Small rays of hope amid the gloom

I. From Gershon Baskin, as rightist Avigdor Lieberman enters the government:

The Labour party central council voted overwhelmingly in favor of staying in the government and sharing the decision-making table with Lieberman. Only Minister of Science, Culture and Sport, Ofir Pines-Paz resigned from the government in protest. I strongly admire Ofir’s courageous decision and support his bid to take over the leadership of the Labour party, however I think that the Labour party should not leave the government. The Labour party should begin to implement government decisions on the dismantling of illegal outposts that would force Lieberman to resign from the government. Amir Peretz should immediately meet with Palestinian President Abbas, even if Olmert is against such a meeting. Peretz met with Abbas during his election campaign, then he thought it was the right thing to do, he should do it again now. Why should Lieberman’s entrance to the government force Labour to leave. It is time for Labour to take a leading role in setting the agenda of the government and to stop being the puppy dog of Olmert.

Ofir Pines-Paz has proven to be a politician with integrity. He is one of the few political leaders today who says what he means and acts on it. Once Ofir declared that he would not sit in the government with Lieberman, he had no choice, but to leave the government. In the past years he has been considering his future chances to take over the leadership of the Labour party. He probably is moving ahead with those plans before he would have liked to. Ofir proved his integrity as the Minister of Interior for a short period during the last Sharon government. He did a very good job, given the deep rooted religious and anti-Arab civil service dating back to years of Shas control of the Ministry. He hired an Israeli Arab as Director General of the Ministry, the first time in history. He went forward to tackle planning and land issues in the Arab sector and he worked hard and succeeded in getting additional budgets for deprived communities....

II. Despite its reputation in left-wing circles as an irredemably right-wing organization, the ADL has condemned a leaflet in Ashdod, Israel, against the renting of apartments to Arabs.

Jerusalem, October 30, 2006 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) strongly condemned a call signed by Ashdod rabbis forbidding Jews from renting apartments to Arabs or foreign workers. The call was made in a leaflet distributed by the organization Yad l'Achim and signed by well-known rabbis in the city. ADL's Israel office issued the following statement:

We deplore such bigotry in the strongest terms. Such discriminatory appeals are a terrible offense against Jewish teaching and a stain on the name of the Jewish people. Such conduct toward Jews anywhere in the world would not be tolerated and such conduct toward non-Jews must also not be tolerated in the Jewish state.

The call to residents of the city to discriminate against Arabs and foreign workers is not only incompatible with Israeli democratic law and we call upon the authorities to investigate this so-called ultra-Orthodox organization.

This is not the first time that Yad l'Achim has issued racist statements. In the past they have intimidated and harassed members of Jehovah's Witnesses and others....

President's Corner ...................................... The Hamptons

By Norris McDonald. AAEA established a New York Office four years ago, but thanks to Danny Newman and Samara Swanston, I have been hanging out with Mother Nature in The Hamptons lately. Danny and Samara have a weekend home in Sag Harbor near East Hampton on the Atlantic Ocean side at the end of Long Island. Only Montauk is farther out. It is a two hour train ride from Penn Station or a three hour ride on the Hampton Jitney. Regardless, it is worth it when you get there. Beautiful ocean views, wetlands, geese, vineyards, old money and new money. I am pictured with Danny & Samara in the upper right photo.

Samara and Danny, fishing upper left, are a great couple, lawyers, musicians and nature lovers. There is a piano at the house and Danny tickles the ivories often. Samara is learning to play bass guitar. She could easily be a great club torch singer. We have been fishing, clamming site seeing, hanging at pubs, and bird watching in their back yard. A recent visit to a local winery (Wolffer Estate Vineyard) for a portfolio tasting left all of us with broad smiles on our faces upon leaving. The Atlantic Ocean was raging during a walk along the beach under high winds. Samara & Danny have provided me with a great treat after my many excursions to New York to work on pressing energy and environmental issues in the city and state.

Enterprise-apalooza

Posted by Kevin Gough, Product Marketing Manager

Interested in getting a sneak peak at the latest Google Enterprise products? Want to verify that Google is run by humans and not just really smart robots? Join us in November for a breakfast seminar during our Google Enterprise world tour, where our Enterprise execs will share their thoughts on IT trends and you can learn about Google's enterprise search, geospatial and collaboration offerings first hand from product experts.

We'll be stopping by the following U.S. cities: Cincinnati, Baltimore, Washington DC, New York, Indianapolis, Phoenix, Sacramento, San Diego, San Jose and Austin. Learn more and register to attend.

We'll be in the following European cities: London, Berlin, Munich, Amsterdam, Stockholm, Paris. Learn more and sign up.

Wikis for Work

Posted by Dave Girouard, Vice President and General Manager, Google Enterprise

We think Jotspot is a hotspot for enterprise.

In the last couple years, JotSpot made a name for itself, as well as for do-it-yourself application publishing -- used by individuals and businesses. JotSpot makes it easy for companies of all sizes to use wikis to collaborate online.

We're excited about what that could mean for our enterprise customers. So, welcome Joe and team.

We look forward to putting those wikis to work.

New U.K. Report Says Climate Change Will Hurt Economy

Sir Nicholas Stern, left, Head of the Government Economics Service and Adviser to the Government on the economics of climate change and development, has presented his report on the Economics of Climate Change. The report examines the latest scientific evidence on climate change and how economic theory can help us analyse the relationship between climate change and the divergent paths for growth and development that will result from ‘business as usual’ approaches and from strong action to reduce emissions.

It explains the technical foundations necessary for the economics that the scientific analysis dictates. It addresses the complex issues involved in the comparison of alternative paths and their implications for individuals in different places and generations. It addresses ethical issues concerning the aggregation of the welfare of individuals across time, place and uncertain outcomes. Finally, it provides a technical explanation of the approach to discounting used throughout the Review and an analysis of the costs of climate-change impacts.

'Brains and a 2 by 4' By J. Zel Lurie

President Bush could make peace between Israel and Palestine if, in the next two years, he would devote all his powers and political currency to this problem. So claimed Aaron Miller, one of four panelists, celebrating the 35th anniversary of Neve Shalom/Wahat al-Salam with a discussion of long term prospects for peaceful coexistence.

Aaron Miller devoted 25 years in the State Department working under six secretaries of state and every president from Carter to Bush so he should know whereof he speaks. Unfortunately President Bush is hogtied in Iraq. He should have followed President Clinton's Herculean efforts to bring the parties together at Camp David and Taba in the first two years of his reign, instead of neglecting it until the last two years.

People think that at Camp David, Ehud Barak made a generous proposal and the parties were this close, Miller said cupping his hands together. In reality they were this wide apart, he said stretching his hands out. There was no compromise on Jerusalem, refugees, borders or any other difficult question.

President Clinton had a firm grasp of all the nuances in dealing with Arabs and Jews, Miller said. His problem was that he was not tough enough.

At Camp David, we put a paper on the table, Miller explained without going into details. Someone objected and we took it off the table and presented another paper. We did that 29 times, he said with some passion emphasizing 29 times. He probably remembered his sleepless nights when he was writing a new proposal only to see it rejected the next day.

Nineteen times corrected Ambassador Samuel W. Lewis, who was also at Camp David. He moderated the panel.

Seated next to Miller was Khalil Jahshan, past president of the National Association of Arab Americans. He summed up the discussion succinctly: "To make peace, you need brains and you must carry a two-by-four."

The two other panelists were Dr. Shibley Telhami, the Sadat Professor for Peace at the University of Maryland, and Robert Satloff, Director of the Washington Institute. Both lauded the schools at Neve Shalom/Wahat al-Salam, the School for Peace and the bilingual/ bicultural primary school for Jewish and Arab children. The children will lead the way to peace, they said.

Joint Webinar with Persistent Systems

Posted by Jeff Ragusa, Google Enterprise

We will be hosting a joint webinar with Persistent Systems this Thursday 11/2 at 11:00am PST where they will be demonstrating some of the ways in which they extend the reach of the Google Search Appliance through their Suite of Enterprise Content Connectors. As a Google Enterprise Professional partner, Persistent has spent the past year providing value to our customers by extending the Google Search Appliance deep into enterprise content repositories.

This webinar, jointly hosted by our Google Search Appliance Product Manager Nitin Mangtani, will provide demonstration of end-to-end search scenarios on hidden secure content residing within Lotus Notes and Documentum eRoom. Sign up for it at http://www.google.com/enterprise/gsa/live_demos.html.

The Washington Post Challenges Bush But Ignores Mirror

The Washington Post says President Bush should do something about global warming during his last two years in office. Yet the main newspaper for our nation's capital does not have a global warming program (at least that we are aware of). And aren't they killing trees like crazy to spew their partisan, left-wing coverage? In addition to changes The Post could make to reduce its carbon footprint, we would be happy to provide them with carbon offsets for additional savings. But we will not hold our breath (even though that would minutely reduce carbaon emissions).

