist and not acknowledged.

Also important is the fact that Hamas visits the families of martyrs and gives them money and support. Many people have used this to write Hamas suicide bombers off as poor people who are motivated by the money and therefore die so their families can receive money. While this has some truth to it, to take the notion and use it to label all suicide bombers is not an honest portrait of the situation. For one, Hamas visits the families of every single Palestinian that is killed, suicide bomber or not, and they offer economic as well as other forms of support to the families. So while religious motives and economic incentives for family members can have some influence it is important to take other factors into account like: the cause for liberation of Palestine, the severity of the situation on the ground, and even Palestinian anger, frustration, and sometimes desire for revenge. Palestinians are humans too and not all of them are going to commit suicide for the exact same reason or the exact same combination of reasons.

Poll on Afghanistan indicates a disturbing trend among Americans

In a recent poll conducted by the Washington Post, 1000 adults in the US were randomly polled over the telephone. The subject was Afghanistan and the results of the poll are nothing short of disturbing. When asked if the US should focus more on economic development in Afghanistan or on defeating the Taliban militarily, 51% said militarily and 41% said economic development. Among those, 67% of Republicans said militarily and only 27% said economically. When asked if they would support or oppose the US negotiating with Taliban if Taliban agreed to suspend attacks, 41% supported negotiations and 53% opposed them. Of those, 71% of Republicans opposed them and only 24% supported negotiations. When asked if they thought the war was worth fighting in Afghanistan 56% said yes and 41% said no. Among those, 77% of Republicans said yes and only 20% said no.

What do these numbers indicate? It would be nice to believe it is simply ignorance or a lack of education, and maybe it is. After all even congressmen make decisions with very little information. In fact they do it everyday, why else would lobbying be so prominent and effective? Putting things in perspective, the poll was conducted on Americans randomly. It is not hard to imagine that the average American knows very little about Afghanistan and may not care to know more. With this is mind, indeed these polls would indicate lack of education on the subject and it’s not exactly a polling of people that understand the situation by any means.

However, a disturbing trend on this poll is the response of Republicans. 67% said use military as opposed to economic or reconstructions efforts. Do these people understand that US failure to launch reconstruction in Afghanistan after the defeat of the Russians has put the US back in Afghanistan today? Also, 71% of Republicans were opposed to negotiations with the Taliban. Opposition to negotiation can only mean that the Republicans want the Taliban dead, every single one of them. How else is the US going to deal with them if they don’t negotiate? Also, 77% of Republicans said the war was worth fighting. These numbers are pretty offensive but polling is not exactly scientific evidence and there is always room for error. Overall, this poll does indeed suggest a lack of education in the average American. Not to say that the average American is uneducated, but that the average American is not educated by any means about conflict resolution. Without being aware of the possibility of other ways to solve conflicts, Americans actually believe that war is necessary and quite frequently as the trend is showing. This is a sad indicator of a lack of education on foreign countries themselves and the alternative methods for solving conflicts. It’s not too hard to imagine this predicament since conflict resolution is neither taught in public schools nor is it supported by very many of the “educated” people that run our government.

For more information on the poll go here: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2009/03/post-abc_afghanistan.html

Afghanistan: Will the US and Iran Work Together?

Interestingly, at a recent summit on Afghanistan the US sought out Iran’s support on issues in Afghanistan. According to the April 1, 2009 Washington Post, Iranian diplomat Akhundzadeh said Iran is ready to engage in reconstruction efforts to stop drug trafficking but he was critical of the US plan to boost troops in Afghanistan. He went on to say that the people of Afghanistan know their country best and the presence of foreign troops will not help matters. Putting differences between Iran and the US aside, Iran seems to understand the issues in Afghanistan better than the US. The problem in Afghanistan is mostly crime related. Many of the madrassas there have been taken over by criminals and become criminal breeding grounds. The main issues are sex trafficking of young boys and drugs. Iran is suggesting an approach that would involve not so much war but stopping crime and engaging in reconstruction. After all, wasn’t it the United States’ failure to conduct reconstruction in Afghanistan that created this problem in the first place? After the US supported Taliban to fight of the Russians, the US abandoned Afghanistan at a time when the country needed reconstruction badly. Now that the results of that failure are easy for anyone to see, the US thinks it should have a war in Afghanistan. Since when was crime fought with a war? Shouldn’t the US own up to its own failures and at least take into account what the people of Afghanistan want for their own country? The US already failed there once, is it wise to ignore the people there and possibly fail again. Reconstruction is the key in this issue and it’s the sole reason that Afghanistan is still a problem. Indeed, it would be great if the US and Iran work together in Afghanistan, but perhaps the US should really listen to Iran’s perspective as well, after all it seems much more down to earth.

What does dialogue between the US and Iran really mean?

