When it comes to establishing peace, there are essential factors that encourage peace whether it’s in the Middle East or in the world at large.
When it comes to establishing peace, there are essential factors that encourage peace whether it’s in the Middle East or in the world at large.
1)Wars and killing and violence go counter to the humanity that we have in common and also counter to the teachings present in all religions that speak of the sanctity of human life and engendering neighborly relations and good individual ties and speaks to the human conscience that resides in each person. What unites people is their common humanity and feelings that all people experience.
2)There must be between individuals and nations good intentions and efforts to respect each other. People from various traditions, religious groups, cultures, races, nations should emphasize through education the human need for people who are healthy to interact in the true spirit of co-existence and peace.
3.We have different religious traditions, and we need to understand each other. The differences are not a threat, but a way for us to get to know each other and to be seen as a positive challenge of growing through interfaith dialogues, engaging in confidence-building exchanges between individuals and groups. We must understand each other better in order to build the necessary foundation for achieving peace.
4.Every person and nation deserves a dignified life, and every person deserves that and would defend such a right. Every person wants freedom, the ability to be secure in creating a family, a stable life, the ability to pursue economic success, happiness. Each side must see the importance of attaining this for a person to believe in peace.
5.There should be frank and open discussions between people that are done in a calm regardless of the differences that exist, and can use our understandings of what is different to bridge the gaps and find common ground in a way that brings mutual benefits to both sides.
6.We must forgive one another for the mistakes made on both sides. We must work hard and put forward our best efforts to overcome the feelings behind creating violent situations, hatred, and selfishness in order to achieve true peace. We must also remember that peace is achieved as the fruit of justice. Without justice, there is no peace.
7.We should remember that no man is an island, that the parts affect the whole. With that in mind, we must stand besides those who need to be uplifted and who have felt neglected, so we can have healthier communities with healthier individuals. So many people have felt neglected and suffered. We must be compassionate and seek to assist them for in assisting them, we assist ourselves.
8.We must show solidarity for those who are and have been vulnerable due to violence or any kind of injustice and do our utmost to give them a sense of hope and convert their negative feelings into positive ones.
9.We must encourage all attempts at attaining positive relations and friendships between people from the different communities for it is through friendships one can make peace-making easier to achieve.
10.We must urge leaders responsible for the welfare of their people be they presidents, governors, leaders of international bodies to do put forward their best efforts in achieving justice for people from all nations and peace and respect between the nations of the world.
The author and writer,
Mahmoud Abu-Laban.
Translation into English ,
Basil keilan
1)Wars and killing and violence go counter to the humanity that we have in common and also counter to the teachings present in all religions that speak of the sanctity of human life and engendering neighborly relations and good individual ties and speaks to the human conscience that resides in each person. What unites people is their common humanity and feelings that all people experience.
2)There must be between individuals and nations good intentions and efforts to respect each other. People from various traditions, religious groups, cultures, races, nations should emphasize through education the human need for people who are healthy to interact in the true spirit of co-existence and peace.
3.We have different religious traditions, and we need to understand each other. The differences are not a threat, but a way for us to get to know each other and to be seen as a positive challenge of growing through interfaith dialogues, engaging in confidence-building exchanges between individuals and groups. We must understand each other better in order to build the necessary foundation for achieving peace.
4.Every person and nation deserves a dignified life, and every person deserves that and would defend such a right. Every person wants freedom, the ability to be secure in creating a family, a stable life, the ability to pursue economic success, happiness. Each side must see the importance of attaining this for a person to believe in peace.
5.There should be frank and open discussions between people that are done in a calm regardless of the differences that exist, and can use our understandings of what is different to bridge the gaps and find common ground in a way that brings mutual benefits to both sides.
6.We must forgive one another for the mistakes made on both sides. We must work hard and put forward our best efforts to overcome the feelings behind creating violent situations, hatred, and selfishness in order to achieve true peace. We must also remember that peace is achieved as the fruit of justice. Without justice, there is no peace.
7.We should remember that no man is an island, that the parts affect the whole. With that in mind, we must stand besides those who need to be uplifted and who have felt neglected, so we can have healthier communities with healthier individuals. So many people have felt neglected and suffered. We must be compassionate and seek to assist them for in assisting them, we assist ourselves.
8.We must show solidarity for those who are and have been vulnerable due to violence or any kind of injustice and do our utmost to give them a sense of hope and convert their negative feelings into positive ones.