President Bush authored and passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the best piece of global warming legislation in history because of the supports for electric vehicles and emission free production of electricity from new nuclear power plants. The Washington Post should look in its own backyard before it looks in Bush's. We agree with The Washington Post though, President Bush should provide even more incentives for plug-in fuel cell hybrid electric vehicles and new nuclear power plants.

Postscript to Tony Klug's essay

Dr. Klug shared with me a bar mitzvah sermon he made several months ago, which I will include later in this posting. I responded with an objection to the following paragraph:

On their part, the Palestinians likewise did not set out to damage anyone. They merely wanted for themselves what – with considerable justification – they felt was their entitlement. While their Arab brethren were achieving independence in neighbouring countries, the Palestinians were paying a heavy price for losing out in the geo-political lottery, and still are. Dispossessed, degraded and derided, their original felony was simply to be in the way of another anguished people's grand enterprise. Almost everything that has happened since then is in some way a consequence of this.

My analysis:

While the Palestinians' intent was natural enough, it was also morally compromised. They were insisting on the closure of Palestine to Jewish immigration at exactly the time that European Jewry was in mortal peril. This nativist and callous reaction made it impossible for them to conceive of approaching the Yishuv with a program for sharing the land -- something that turned out (in retrospect) to be their only hope to avert disaster. Instead, they soiled themselves morally in their repeated turn to anti-Jewish violence, especially in 1947-48 in totally rejecting the UN partition plan and attempting to destroy the Yishuv wholesale.

And, of course, it was the Jewish reaction to a war that the Arabs started which caused their Nakba.

Tony Klug's response:

Ralph, ... I dare say if you take a careful look in the mirror you'll see your Palestinian reflection on the other side. We're all burdened by the history we identify with and often find it difficult to see over its edge. Even when we genuinely believe we are engaging in objective analysis, it sometimes is little more than a cover (albeit unconscious) for partisan advocacy or at least a coloured perception (even when there is some truth in the selected evidence). I have received the precise mirror-image criticism of this piece from Palestinians. They have no quarrrel with what I write about them and their history and the way they view it - but I have, allegedly, succumbed to the Zionist propaganda on the other side. I understand these criticisms and where they're coming from. But I sometimes feel it would be better if the critics engaged a little more in self-reflection and opened up their minds to seeing things in a different way. In fact, that was the whole point of the 'sermon'.

Although cordial, Klug communicated an edge of annoyance, stating that he "neither expects nor desires a reply." But I felt that I didn't want to leave it there, so I responded further:

Don't worry Tony, I'm not arguing with you. [But] I AM an advocate. I understand exactly what you're saying and respect it. I also disagree with you.

I'd like to convince Palestinians (as well as Jews) to confront their history and their flaws, but I suppose that Israelis and Palestinians are mostly going to have to agree to disagree. The trick is to lay aside the emotionality of these disagreements so that they no longer obstruct peace.

Most of Klug's sermon at a London synagogue follows:

... In a modest attempt to do something to make a difference, a small number of Jews and Palestinians living in Britain met in London roughly 20 years ago to try to bridge the hostile gulf that had divided the two communities for decades. Such an idea was considered quite radical at the time, even subversive, and some of those involved feared for their reputations within their own communities, on both sides. So it was agreed that the meetings would start off confidentially, and so it continued for the first six years.

In an effort to calm the initial tension, the kind Quaker facilitators generously handed around a plate of refreshments, only to feel slightly put out when no one touched the ham sandwiches. As we have heard, this week’s Torah portion, Parshat Shemini, explicitly prohibits the consumption of certain foods, notably pig meat. But so too does the Muslim Quran, in four separate verses. All of a sudden, these putative enemies, ensconced in one room, found they had something in common. One revealing discovery led to another and excited further curiosity. In this way, the well-meaning Christian hosts innocently achieved their aim of relaxing the atmosphere in a manner they could never have planned or anticipated.

The group’s monthly meetings were not academic seminars between dispassionate analysts searching for supposedly objective truths, but were more of the fiery encounter type between activists who felt personally involved in the enduring conflict between Arab and Jew, Israeli and Palestinian.

We found we all had a great deal to say. The more difficult part was the listening. That took a little longer. And it’s probably fair to say we never really became truly expert at it. But most participants were genuinely keen to acquire an understanding of the others' fears and hopes, their perceptions and aspirations.

We soon discovered that engaging seriously in dialogue can be a profoundly discomfiting experience, especially at first, in that it requires participants to reconsider deeply held convictions, about both themselves and their adversaries. But it is also a deeply humanizing process. It is, after all, easier to despise, humiliate and destroy an imagined stereotype than a fellow human being with feelings, frailties and hopes not so different from one's own.

The main achievement, I would say, was the common recognition that there are not one but two historical perspectives and that it was vital to understand them both - even if one’s own was inevitably the more valid! We came to appreciate that the case for one side was not the antithesis of the case for the other; that a severe setback for one side was not necessarily a powerful gain for the other; and that rejoicing at each other's grief was not just loathsome but ultimately leads nowhere.

As someone who has been involved in different ways with this conflict for the past 40-or-so turbulent years, I have come to appreciate the simple insight of an old adage, attributed to Abraham Lincoln, that goes something like this: “If you were born where they were born and you were taught what they were taught, you’d believe what they believe”. Yet, if we are to be more than just the mechanical products of our own backgrounds - and if we want to make proper sense of the conflict - we need to be able to think and understand beyond our boxes.

I would like to share with you two other broad conclusions:

First, it is a self-evident truth that the two peoples are fated to live alongside each other. Neither is going away. If the Palestinians fail to gain their place in the sun, the Israelis will never be left in peace to enjoy theirs. Conversely, the Palestinians will never win their freedom if the Israelis are convinced it will be at their expense. Each holds the key to the other’s destiny. Thus, for its own sake and – of equal importance - for the sake of future generations, it is vital that the vilification by and of either people is brought swiftly to an end. This, I believe, is something we can and should all be vigilant about.

Secondly, the indefinite continuation of this tragic conflict is not inevitable. The animosity between these two small, long-suffering peoples has little to do with their respective religious beliefs or cultural traditions, which have much in common. Israelis and Palestinians have clashed – bitterly – because they have simultaneously aspired to the same piece of territory on which to exercise their self-determination. This is the root of the conflict. Everything else has been artificially superimposed. If the geographical circumstances had been different, it would not be so hard to imagine their relationship as more of one of alliance and mutual support. And maybe it could still be.

On the one side, all sorts of conspiracy theories and malevolent intent have been heaped onto the Zionist movement by its detractors, some of it giving off a familiar antisemitic whiff, not so different from that which played the decisive role in winning so many Jews to the Zionist cause in the first place. Conceptually, Zionism was a distressed people’s proud, if defiant, response to centuries of contempt, humiliation, discrimination and periodic bouts of murderous oppression, of which the Nazi holocaust was the most recent and extreme. The Israeli state was the would-be phoenix to rise from the Jewish embers still smouldering in the blood-soaked earth of another continent.

The motive was the positive one of achieving justice and safety for one tormented people, not the negative one of doing damage to another people. Yet, in effect, this is precisely what it did do, and at some point Israelis and their supporters around the world are going to have to come fully and openly to terms with this.

On their part, the Palestinians likewise did not set out to damage anyone. They merely wanted for themselves what – with considerable justification - they felt was their entitlement. While their Arab brethren were achieving independence in neighbouring countries, the Palestinians were paying a heavy price for losing out in the geo-political lottery, and still are. Dispossessed, degraded and derided, their original felony was simply to be in the way of another anguished people’s grand enterprise. Almost everything that has happened since then is in some way a consequence of this.

In sum, it is common for people directly involved in a conflict to feel passionately about their own cause and to see little or no justice on the side of the other. The challenge for the rest of us is do we merely line up with the side with which we instinctively feel an affinity, and ritualistically echo their mantras, or is there something more useful we can do? If we are to avoid the nightmare of perpetual, tribal-based, conflict, I suggest there is an important role to play across the communities in fostering understanding and helping both sides deal with the realities of today in a manner that is conducive to a peaceful and fair solution that accommodates the reasonable aspirations of both peoples....


Dr. Tony Klug is a veteran Middle East analyst and writer. He was co-founder and co-chair of the Council for Jewish-Palestinian Dialogue, trustee of the International Centre for Peace in the Middle East and has served as head of international development at Amnesty International. Currently, he is Senior Policy Consultant at the Middle East Policy Initiative Forum, vice chair of the Arab-Jewish Forum and is a founder member of the Jewish Forum for Justice and Human Rights.

How will we fix New York City?

A new film takes on this important and difficult question, and comes up with some very clear answers from around the world.