Since the Iranian Revolution in 1979, when Iran became an Islamic Republic, relations have been tense between Iran and the United States. Indeed, President George W. Bush refused to engage Iran in dialogue and he grouped Iran into what he called the axis of evil. Additionally, Bush stated that the United States does not negotiate with terrorists. This was part of his policy not to have dialogue with the “enemy”. His animosity towards Iran heightened tensions and many believed it was only a matter of time before some kind of war broke out involving Iran. Recently President Obama has publicly offered to engage in dialogue with Iran. He said that he is willing to talk with the leader of Iran and he is willing to have US diplomats meet with their Iranian counterparts. Neither of these actions would have been possible during the Bush administration.

This is a breakthrough in the field of conflict resolution. That may come as a surprise since the US wasn’t actually in a conflict with Iran but this move by President Obama is a form of conflict prevention. The two countries were not talking, tensions were high, and conflict was certainly possible. By engaging them the US will essentially be initiating conflict prevention and if carried out in the right way, there could be a transformation in the relationship between these two countries. The importance of such a transformation cannot be underestimated. Iran is a traditional spoiler in the Palestinian Israeli conflict. Iran’s support of Hamas and other Palestinian groups gives Iran some power over Palestinian decisions. This often handicaps Palestine’s negotiating power while prolonging the conflict. Iran has also been a subject of recent disagreements between the US and Russia. That being said, peace with Iran will take some burden off US-Russian relations as well. Therefore a transformation of US-Iranian relations would directly impact other conflicts and relationships around the world.

According to an article in Yahoo! News Iran has been invited to a conference on Afghanistan at the end of this month. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be representing the US at the conference. Meetings between other leaders from both countries are also very likely in the near future. The United States has nothing to gain by giving Iran the cold shoulder and raising tensions. By engaging Iran at least there is a possibility that peace can be secured between the US and Iran. This would also allow Iran’s nuclear intentions to be verified and possibly even altered. This is all speculation as of now, since this is recent news and none of these dialogues have actually taken place yet. However, Obama’s offer to open dialogue between the US and Iran is certainly a hopeful sign for the future and a departure from the policies of the past administration.

More information: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090321/pl_afp/usdiplomacyiranstrategy

Have US-Russian Relations Really Been "Reset"?

The Cold War may be over, but the US and Russia still have their differences when it comes to international policy decisions. Not too long ago when Russia invaded Georgia, President George W. Bush was quick to condemn Russia with harsh rhetoric. The US came on with a very one sided approach to the conflict until evidence began to show that Georgia had exhibited some degree of aggression towards South Ossetia, one of Georgia’s breakaway provinces. Russia’s claim that it was protecting South Ossetia turned out to be at least somewhat founded though the US took the stance that Russia’s action had been disproportionate compared to Georgia’s action. Then there was an outcry from Russia as the US continued moving forward with its missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. The shield is supposedly for protection from Iran but Russia claimed that it was a direct threat to Russia and that the missile shield was actually aimed at Russia. Events quickly escalated as Russia threatened to launch Iskanders (missile launching vehicles) across the Russian border in response to the missile shield. To compound the issue more, Russia felt threatened by the push for Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO, which was supported by the US. With these events George W. Bush’s presidency ended with US-Russian relations looking anything but hopeful.

President Barrack Obama has spoken about mending these relations as the new President of the United States. Recently the Secretary of State Hilary Clinton met with her Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov. She presented Lavrov with a gift from the US in the form of a reset button. This gift was a symbolic one which was supposed to acknowledge a desire to reset US-Russian relations to where they were before George W. Bush’s presidency. But as documented in the March 7, 2009 Washington Post, the button was translated incorrectly and the Russian word that was supposed to mean “reset” actually meant “overcharge.” As noted in a March 24, 2009 issue of the Washington Post, changing US-Russian relations is not as simple as pressing a button and little has been done since Obama took office to mend these relations.

While little has been done so far, the US has been talking about renegotiating an arms treaty with Russia as well as discussing the missile defense shield. It’s important to note that Russia still talks about feeling threatened by NATO, especially NATO expansion. With mounting tensions between these two countries it’s hard to imagine that current plans such as discussing energy in the Balkans and nuclear bombs in Iran will mend relations, after all these issues are contentious for Russia and while they should be addressed what else is the US planning to do? It seems like it’s going to take more creativity than a plastic reset button to improve US-Russian relations. Perhaps the US should rethink NATO and maybe even think of some way to constructively include Russia in NATO. After all, many of Russia’s complaints relate to Russia being threatened. Russia is threatened by the missile defense shield, threatened by US support and influence of its neighbors like Ukraine and Georgia, and Russia is threatened by the increasing number of its neighbors that are joining or planning to join NATO. Wouldn’t the US feel threatened if Canada and Mexico created a defensive alliance with Russia? NATO is such a key part of this issue that it’s time to reexamine NATO with much more creativity than is normally seen by the US government. Otherwise NATO is going to continue to come up as an area of contention between the US and Russia for the foreseeable future.