9.We must encourage all attempts at attaining positive relations and friendships between people from the different communities for it is through friendships one can make peace-making easier to achieve.
10.We must urge leaders responsible for the welfare of their people be they presidents, governors, leaders of international bodies to do put forward their best efforts in achieving justice for people from all nations and peace and respect between the nations of the world.
The author and writer,
Mahmoud Abu-Laban.
Translation into English ,
Basil keilan
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Paul RETI on -
Dear moderator Basil,
Why do you think that Lovey is "not interested in peace at all or pursuing it."?
Could it be that some of Lovey's buttons and perceptions are just diufferent from yours, as Basil the human being?
It seems to me Basil that you are simply demonising and criticising one whose views and needs and knowledge and expectatiuons are different from yours, simply for those reasons.
-
Permalink Reply by Basil Keilani on -
Paul,
Paul read it again:
At third point of time peace or co existence is not an option worth pursuing as there is really very little in the way of trust and we know all too well from the Gaza debacle as to what will happen even if we enter into an agreement.ul, read this again.
Paul, why do you think that Lovey is interested in peace and pursuing it. There must be evidence that the poster is seeking to empathize with the other side, to not stereotype them.
Actually, to be honest, for your benefit, this person was given many, many changes and warnings beyond what is customary. I can understand how you feel. Yes, of course, her perceptions are different than mine. You objected to Mazin could I say simply you had no right to object to him because he is human just like you? What about the police officer giving a traffic ticket? Is he wrong? In the perception of the man speeding he should be able to speed. Maybe, Hitler was right and Ghandi was right? I am operating based on something called the mepeace guidelines. Ghandi was applying the Vedas, Christianity. If everything is up to just human differences, there is no order, just chaos.
Here is what happened with the poster:
1)She posted the following: Lovey,
At third point of time peace or co existence is not an option worth pursuing as there is really very little in the way of trust and we know all too well from the Gaza debacle as to what will happen even if we enter into an agreement.
2)She has said that "Arabs need to change, not Israelis". When addressing Yifat she said to her basically "This is what the Arabs taught you". (See the blog by Yifat called "I am mad (one of the last posts). This entails demonising Arabs. This violates the guidelines of mepeace. Stereotyping people and attacking groups violates the guidelines.
3)when she was disagreeing with Yifat she said Yifat is young and impressionable. It's a personal attack.
4)She said that Arabs must prove to her that they are trustworthy. How is someone who is willing to believe in peace to say that and generalize about the other side? Imagine if someone said
"Jews must prove they are trustworthy".
I can understand you will disagree. We gave the user many chances. I am going based on the guidelines. If you want the guidelines changed, contact Eyal and other members of the team.
we applied the guidelines as we understood them. It's not like a police officer watching a speedomert. We have to engage in a judgement call based on what we think are personal attacks, racist statements, belligerent attitudes in general etc..... We can't apologize for that.
If such actions are directed towards Martians, people from Pluto, Israel, Palestine, or Venus, we will act, and we want good persons like you to send reports. I can understand you don't agree with this, Paul, but you attacked Mazin. Maybe your attacks were invalid since you are both human?
Based on the guidelines Eyal published at the time, Mazin pushed the envelope and nothing was done.
Moderators are sometimes not popular. We can live with that. We earnestly care about peace.
-
Permalink Reply by Naomi Marcus on -
This is very true and very beautiful, but it is idealistic in that it addresses underlying attitudes but not the day-to-day facts that establish that those attitudes are real and not just empty words. For instance, from the Jewish point of view, when the Israelis pulled out of Gaza and groups among the Palestinians began firing rockets from Gaza into Israel, many Jews felt that a gesture toward peace had been met with escalation of hostility (I recognize that the Israeli policies were to continue to control life in Gaza so that daily life remained very hard for ordinary people, but many Jews didn't see it that way.) We have to be able to address these difficulties honestly without making excuses based on the behavior of the other.
-
Permalink Reply by Luc Hansen on -
But Naomi, surely for peace to arrive, other than the peace of the dead, both sides need to recognise the point of view of the other?
From the Palestinian point of view, as I see it, and you are welcome to correct me, Palestinians were mere bystanders in 1967 when the occupation began. Israel magnified and exploited the flimsiest of excuses to justify it's war of choice on it's neighbors. This statement is not necessarily indicating a negative view of Israel's actions - states do what they see as in their best interests.