"Contested Streets"

view trailer
learn more about this film

Personal note: I was a tourist in NYC on 9/11. All the tourists staying there in hotels were stuck for the week in a city that had basically shut down. No airport. No trains. No private autos were allowed into Manhattan. Only emergency vehicles were allowed.

On 9/12 I had the surreal experience of riding a bike down 5th Avenue which was completely empty. It was a sad and strange place to be. But I will never forget how lovely New York City seemed without all those cars chasing people out of the streets. People came out to sit in the streets and talked to their neighbors, many for the first time. People needed calm to digest what had happened. The elimination of cars and honking and pollution for a few days provided public space for the healing to begin.

- b

Robert Rosenberg, 1952-2006

When his daily news summaries suddenly stopped a few weeks ago, I knew that something was up. I had come to rely upon Robert Rosenberg's amazing facility for summing up each day's important events in Israel's political scene, and for doing so every working day. I was happy to occasionally post – in whole or in part – his "Today's Situation" column. The last one I used was on August 18. The honors have been pouring in on this remarkable life, cut short from cancer at 54. – Ralph Seliger

From Eric Lee, a one-time American oleh and a friend of Meretz USA:

Back in 1996, I began writing a weekly blog (before there were such things...) called BibiWATCH. That was how I met Robert Rosenberg.

Robert had created one of the first websites devoted to peace in the Middle East – Ariga http://ariga.com/ – a year earlier, in 1995. He was a big fan of what I was doing to Netanyahu week after week, and the admiration was mutual....

Later, Robert would host BibiWATCH on [his] Ariga site – for free.

We got together, sipped espresso in an outdoor cafe in his beloved Tel-Aviv, spent a weekend shmoozing at my kibbutz Ein Dor, and stayed in touch pretty regularly until I moved to London in 1998....

Robert was a character. A former crime writer, he went on to write a number of crime novels based in Israel....

And from Ami Isseroff, who is engaged in a similar effort to Robert's:

.... In addition to his illustrious career as a journalist, Robert blazed the way for Israeli peace activism on the web with Ariga for peace,(http://www.ariga.com/peace). He was generous enough to host Web pages of other people and organizations, include that the PEACE group which preceded MidEastWeb (see PeaceWatch). Robert was a founding member of MidEastWeb for Coexistence, and Ariga was the major inspiration for MidEastWeb.

Almost to the end, Robert edited a daily news summary that reflected his genius at singling out the important events of the day, as well as his unique view of the Middle East.

In Haaretz, David Landau, currently editor in Chief of Haaretz and formerly editor of the Haaretz English edition wrote:

Many, many were the nights when without Robert this paper would not have come out. Or at any rate, that is how it most certainly seemed to us, his colleagues at Haaretz English Edition, as we squeaked past another after-midnight deadline with reams and reams of raw Haaretz copy all somehow translated, edited, page-set and sent to press.

His output was truly phenomenal. His capacity vast; his knowledge encyclopedic. Uncomplaining, with breathtaking speed, with unfailing good grace, he would wade through troughs of dense prose, written to fill whole pages of Hebrew newsprint, and emerge with a succinct, coherent story often capped with a cute or sardonic headline for good measure.

The man was a joy to have around. He was a relief to have around - because you knew that with him the inevitable nightly crises would somehow be resolved. He was often a headache to have around, because, while doing his speed-reading, speed-writing, speed headline-composing and speed-laying-out he would be treating all those within earshot to a cheery, incessant, unquenchable patter of opinion. Sometimes it was about the story in hand. But often it would be about something completely different – which made his expeditious progress on the text all the more amazing. He liked to have the television blaring in the background, too - usually about still another subject. Robert, who was a decade ahead of his time on the Internet, was the consummate multitasker before the rest of us had heard of the concept....

But above all, and at this moment of hesed shel emet when only the truth should be written, it is Robert Rosenberg's good-heartedness that deserves words of praise and admiration. For more than 30 years I would hear him criticizing the whole world. But I never heard him say a bad word to anyone....

Robert's pioneering work in Ariga were generally studiously and deliberately ignored by Israeli media and "big time" peace organizations, even by some whom he had helped along the way. His death is a great loss to the cause of peace, to Israel and to the Middle East, as well as a personal loss for me.

Original text copyright by the author and MidEastWeb for Coexistence, RA. Posted at MidEastWeb Middle East Web Log where your intelligent and constructive comments are welcome. Distributed by MEW Newslist. Subscribe by e-mail to mew-subscribe@yahoogroups.com.

Senator George Allen Has Shown His True Colors

The current campaign has exposed a lifelong pattern of racism by the senator from Virginia. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. The average black person meets thousands of George Allens over a lifetime. You do not have to do anything to these guys for them to hate you. It slipped out on camera for the world to see.

The Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee can do without his bias. We believe the political environment would be better without him. However, even though Virginia performed the revolutionary act of electing L. Douglas Wilder as governor, the first black in the nation so elected, there are many George Allens out there and he might be reelected. Hopefully, Allen's presidential aspirations are over forever.

Stein on Lieberman: Don't believe the hype

Alex Stein, our oleh khadash (new immigrant) blogger in Israel is not in a panic on the pending elevation of the rightist politician (Avigdor, not Joe) Lieberman to the current governing coalition:

Avigdor Lieberman’s entry into the coalition demonstrates what has become depressingly clear since the end of the summer spat with Hizbollah – that Ehud Olmert is concerned only with maintaining power. Sensationalism on the right and the left – both of which are happy to distort rhetoric before confusing it with reality – does not disguise this. The courtship of Yisrael Beitenu means that Olmert has an almost unheard of coalition – 78 strong. But there are no signs that the political stasis that has struck us down is going to radically change – either for the better or the worst.

Much has been made of Lieberman’s rhetoric towards the Palestinians – of both the Israeli and Occupied Territories variety. Indeed, some have triumphantly asked if Israel would object to other countries aping its response – withdrawal of its ambassador - to the entry of Jorg Haider into the Austrian government in 2000. This is because Lieberman is understood as supporting the ethnic cleansing of Israel’s Palestinian citizens.

In reality, Lieberman’s stated plans are a bit more technical. North of the Green Line sits the meshulash [triangle] region, which is principally populated by Israeli-Palestinians. Lieberman wants to unilaterally ‘give’ this region to the stunted Palestinian state that he would establish, in exchange for annexing the major settlement blocs. This plan is obviously illegal, immoral and anti-democratic, although perhaps not worthy of the ‘ethnic cleansing’ tag. But there is absolutely no chance of them being implemented, and in his heart of hearts he must know that.

Lieberman’s plans to ‘cantonise’ the Palestinians into four sectors, with Israel controlling movement in between, have been similarly hyped. But they also don’t represent such a radical departure from Olmert’s annexation plan, which continues apace – despite pretences to the contrary. The difference is solely one of presentation. Olmert pretends that his ideas will lead to a fair and viable Palestinian state; Lieberman is open about his ideal of imprisoning them.

What of domestic issues? Lieberman wants to transform the Israeli polity from a parliamentary to a presidential system. This has passed the first hurdle – a vote in the cabinet. But it still seems unlikely that the plan will succeed, especially in the current circumstances. Rhetoric about ‘stability’ notwithstanding, most figures in the Israeli establishment see Lieberman’s manoeuvres for what they are – an attempt to Putinise the Israeli political system. And how would it square with Olmert’s new goal of finally creating an Israeli constitution?

It’s true that Lieberman and Olmert are good friends, and it’s true that Lieberman will now be closer to power than ever before. The positive side to this, of course, is the marginalisation of Binyamin Netanyahu, who only two months ago was being hailed by some as Israel’s next Prime Minister. It also provides yet another reminder of the desperate need for some kind of alternative. In this regard, Justice Minister Meir Sheetrit’s tentative attempts to place himself as an opposing force to Olmert, under the manifesto of negotiating on the basis of the Arab League initiative, should be viewed in a positive light. So should Labour leader Amir Peretz’s idea of another merger with Meretz-Yachad. But until someone has the courage to build a political bloc on this basis, the stasis of Israel’s dullest and most visionless government yet will continue. And not even Avigdor Lieberman as ‘Minister for Strategic Affairs’ will change that.

State of Environmental Justice in America Conference

The National Small Town Alliance, the Howard University School of Law, the United States Departments of Energy and Agriculture are teaming with others to review the environmental justice movement and to determine the State of Environmental Justice in America: What do we mean by Environmental Justice in the 21st Century? Have we made progress? What remains to be done? This effort will team with communities, scholars, researchers, government the private sector, and others to issue a comprehensive report and conduct a conference on March 29-31, 2007.

For additional information, please contact Michelle Hudson at hudsonmi@saic.com. For sponsorship opportunities or conference suggestions, please contact John Rosenthall at 703-624-2257 or jrosenthall@msn.com (Call for Papers)

Achieving a Middle East Breakthrough

This piece by Jerome M. Segal of the University of Maryland is brought to our attention by Gershon Baskin of IPCRI, the Israel-Palestine Center for Research and Information.

In a recent interview in the Washington Post, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made this remarkable comment about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: “Let the Palestinian people decide their fate in a free and fair referendum, and the result, whatever it is, should be accepted.”

This Iranian suggestion of a Palestinian referendum dovetails with the position of Hamas, that the PLO, headed by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, should negotiate with Israel on behalf of the Palestinian people, but that any negotiated treaty must be subject to ratification by a referendum of all Palestinians, including those in the diapora.

This emphasis of the use of a Palestinian referendum as the key to ending the Israeli- Palestinian conflict should not be dismissed as some public relations ploy. It speaks to several important Palestinian realities. One is that the PLO, to which Hamas does not belong, is not fully representative of the Palestinian people. A second is the belief that fundamental compromises on the Palestinian “right of return” will require direct expression by the people themselves.

There is also a political reality. Whatever his internal machinations, Ahmadinejad knows that the steam would go out of his ability to use the Palestinian cause for his own ends, were the Palestinian people to endorse a peace agreement. And similarly, the Hamas leadership knows that its own political legitimacy would require that it accept any peace treaty ratified by a referendum.

In both cases, this political reality has been turned to advantage. Without making any compromises in advance on issues of substance, Iran and Hamas have been able to point towards a process that opens the door to negotiations and could lead to resolving the conflict. Thus, both Achmadinejad and Haniya have been able to take stances of moderation without appearing to shift on issues of principle. The challenge for the rest of us is to find a way to use this opportunity in the cause of genuine peace.

The most straight-forward approach is to give PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas what he has been asking for, a renewal of the Israeli-PLO final status talks that were last held in January of 2001, and broken off when Ariel Sharon was elected Prime Minister. This approach would sharply segregate peace negotiations from the issue of aid to the Hamas-led government of the Palestinian Authority. The aid issue would remain unchanged, and dependent on whether the government of the Palestinian Authority accepts the principles of non-violence, acceptance of previous agreements and recognition of Israel’s right to exist, laid down by the Quartet. Israel would not be negotiating with the Palestinian Authority government, but with the PLO, as did Rabin, Peres, Netanyahu and Barak, when Arafat was head of the PLO.

Polls of both Israelis and Palestinians suggest that an agreement acceptable to both peoples can be found. Yet were Israeli-PLO final status talks to resume, it is unclear whether either leadership would make the hard compromises needed to reach an agreement. Knowing this, the Bush Administration has, understandably, been reluctant to repeat President Clinton’s experience at Camp David in the summer of 2000.

An alternative approach, one that utilizes the referendum idea offers a way forward. Rather than traditional bilateral negotiations, the process would open with the Quartet (the US, EU, UN and Russia) putting on the table a fully drafted end-of-conflict peace treaty based on the Clinton Parameters. These parameters were accepted by Israel at the time, and are now also accepted by the PLO. Starting with the draft peace agreement, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators would be given six months to negotiate any improvements. Then, either in its original or improved form, Israel and the PLO would have to approve or reject the agreement.

Each party would utilize its own procedures. On the Israeli side this would mean a Cabinet decision on whether to bring the treaty to a vote in the Knesset. On the Palestinian side, if the PLO accepts the treaty document it would be submitted for ratification by a referendum of the Palestianian people. This approach would provide the Palestinian people with a moment of truth, an opportunity, in Ahmadinejad’s words, ‘to decide their fate.“

Prior to negotiations, the Palestinians would need to enact specific procedures for calling and conducting a referendum. In addition there would have to be clarity that a treaty approved in a referendum is the law of the land, binding on all successor governments. Such steps are quite doable and would not take long to enact.

The key is to focus on bringing a balanced end-of-conflict agreement to a decisive vote of the Palestinian people. Success here would open the door for full normalization of Israel’s relations with the Arab world, and possibly Iran. It is simply too important to not be tested.

Jerome M. Segal heads the Peace Consultancy Project at the University of Maryland’s Center for International and Security Studies. He is the co-author of Negotiating Jerusalem (SUNY, 2000).

Environmental Justice in America: Call for Papers

Update: The Call for Papers due date for paper abstractshas been extended. Abstracts may now be submitted on or before November 22, 2006. Other dates have been adjusted accordingly. John Rosenthall, Conference Coordinator, ejinamerica2007@yahoo.com

The State of Environmental Justice in America conference planners are inviting individuals to submit a short abstract of no more than 250 words that describes the current state of environmental justice in one of the areas listed below, preferably placing your discussion in the context of changes that have occurred in the selected area in the past 25 years. A suggested list of topic areas include:

v Success stories in assuring justice for communities
v Sustainable community planning and development/smart growth
v Just and sustainable energy policy
v Community participation in environmental decision making
v Building community capacity
v Distribution of community benefits
v Access to public health benefits
v Provision of infrastructure and resources in rural America
v Facility siting and environmental justice
v Environmental education
v Conservation Cooperation
v Innovations in environmental justice legislation, regulation and litigation
v Environmental justice considerations in emergency preparedness and homeland protection

The abstract should include the submitter's name and contact information.
Submissions: Abstracts should be sent to: ejinamerica2007@yahoo.com

Relevant Dates:

Abstract due: November 6, 2006
Notice of Acceptance: November 20, 2006
Initial Paper Draft: January 2, 2007
Comments Due To Authors: January 19, 2007
Final Draft: February 16, 2007
Conference Dates: March 29-31, 2007

Accepted papers will be included in the comprehensive report, presented at the conference, or published in one or more conference publications. For additional information, please contact Michelle Hudson at hudsonmi@saic.com. For sponsorship opportunities or conference suggestions, please contact John Rosenthall at 703-624-2257 or jrosenthall@msn.com

Tech Tip: Flexible Query Expansion Policies

Posted by Nitin Mangtani, Product Manager, Enterprise Search

The Google Search Appliance can automatically expand a search-users query by adding synonyms and words with the same stem. For example if a user enters car then search appliance will automatically search for car or cars. Administrators also have ability to custom upload their synonyms file or blacklist certain terms. So if you have a product which was originally called "product abc" and is now called "product xyz" you can create a synonyms file with these terms, as a result any searches for keyword "product abc" will automatically return relevant documents that contain the terms "product abc" or "product xyz". The end-result of query expansion is that search users find richer set of relevant results without having to re-query with different combination of terms.

You can log-in to the administrative console of Google Search Appliance and enable the Query Expansion feature. We provide you with 4 flexible options and these are:
None - This is by default and it disables the query expansion feature completely.
Standard: Enables query expansion, using Google's built-in synonyms.
Local: Enables query expansion, using only the synonyms that you upload to the appliance.
Full: Enables query expansion, using both Google's built-in synonyms and the files that you upload to the appliance.

Here is the example of the custom synonyms file uploaded to search appliance.
#Synonyms file created Oct 2006
#Author: nitinm
product abc = product xyz
FED = federal electronics division
{phone, cell, mobile, telephone}

There are two formats we support for the synonyms file
Format 1: term1 operator term2
In this format:
• term1 consists of one word or multiple words that are separated by single spaces.
• term2 consists of one word or multiple words that are separated by single spaces.
• operator is one of the following:
= Specifies that the words are equivalent. The appliance expands a search query for term1 or term2 by adding the other term.
> Causes the appliance to add term2 when a search query contains term1.

Entry format 2: {term, term, ...}
In this format:
• Each term in the list will be used to expand queries for each other term.
• The use of brackets {} was introduced with the current release

And finally you can create the blacklists file to mark certain words that should not be expanded. The blacklists file is applicable to both Google built-in synonyms and your custom synonyms file.

As you could see from the examples, we provide you a flexible way to create the synonyms file and also let you choose the policies that are applicable to your environment. The Google built-in synonyms file is also very rich and should be enabled. We recommend using the Full option to enable both Google built-in synonym file and your custom synonym file. So besides uploading / enabling new query expansion files, don't forget to enable it in your front end via the admin console.

We look forward to seeing happier search users.

Anti-Israel Bias at ‘The Nation’

This is a new and improved version of what was posted Sunday at the 'Engage' online Forum:

It is not my contention that The Nation, the premier magazine of left-liberalism in the United States, is an antisemitic institution or that it is knowingly spreading antisemitism. Its publisher, Victor Navasky, does not hide his Jewish identity, and many of its staffers and regular contributors are Jews. I also don’t believe that it is anti-Israel in principle, but I do see a clear and consistent anti-Israel bias.

This bias unfairly simplifies the vexing and complex issues of the ongoing conflict between Arabs and Jews in the Middle East. The Nation’s one-sided coverage promotes dangerous assumptions among its readers, and goes beyond its readership to reinforce prejudices against Jews and Israel that potentially places an historically persecuted people, and its very small homeland, at risk.