But for Palestinians the first offense is always the occupation. The Gaza withdrawal was not an end to occupation, as you point out. Control IS occupation. Resistance is both morally correct and legal, although suicide attacks and rockets aimed at civilians are not. Israel transgresses international law as well. Neither justifies the other.
So I guess what I am asking you, Naomi, is this: given the fact of a 42 year belligerent, in the extreme, occupation, what do you expect of Palestinians?
Complete submission?
Both major Palestinian political parties and all neighboring states offer peace on or about the 1967 armistice lines and a formula for settling the refugee question.
What's your offer?
-
Permalink Reply by Paul RETI on
-
Yes Luc,
As you wrote "Control IS occupation." Hamas is in conrlrol of Gaza and the destiny and daily lives of all who live in Gaza. .
-
Permalink Reply by Basil Keilani on
-
Paul Reti,
Yes, Hamas, has an obligation vis-a-vis Gaza, but so does Israel. Both the Israeli Government and Hamas have an obligation toward the Gazan people, correct? I mean Israel controls the borders and the sea. Gaza has Gilad Shalit and Israel has Palestinian prisoners. Hamas has FATAH prisoners and FATAH has Hamas prisoners. They need to pursue unity for the sake of Palestinians and find a way to allow the PLO gradually back into Gaza. If I were them, I would slowly allow some PLO men into the Gaza Strip and allow them to man the crossings.
-
Permalink Reply by Hayyim Feldman on -
Luc, I've been looking around the site a bit after a long absence, and have a bit puzzled to see several discussions where various "even-handed" people (among whom I hope to be counted myself) criticize you for what appears to me to be a fairly straightforward presentation of your perspective backed by some usually pretty reliable (if biased, as all accounts are) historical information. But here, your reply to Naomi enlightens me as to how you may have drawn that ire.
First, Naomi's point, it seems to me, was not to criticize Palestinians. Yes, she did so, but she also criticized Israel's pretense of withdrawing control. Both in the context of a challenge to the original post: What is the value of Mahmoud's beautiful sentiments in the context of the daily exchange of reciprocal hostilities? You may even share some of her suspicion about that, or not; I don't know. But you didn't address it at all. You responded like Pavlov's dog who hears a criticism of some act by some Palestinian(s) and growls, hearing nothing else. This is particularly ungracious when you yourself in your reply to Naomi reject precisely the same Palestinian act that she criticized. You infer an expectation of complete submission from Naomi's criticism - but not from your own. You can't have it both ways.
If you had said something like "Acting in its own perceived interest, as all states do, Israel chose to make war on its neighbors," you might be justified in claiming that this is not "a negative view of Israel's actions," just a realist view. But after you say instead that Israel "exploited the flimsiest of excuses," who can take you seriously when you deny having stated a negative view? You can't have it both ways.
There are some factual errors here, too. The Palestinians were far from mere bystanders in 1967. It was the activity of Palestinian fedayeen that sparked Israel's provocations against Syria that then escalated into confrontation with Egypt and, ultimately, a regional war that it's not clear anyone wanted. What is on offer from Hamas (unlike the Arab states) in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 border is something significantly less than "peace."
But those are minor, and I am in full agreement with what seems to me the core of your view: that both sides need to recognize the point of view of the other; that control is a form of occupation and legitimate forms of resistance are justifiable; that both sides routinely transgress the demands of law and morality, and one transgression does not justify another.
For the sake of advancing those ideas and others like them, I urge you to consider approaching your mepeace (and other) discussion partners with a more generous spirit.
Blessings,
-Hayyim
-
Permalink Reply by Basil Keilani on
-
I think Naomi tries to be balanced. I agree that many Israelis didn't see how the policies of the Israeli Government contributed to the firing of rockets, but she seems to say, at the same time, that Hamas still was responsible for its actions. She believes both sides must be accountable for their actions. I agree with that. Hamas has lately not really fired rockets. Some Israelis may think that it's because "Arabs only understand violence". However, Hamas barely fired rockets during the cease-fire and was willing to not fire rockets if Israel gave Hamas a good deal on prisoners and allowed more trucks to enter the Gaza Strip. I don't think it's true that Hamas simply wants any excuse to use violence. It also has national ambitions. It has refrained more than once from using violence as a tool. I would say that Palestinians and Israelis are manipulated by their politicians.