Nearly two years ago, two representatives of Meretz USA (Charney Bromberg and myself) accompanied Yael Dayan to address interns and staff at The Nation’s headquarters in New York. The writer-politician daughter of the iconic Moshe Dayan, a veteran dovish Labor Member of the Knesset and currently deputy mayor of Tel Aviv (elected on the left-Zionist Meretz party ticket) was received warmly at a meeting chaired by The Nation’s editor for Middle East issues, Roane Carey. An antisemitic or inherently anti-Israel environment would not have been so respectful. Yet the fact that Dayan is an outspoken dove and stands for progressive social policies as well, made it easy for this audience to warm toward her.

Still, The Nation's drumbeat of negativity on Israel seems to indicate that Roane Carey has a prejudice (in the literal sense of "pre-judging"). Take the edition dated October 30, 2006. It has two articles relating to Israel. Roane Carey's review of Sandy Tolan's “The Lemon Tree” (“My Friend, The Enemy”) was not terrible, but it would have benefitted from historical contextualization. Having seen the author speak on C-Span 2, the book probably needs it as well. That is, the dispossession of Palestinian Arabs needs to be understood as a reaction to the very serious Palestinian effort to destroy the Yishuv in 1947-48. At least Carey’s piece was not gratuitously mean or inaccurate.

The "Comment" piece by Arno Mayer, "Israel's Cassandra," was another matter. He needed contextualization big time. Mayer builds up the humanitarian preachments of Martin Buber – supplemented with the visionary warnings of Judah Magnes, Albert Einstein, Hannah Arendt and the left-socialist binationalism of Hashomer Hatzair. The extent to which they were all dissenters from mainstream Zionism is far from clear. For example, I've seen at least one published piece by Einstein in which he counters (in rather conventional terms) anti-Zionist arguments.

Mayer's major flaw is that he contrasts the most progressive elements of Zionist thought with ..., well, nothing on the Palestinian-Arab side. Apparently, the Palestinians are a victimized cipher in Mayer's view. He includes nothing about their political leadership. True, it was not nearly as well organized as that of the Jews in Palestine, but it existed. And their top political leader was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin Al-Husseini, who became an active ally of Hitler.

He doesn't even mention their most reasonable and progressive element, forerunners of the Communist parties of Palestine, Israel and Jordan. Hashomer Hatzair had some difficult discussions with this group; the fact that even they could not agree upon an effective common program, despite their closeness in world view, underscores how difficult – virtually impossible – it was, to achieve a peaceful and humane solution.

Mayer's a talented polemical writer, but he’s also shockingly callous in writing disdainfully of "a self-righteousness nourished by the Holocaust [by] Israel's governors and, by and large, its Jewish citizenry...." He heaps blame on Israel and the "Zionist project" for diverse events throughout their history. Was it Israel's "political-military caste" that "began, precipitated, or all but invited five cross-border wars"? (One can make such a case with regard to the 1956 Sinai campaign and the Lebanon invasion of 1982, but as a general satement it’s grossly unfair reductionism.) Is it "irresponsibly said by Tel Aviv" that Hamas and Hezbollah are “inspired and masterminded by Tehran and Damascus"? Clearly, Hezbollah is inspired if not masterminded by Tehran and it is supplied via Damascus, where the latter also houses and encourages the most uncompromising and violent tendencies within Hamas.

With Mayer and other such contributors on Israel over the years, The Nation is cultivating an unmistakable and simplistic sense among its readers that Israel is “bad” or always in the wrong. Mayer is probably not the worst in this. There is a notorious incident of an article by the blue-blood lefty curmudgeon, Gore Vidal, that many readers regarded as antisemitic. There are also vitriolic articles by the consistent Israel-bashing commentator Alexander Cockburn. There are probably numerous other examples that a devoted reader of The Nation (which I am not) could readily recall.

What The Nation generally fails to do is to relate the moral complexities of a conflict that pits a small state associated with an historically persecuted people against another small, grievously suffering people, struggling but not yet succeeding in finding an effective, peace-oriented national leadership. A reasonable end to this conflict is possible, but not obvious. Liberal analyses that do not polemicize are very much in order.

Barack Obama and Environmental Justice

Senator Barack Obama introduced an environmental justice bill that was cosponsored by his presidential contest rival, Senator Hillary Clinton. The bill is a good general bill but it lacks the teeth to truly protect communites suffering from disproportionate pollution impacts.

The Environmental Justice Coalition has drafted a bill that has teeth and a carrot for communities and developers. The Environmetnal Justice Act of 2007 would be a great additon to both senators' legislative records. The GOP did not take the invitation to introduce this important legislation. Maybe a President Clinton and Vice President Obama would promote the bill. Or President Obama and Vice President Clinton. We have approached Senator John McCain about the bill. Maybe a President John McCain and Vice President Condoleezza Rice would promote the bill. Regardless, the legislation is desperately needed.

Tour de Bronx

The South Bronx River Watershed Alliance, a coalition of community groups and citywide organizations believes that the 1.25 mile stretch of road along the Bronx River can and should be car-free every day of the year.

Planetizen

Barack Obama and Nuclear Power

Update: Iowa Dec 2006: Barack Obama states "I am not a proponent of nuclear power" (See YouTube)

Update: Barack Obama supports nuclear power but opposes Yucca Mountain.

MORE

Senator Barack Obama might run for president. What would he do about global warming and smog? He opposed President Bush's Clear Skies Initiative but he voted for the Energy Policy Act of 2005. He has 11 nuclear power plants in his home state of Illinois that provide almost half of the electricity in the state.

He has toured at least one nuclear plant. He is pictured at right visiting the Braidwood Plant owned by Exelon, the largest nuclear utility in the U.S. AAEA is a well known supporter of nuclear power and we hope a President Barack Obama would support nuclear power too. But will the nuclear energy industry support the African American community?

Be Aware

The New York Times Endorses Offshore Oil Drilling

First The New York Times endorses nuclear power. Now it endorses Senator Mary Landrieu's (D-LA) offshore oil drilling bill currently pending in Congress. We are delighted that The NYT does not let its liberal bias get in the way of good energy policy.

The NYT opposes Congressman Richard Pombo's (R-CA) much broader oil drilling bill. The Congressional Black Caucus (29-9) opposed the Pombo bill too . The NYT gets that revenues from the drilling could help in restoring vanishing wetlands and barrier islands, not to mention New Orleans (and maybe the 9th Ward). Well we add the 9th Ward but we are sure The NYT agrees. AAEA supports the Landrieu bill.

Senate

House

Congressional Black Caucus

Free Solar Systems Motivate Company Installations

Photovoltaic systems are expensive and only work about a third of the time (sunlight). The systems are not purchased mostly for these reasons. Now independent companies are purchasing the systems and installing them on roofs of other companies for the steady income from long term contracts. Companies do not have to invest capital but can use part of their regular power budget to purchase solar power. AAEA President Norris McDonald helped write and pass federal legislation in 1986 for energy efficiency for federal buildings that is similar to this "solar services model."

GM is using such a a set-up on its Cucamonga, Calif parts warehouse, where half of the the electricity (1.5 million kilowatt hours) comes from solar. GM expects a 10 percent savings a year. Whole Foods Market, GE and Alcoa are also using the Solar Services Model.

Developing Energy Efficient Roof Systems (DEERS) uses private financiers to finance projects. SunEdison also installs solar systems using this system. Companies negotiate the carbon abatement credits. Federal and state credits are also available. (NYT)

Klug: Antisemitism or war? Part 3

This entry marks the conclusion of Dr. Tony Klug's essay. The crux of his argument (which I've bolded) is that Arab antisemitism is not indigenous, but a product of the conflict with Israel and may abate if the conflict is resolved soon. His distressing suggestion is that Jewish communities may need to dissociate themselves from such policies of Israel that are noxious, in order to be safeguarded from antisemitic attack. This defies the conventional wisdom on antisemites, that they will hate Jews regardless of what Jews do. His implication is that this is not really antisemitism, but rather "anti-Israelism" (to coin a term) and he warns that this anti-Israelism may morph over time into genuine antisemitism.

In my opinion, there is a large component of anti-Israelism in the Arab and Islamic worlds that could essentially disappear with a peaceful solution to the conflict. But if Arab and Muslim communities throughout the world cannot distinguish between random Jews they may subject to mob violence and villification, and the policies of a sovereign government, they may be beyond reasonable persuasion. Besides – although Ehud Barak and Israel were not beyond reproach at Camp David in 2000 – Yasir Arafat's tragic decision to return to violent tactics, along with the Palestinians' electoral choice of Hamas in 2006 and their insane ongoing (although mostly impotent) attacks on Israel, even in the face of last year's disengagement, indicate that Israel faces a people who don't yet know how to make peace. From where I sit, there's plenty of blame to go around. – R. Seliger

Perhaps the most outstanding example of the fulsome introduction of classic anti-Jewish notions into Palestinian politics – and at once an indication of the relative shallowness of its impact – is the Hamas Covenant. Here is an extract from Article 22:

With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others. With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the world with the purpose of achieving their interests and reaping the fruit therein. They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests. With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there.

You may speak as much as you want about regional and world wars. They were behind World War I, when they were able to destroy the Islamic Caliphate, making financial gains and controlling resources. They obtained the Balfour Declaration, formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state. It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them. There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it.

Although the token term ‘Zionist interests’ is casually thrown into this extraordinary rant, the historical events alluded to, from the French Revolution onward, leave no doubt that the object of this calumny is the Jews in general rather than the Zionists in particular. However, the very crudeness of the propaganda illustrates its imported, undigested, unmediated quality. It is as if, with minor adaptations, it had been transplanted wholesale from the notorious Tsarist-era forgery, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," or from a Nazi song-sheet, direct into the heart of the Hamas Covenant without having passed through the minds of the mass of the organization’s Palestinian supporters. According to one informed commentator, the covenant “was written by one individual without broad consultation.” This is not in any way to minimize its appallingly racist content, but rather to contrast the import of archetypal foreign antisemitism with the authentically indigenous sentiments of anti-imperialism, anti-colonialism and anti-Zionism, all of which arose from the historical experiences of the native Arab populations themselves.

These are important distinctions for – to the extent that Arab antisemitism is a by-product of a contemporary political conflict – it may start to dissolve as a natural consequence of the settlement of the wider problem. But time is of the essence. The longer the broader conflict continues, the deeper will be its poisonous legacy. There may unhappily come a time when antisemitism per se will indeed take root throughout the region. In that event, it would not only outlive the putative end of the Arab-Israeli conflict but enormously complicate its resolution in the first place.

These are matters of serious concern not just for Israelis and their government. They could affect the standing and safety of Jews everywhere. If only for their own protection, Jewish communities around the world have a strong interest in distancing themselves from Israel’s repressive practices and annexationist tendencies. Beyond this, they are sometimes in a position to influence Israeli policies and – in concert with other concerned groups – to help bridge the gaps between the antagonistic parties. To engage in such initiatives would entail jettisoning their more common instinct of unquestioningly following the Israeli government`s cue, whatever it may be.

It is not as if Israel’s governments have such an unimpeachable track record. Former Prime Minister Sharon’s withdrawal of Israeli settlers from Gaza was lauded within Israel and internationally as a great achievement, as if he had not been principally responsible for implanting them there in the first place in defiance of expert warnings and at huge wasted expense. And for years, many commentators warned that if Israeli leaders declined to deal constructively with the Fatah/PLO leadership, they would end up with Hamas. So this really should not have come as a surprise either. Now, if they fail to deal with Hamas, they could end up with the far more perilous Al Qaida. Meanwhile, growing chaos and deepening distress are stalking the Palestinian territories. With a little more humility and self-reflection and a little less hubris and self-deception, the current predicament may have been avoided.

The election of Hamas in January’s Palestinian parliamentary elections is a watershed. Whatever else may be said of it, it exposes the fallacies of official Israeli concepts and represents a resounding defeat for Israeli policies and strategy. Yet, the reflex reaction of the Israeli government, supported by several allied governments, is to boycott and isolate a Hamas-led government and demand that it abandon all of its principal positions overnight and replace them with the policies of the party it had just trounced in the polls. [A plurality of 44% to 42% does not a trouncing make, but Klug has a point – ed.] Just to spell this out is enough to see how ridiculous and unrealistic this stance is. The new situation provides fertile ground for mature, visionary – and greatly needed - leadership on the part of leaders of overseas Jewish communities.

What is required at this point is an independent approach to the very people that the Israeli government currently views as its foes. Israel is a state and, like other states, its geopolitical circumstances sometimes throw up enemies and sometimes allies. These are not fixed positions. Israel today has durable peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, countries with which it used to be at war. On the other hand, Iran was once Israel’s chief ally in the region, and may again be so in the future. For years, the PLO called for Israel’s destruction and Israelis were barred from having any contact with its members. Then, all of a sudden, it became Israel’s peace partner. An enemy today is not necessarily an enemy tomorrow, and an enemy of Israel is not necessarily an enemy of the Jewish people. It does not follow that because the Israeli state chooses to shun certain parties, or vice versa, that Jewish communities elsewhere should automatically fall in line. On the contrary, reaching out and engaging with such parties and their followers at times of flux may be precisely what would be of most benefit. It is, of course, a two-way street, but there is nothing to lose by making the attempt and maybe such encounters would engender some positive waves. Now that would be a tsunami worth going for.

Dr. Tony Klug is senior policy consultant at the UK-based Middle East Policy Initiative Forum, vice chair of the Arab-Jewish Forum and a co-founder of the Jewish Forum for Justice and Human Rights. He has been writing on the Middle East for over 30 years.

Apps for all

Posted by Rajen Sheth, Product Manager, Google Apps for Education

We officially rolled out Google Apps for Education two weeks ago, and we were delighted to announce the deployment of our applications to Arizona State University. We've really enjoyed hearing the feedback from students and administrators alike. Yesterday, I noticed this endorsement in the University of Virgina Cavalier Daily, and it's great to hear about the enthusiasm within the student base. We look forward to continuing to make the product better and better for our schools.

Hand over the keys, Gramps.

This is such a sad and depressing story.

"An 89-year-old man who lost control of his car and crashed through a Los Angeles-area street market, killing 10 people and injuring 63 others, was convicted on Friday of vehicular manslaughter."

Reuters

But it raises important questions we will be asking frequently in the next few decades as the massive Baby Boomer generation retires and heads into old age.

When does it become unsafe for an elderly person to drive? In California you must be 16 years old minimum to drive. Should there be a maximum age?

What options will our society provide to ensure people of all ages can still get around? Responsibly ending one's driving years should be an easy decision that will not mean the end of one's freedom or mobility.

Let the discussion begin...

Doing the Math

According to the car cost worksheet that Alan referenced by the time I make my $380/month car payment, fill the tank twice, and factor in depreciation, tabs, insurance and maintenance, it costs me $830/month to drive my car. That is almost one-third of my monthly take-home salary as a full-time Seattle Public School teacher. Wow.

sightline institute

Klug: Is it antisemitism...? Part 2

I include a few editorial comments in brackets, as indicated below, with this continuation of Tony Klug’s article.

The point I was intending to bring out in the quoted passage [by Bernard Lewis] was, in sum, that if any country in the world behaves – as a matter of policy – towards a captive people in a way that persistently defies international human rights norms and denies it freedom, and that a visible international constituency appears consistently to defend that behaviour, that constituency is likely increasingly to attract the animosity of a broad coalition. This is only to be expected . The animosity may have nothing to do with the ethnic, religious or other affiliation of the constituency (thus in this case it need not have an ‘antisemitic’ motivation) but it might have everything to do with the posture the constituency publicly adopts and with the unpopular cause it vigorously promotes. To pose the question in direct terms: are Jewish communities around the world entirely blameless bystanders or hapless victims or is there anything they could have done or still could do to reduce the animosity?

By way of illustration, consider the following hypothetical case. Imagine that, in the context of a fierce, long-standing dispute, the state of Armenia captured and occupied a chunk of neighbouring Turkish territory, built Armenian-only settlements and highways, allowed militant settlers to intimidate local inhabitants, imposed curfews and closures, erected myriad checkpoints, roadblocks and forbidding barriers, demolished Turkish homes, imprisoned a large segment of Turkish youth and periodically bombarded Turkish-inhabited towns. [Something like this is exactly what Armenia has done in Nagorno-karabakh, part of the sovereign territory of neighboring Azerbaijan – ed.]

Instead of dissociating themselves from such conduct, imagine that organized diaspora Armenian communities in countries around the world - still haunted by memories of past massacres of their kinfolk - elected to defend and justify it in a show of solidarity (while displaying little tolerance for the growing band of so-called dissenters – or ‘self-hating Armenians’ - within their ranks). [This is unfair: the attackers don’t ask their victims if they are “Zionists” or if they might be dovish dissenters; that they are Jews is “guilt” enough – ed.]

In these circumstances, would it be surprising if a certain anti-Armenian sentiment developed in a spread of countries, not only among those who felt a natural affinity with people of Turkish or Muslim origin but also among others committed to democratic principles, human rights and international law? Yet Armenian communities, feeling besieged, isolated and misunderstood, might well put the animosity down to a historical Muslim antipathy towards Christians and a latent anti-Armenianism on the part of not just the Turkish people but much of the rest of the world too (which is not to say there might not be some validity to this in this or a comparable case).