I agree with Hayyim that Luc didn't read Naomi's post properly and was too focused on how Palestinians may be victimized and ignored how Israelis may feel. We have to both talk and listen and read people properly. I think he missed what Noami wrote, IMHO.
-
Permalink Reply by Hayyim Feldman on
-
Naomi, you call Mahmoud's humane and inspiring post "idealistic" as though that were a bad thing! I'm going to hazard a guess, based on your profile, that you supported Barack Obama's presidential candidacy, and that you were drawn to do so in part by his own idealism, and his ability to elicit the idealism that often lays dormant - under a burden of cynicism - in the hearts of others. If my guess is wrong, I'm sure you still get my point.
The question is: How do we bring the attitudes Mahmoud enumerates into the fray of our engagement with the painful realities of the day? It seems to me that we are in need of precisely such attitudes in order to address those difficulties "honestly without making excuses" - and without falling back into recriminations or despair. The Facebook group started by residents of Sderot and Gaza comes to mind, for example (as well as their work together on the ground across that divide).
What I say to my friends who share the "Jewish point of view" you describe (though it is only one Jewish point of view) is in part much like your own response, recognizing the continuation of Israeli control, and also pointing out that a unilateral action that the Palestinian Authority opposed (because Israel refused to negotiate the conditions and manner of the withdrawal) could hardly be seen by Palestinians as a friendly gesture. Which of course does not at all justify rocket attacks against civilian targets.
Those are not points that change people's overall perception of the conflict, but they are points that can be understood. The deeper change, the change of heart that Mahmoud is talking about, does not come from arguing about the latest atrocity. From where then? There are multiple ways to reach it, and that would probably be a good thing for us to share stories about in a mepeace discussion. One approach I often take is, when possible, to redirect people's attention from what just happened (whatever that may be) to what they would really most like to see happen - and then to how they can be part, in however small a way, of helping to bring that about. To paraphrase something I recently heard Marc Gopin quote from someone (I forget who): We may each have only a cup of water to add to the bucket brigade, but if enough of us do so, we can put out the fire.
Blessings,
-Hayyim
-
Permalink Reply by Mahmoud Abu-Laban on -
في كل مشكلة تختبئ فرصة كبيرة و ان اعظم قصص النجاح سطرها اشخاص تعرفو على الفرصة المتخفية في صورة مشكلة و حولوها الى نجاح كبير.
تعالو نبحث عن اهم المشاكل التي تعيق تحقيق فرص السلام و نعمل على حلها و اصلاحها في شتى الوسائل و الامكانيات وان نحولها الى اهداف و ايجابيات لتحقيق السلام و التعايش في أمن و حب
-
Permalink Reply by Basil Keilani on
-
Reply by Mahmoud Abu-Laban 1 day ago
Send Private Message
Delete في كل مشكلة تختبئ فرصة كبيرة و ان اعظم قصص النجاح سطرها اشخاص تعرفو على الفرصة المتخفية في صورة مشكلة و حولوها الى نجاح كبير.
تعالو نبحث عن اهم المشاكل التي تعيق تحقيق فرص السلام و نعمل على حلها و اصلاحها في شتى الوسائل و الامكانيات وان نحولها الى اهداف و ايجابيات لتحقيق السلام و التعايش في أمن و حب
A translation for the Palestinian philosopher Mahmoud Abu Laban:
In every situation where there appears to be adversity behind it is the seed of the potential for something greater and there are stories of success in life and many great people that you are all familiar with saw an opportunity for positive change in an opportunity that seemed hidden and turned what seemed to be a failure or defeat into success. Let us, together, search for the most difficult problems we face that are obstacles to peace and work on solving those problems using various methods and turn what may seem negative into positives for the sake of achieving peace, co-existence, and a state of security for all and a spreading of good-will coming from a natural impulse to love.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
Latest Activity
- Top News
- Everything
Tim Upham posted a status"May God lift His countenance to you and establish peace for you. Numbers 6:26"
YTheater Project Jerusalem posted eventsTake Away - Israeli-Palestinian Theater
May 26, 2013 from 8pm to 9:15pmTake Away - Israeli-Palestinian Theater
May 29, 2013 from 6pm to 7:15pm
Search mepeace.org
"Like" us on Facebook
Promote MEPEACE online
Badge
© 2013 Created by Eyal Raviv.
Feedback | Report an Issue | Report an Issue | Terms of Service