On their part, the Turks and their supporters may investigate their own or Armenian scriptures to see if they could uncover historical explanations for what may seem to them like the cruel and treacherous nature of their oppressors. In this - hypothetical case – the search would possibly lead nowhere. However, an equivalent investigation targeted at Jews in the case of the very non-hypothetical Arab-Israeli conflict would be certain to produce the sought-after results, if only because of the ancestral battles that once took place between the Jewish tribes of Medina and the contemporaneous followers of the Muslim prophet, Muhammad. And indeed, following the principle of ‘seek and ye shall find’, the Muslim and Arab researchers have been able in practice frequently to dig out some of what they were looking for. In the late 1970s, this writer explored the political and psychological processes at work:

That the Jews nevertheless persisted in denying the legitimate claim of the Palestinians required an explanation. How was it that an entire population-set came to support an `unjust` cause? Often, this question seemed to invite the conclusion that the people in question were characteristically malevolent - a fact that was bound to be revealed by an investigation into their history and their religious beliefs. This, then, frequently became the purpose behind such investigations, as the Arab and Muslim worlds devoted ever-larger resources to the task of re-interpreting and often re-writing the history of the Jewish people and the religious tenets of Judaism ...
Ancient sources, including the Koran, were cited to 'prove' many of the contentions of the Muslim religious leaders. Yet, the highlighting of such 'evidence' - plainly having 'been in existence' for centuries - was a recent phenomenon, stemming from the onset of the contemporary conflict. Clearly, it was this that inspired the selective search for such passages that spoke ill of the Jews.

That the search was indeed selective is attested to by other parts of the Koran that preach making friends with the Jews, commonly referred to as the ‘people of the book’. Indeed, in a footnote to the above passage, it was observed that it was precisely these more genial portions that spiritual leaders in Egypt were urged by the authorities to stress to their congregants during the two weeks of the Cairo conference following President Sadat`s peace-seeking visit to Jerusalem in November 1977. This goes to show how need is often the mother of selectivity.

In general, Muslim scriptures are not bountiful source material for Jewish perfidy. It is not just that the messages they give out are not consistent but also that Jews are not an especial preoccupation of Muslim literature or culture. This is where bona fide antisemitic ideas and literature eagerly step in. Imported into the Muslim and Arab worlds where once it was alien, the antisemitic ‘explanation’ is now increasingly embraced by disaffected people with mind-sets primed to be receptive to a simple, it’s-all-the-Jews-fault, answer to many problems. In short, what profoundly distinguishes - and renders especially perilous - the Jewish predicament from the hypothetical Armenian one is that, in the Jewish case, a potent, ready-made, fully formed, deleterious ideology is lurking in the wings, ready to pounce and fill the gaps. Thus, what starts out as a political ‘anti-Jewish sentiment’ may, in given circumstances, metamorphose into a full-blooded antisemitism (of the classical type). The longer the Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues, the more such toxic slippage is likely to be in evidence.

While helping to explain the cause of the phenomenon, none of this of course justifies the rise of antisemitism in the Arab and Muslim worlds, or anywhere else. As with all dogma based on supposedly innate traits, it is obnoxious in and of itself. It also poisons the conflict and is intensely dysfunctional to a solution. As an explanation, it is a dangerous impostor: by masquerading as an analysis, it obscures the need for a proper analysis. As a strategy, it is counterproductive: indeed it was the spread of antisemitism that played the decisive role in winning so many Jews to the Zionist cause in the first place. And as a tactic, it is highly divisive: confusing and alienating Jewish sympathizers of the Palestinian cause as well as many others who despise racism of all types. Moreover, stereotyping one party is liable to prompt equally pernicious and ignorant counter-stereotyping of other parties.

The charge of antisemitism against Palestinians and others who champion their cause is often made too readily and too flippantly. It lumps together real antisemites - who are still around aplenty in and out of the woodwork and having an increasingly good time - with genuine defenders of universal human rights and other groups, not least the authentic victims of oppressive Israeli policies and those who feel a natural affinity with them.

Equally, many Arabs, Muslims and their supporters too easily dismiss the accusation of antisemitism as just a device for defending shameful Israeli policies. While this is sometimes true, the accusation is sometimes true too. There is a vital need for both sides to shriek a little less loudly and reflect deeply on their respective roles in enabling the destructive ideology of antisemitism to permeate, aggravate and complicate the conflict. Some leading Palestinian figures have not only acknowledged the infiltration of antisemitism into Arab society but have been outspoken in their rejection of it.
To be continued...

Federal Assistance

Posted by Dave Girouard, Vice President and General Manager, Google Enterprise

Google is getting a little federal assistance in the form of MJ Pizzella, who joined the Google Enterprise team this week.

MJ comes to Google from U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), where she led and helped create the Office of Citizen Services and Communications, in Washington, D.C. -- the first information customer service department for the U.S. government. Her worked helped make government more effective, efficient and responsive to citizens, businesses and government employees, and her office served as model for state and international governments.

MJ understands government and appreciates search. And that's a perfect combination to help us extend Google technology to the public sector.

Welcome aboard, MJ

Klug: Is it antisemitism or war?

The following article, “A Tsunami of Confusion - Antisemitism and the Arab-Israeli conflict,” completed in July of this year by Tony Klug, appears abbreviated in Prospect Magazine, August 2006. I am reproducing the first part here, along with my commentary.

I met the British-Jewish writer and social analyst, Tony Klug, along with his brother Brian (similarly engaged intellectually) at a conference of Brit Tzedek v’Shalom nearly two years ago. I don’t know how close I am to him (and them) politically, but I find this article stimulating. In particular, almost alone among analysts, he notes toward the end of this posting that the Oslo years initially brought an ebb of antisemitism within the Arab world, as many Arabs noticed that the government of Yitzhak Rabin was attempting something historically different and very positive during the early years of the Oslo peace process. I noticed this at the very moment that things were beginning to go bad, as a high-level Saudi reacted to the wave of suicide bombings, which eventually catapulted Netanyahu to a narrow electoral victory over Shimon Peres in 1996, with an expression of sympathy for the Israelis.

There were some harsh Jewish reactions, when I dared to write something similar in an op-ed article in The Forward, criticizing the YIVO’s conference on antisemitism in 2003, for referring to the anti-Jewish utterances and violence that erupted in Europe after the beginning of the Intifada as something other than traditional antisemitism. In particular, it seemed obvious to me that if antisemitism is classically thought of as having everything to do with the fantasies of the antisemite rather than anything really to do with the behavior of Jews, then this was NOT antisemitism. What was happening was bad and wrong, but it was a different phenomenon – a set of inappropriate responses to the televised visuals of the suffering being inflicted on the Palestinians by Israel as the latter’s defense against this new round of conflict and terrorism. – R. Seliger

Recent actions by the Israeli military in Gaza and Lebanon, and the responses to them, have prompted renewed fears of antisemitism among Jewish communities around the globe. Sir Jonathan Sachs, the British chief rabbi, had already warned earlier this year of “a kind of tsunami of antisemitism”. By contrast, his predecessor, Lord Jakobovits, had exclaimed only a few years earlier: “For the first time in over 2,000 years … there is not a single Jewish community anywhere in the world where Jews are officially persecuted because they are Jews.”

In a way, it is not surprising that even such prominent figures within the Jewish world should see the matter so differently. The whole debate in recent years has been marred by contradiction, confusion and more than a little dogmatism. How do we distinguish alarmism from complacency, paranoia from denial, objective analysis from special pleading? In short, how are we supposed to make sense of it all?

There is little doubt that there has been a marked increase in open antipathy towards Jews in a number of countries around the world, most strikingly among Arabs and Muslims. If this trend continues much longer, the mood it reflects could become firmly entrenched within these societies. While deeply worrying, there is no mystery about what has triggered it. Equally, it is not a coincidence that there has been a simultaneous upsurge in anti-Muslim and anti-Arab sentiment among Jews. However, the contemporary mutual animosity – with an emphasis on its contemporariness - has relatively little to do with Muslim or Jewish religious beliefs or cultural traditions, which go way back and have much in common, but is primarily a tragic offspring of the territorial clash in the Middle East.

This is not a new or even a particularly controversial idea. Chief Rabbi Sachs himself co-signed a Council of Christians and Jews statement in January 2004 that included this passage: “We share with so many others a deep longing for peace, justice and reconciliation in the Holy Land and we believe that achieving this would help to make it harder for antisemitism to flourish.”

Yet some voices from within these same communities are quick to deny any link between Israeli policies and anti-Jewish feelings. Rather, current enmity towards both Jews and Israel from within the Arab and Muslim worlds - as elsewhere - is explained as a phase in Jew-hatred stretching back centuries. The journalist Melanie Phillips promotes such a theme in her book Londonistan, where she writes: “the fight against Israel is not fundamentally about land. It is about hatred of the Jews” who, she says, are viewed by Islam as “a cosmic evil”. From this, it follows that the way Israel conducts itself is at most a minor factor in the hostility directed towards it.

This is certainly a convenient argument for those who have a political or ideological interest in making it. But the burden of the evidence points in the opposite direction, as exemplified by the Israeli-Palestinian accords of the ‘Oslo years’ in the mid-1990s which changed the whole atmosphere and shot up Israel’s stock in the Arab world and globally to unprecedented heights. In the same period, according to leading Jewish research institutions, “a general lessening of antisemitic pressure was recorded”.

As for the claim of historical ‘Jew-hatred’ in the Islamic world, its validity has been repudiated by no less an authority than the veteran historian Bernard Lewis, a Middle Eastern scholar of impeccable pro-Israel credentials. In a presentation in 1985, he distinguished three kinds of hostility to Jews: opposition to Zionism, `normal` prejudice (what Reverend James Parkes has described as ‘the normal rough and tumble between peoples’), and ‘that special and peculiar hatred of Jews, which has its origins in the role assigned to Jews in certain Christian writings and beliefs...`. Using the term ‘antisemitism’ to refer to the third kind of hostility only, he remarked: `In this specialized sense, antisemitism did not exist in the traditional Islamic world`. Although he held that Jews “were never free from discrimination”, they were, he said, “only occasionally subject to persecution”.

He identified three factors that gave rise to a more recent `European-style anti-Semitism in the Islamic world`: the rise of the European empires, the breakdown and collapse of the old political structures, and Jewish resettlement in Palestine along with the creation of Israel and subsequent Israeli-Arab wars. While arguing that antisemitism played a part from the start of the Mandate period, “the real change began after the Sinai War of 1956 and was accelerated after the Six Day War of 1967”.

What distinguished the 1967 war from previous battles was that it concluded with Israeli military rule over occupied territories that contained over a million Palestinian Arab inhabitants, a number that has more than tripled since then. In a pamphlet published in the mid-1970s - a relatively calm period in the Palestinian territories - this writer addressed the question of what effect a prolonged Israeli occupation over the Palestinian people was likely to have on Arab attitudes towards Jews in general:

While Israel continues to rule over the West Bank, there are bound to be ever more frequent and more intensive acts of resistance by a population that is suffering the consequences of economic difficulties in Israel, that is feeling encroached upon by a spreading pattern of Jewish colonization, and whose yearning for independence is no less than was that of the Palestinian Jews in the early months of 1948. As long as Israel continues to govern that territory, she will have little choice but to retaliate in an increasingly oppressive fashion – just to keep order. The charge of the ‘brutal occupier’ which has been spread by Arab propaganda over the recent years and which (with notable exceptions) has been mostly unfounded will eventually, through force of circumstances, come to resemble the truth. The moral appeal of Israel`s case will consequently suffer (alongside the fading memory of the Nazi holocaust) and this will further erode her level of international support, although probably not amongst organized opinion within the Jewish diaspora. This sharpening polarization is bound to contribute to an upsurge in overt antisemitism, of which there are already ominous indications.

It may be seen, then, that the signals were there many years ago for anyone who cared to notice them. The causes are not difficult to identify and the current manifestations are hardly a great surprise. There is no need for convoluted alternative explanations, even less so when they take the form of self-serving, post facto, rationalizations.

Although, in the quoted passage above, the term 'antisemitism' was employed loosely, the importance of the distinction highlighted by Lewis between the centuries-old European Christian prejudice with its demonic conception of the Jew and the more recent antipathy sparked off by a bitter, contemporary political conflict is compelling. Using the word ‘antisemitism’ to cover antagonism to almost anything Jewish, including Israeli policies, Zionism as an ideology, or even the existence of Israel, and then rationalizing this modern tendency by slapping on the prefix ‘new’ is not just simplistic and muddling but carries a serious risk of debasing the coinage . On the other hand, it is not as straightforward as this, for in certain circumstances the different phenomena may blend into and nourish each other (what Dr. Brian Klug has termed “poisonous intercourse”). I shall return to this matter below.
To be continued....

AAEA Parent Opens China Office in Jilin Province

Protecting the environment in China helps the environment in America, so the Center for Environment, Commerce & Energy established a base of operation in the city of Lishu. The Director is Zhang Xiaoping. The site easily translates into English at the click of a button (although the translator can be a little quirky with certain phrases). Check it out today:

Center for Environment, Commerce & Energy - China

CECE-China Blog

Legal Immigrants: Lighter Make More Money Than Darker

The Washington Post reports today that researchers found that immigrants with darker complexions earned less money than their lighter-skinned counterparts. Vanderbilt University economist Joni Hersch found that lighter legal immigrants make 8-15 percent more than darker legals. Is this news?

Hersch is quoted as being "stunned" by the results of her study. Vanderbilt University is in Nashville, Tennessee. Hersch must not be American or she has lived a very sheltered life. The Post has a great color scale graphic of lighter hands moving towards darker hands on a 1-10 scale. It is hilarious, but it is not on the web version.

Rosenberg: Getting Out of the Box

This is M. J. Rosenberg’s IPF Friday column of October 13, 2006 (# 294), from the Israel Policy Forum. We at Meretz USA have had good experiences with the Palestinian-American organization he refers to here.

It becomes clearer every day that Prime Minister Olmert needs to take some dramatic action to reverse Israel’s current predicament.

The Lebanon war is over, for now, but Israeli soldiers remain in Hezbollah’s hands. The tenuous cease-fire is holding but Hezbollah remains an armed force with the ability to hit Israeli cities when it chooses. In Gaza, progress toward a unity government has stalled with no interlocutor apparently able to convince Hamas to recognize Israel, renounce violence and accept agreements previously negotiated by Israel and the PLO. With Palestinian living conditions deteriorating rapidly, it would not take much to spark a Palestinian civil war and reignite the intifada.

There is, of course, a vocal minority in Israel that prefers that Israel not have a viable Palestinian negotiating partner. These people worry that because successful negotiations inevitably lead to mutual compromise, it is best when the Arab side is represented by its most extreme elements. Then the “no partner” mantra can be employed and everything will stay the same.

But most Israelis and Palestinians do not cherish the staus quo. According to the polls, some 70% of Israelis want to see the resumption of negotiations with the Palestinians toward the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel. Polling data from the West Bank and Gaza demonstrate similar sentiments.

In fact, on Wednesday I personally witnessed the strength of Palestinian support for the two-state solution at an event I attended in Washington. It was a gala sponsored by the American Task Force on Palestine (ATFP), an organization based in Washington that works for the two-state solution.

Its founder, Dr. Ziad Asali, a visionary physician from Palestine and, more recently, Illinois, and his savvy executive director, Rafi Dajani, fight strenuously for Palestinian rights, and do so without hostility to Israel. In Washington, they have become the Palestinian counterparts pro-Israel moderates have long been seeking and ATFP has become the first Palestinian group that Jewish organizations can and do work with. ATFP is also, not coincidentally, the first Palestinian group to have achieved significant successes on Capitol Hill and within the administration.

It was an exciting event. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke as did Senators Carl Levin, John Sununu, Ambassador Afif Safiyeh, Head of the PLO Mission to the United States and Saudi Ambassador Prince Turki Al-Faisal.

For me, the most striking aspect of the evening was the strong commitment to peace with Israel on the part of the audience which was almost entirely composed of Palestinian-Americans and Palestinians from the region itself. It responded with applause to every reference made by any of the speakers to a Palestinian state living in peace with Israel, and there were dozens of those references.

There was not, as far as I can recall, a single suggestion that peace with Israel is not a goal Palestinians should strive for. Nor was Israel criticized although the occupation of the West Bank most certainly was. But there was no hostility to Israel per se, which is something that I, and other Jews and Israelis in the audience, were alert to. No, this was an audience that wants peace; it is desperate for it.

Unfortunately, at this point, there is apparently little movement on the Israeli-Palestinian front. In her address, Secretary Rice eloquently committed the United States to the establishment of a Palestinian state, alongside a secure Israel, by 2009 but announced no concrete steps. There are, however, rumors that the administration is about to announce a new Israeli-Palestinian initiative, a possibility that seemed plausible considering the passion of Rice’s remarks.

Saudi Ambassador Prince Turki al-Faisal was even more emphatic than Rice about the urgency of achieving an agreement, particularly after the war in Lebanon demonstrated how easily and suddenly violence could erupt.

He said: “In Saudi Arabia, we believe that the path to peace begins with peaceful coexistence between a Palestinian state and an Israeli state, and peace between Israel and the entire Arab world.”

He then re-stated his government’s commitment to the so-called Saudi plan, which was adopted by he Arab League in 2003. “If Israel and the Palestinians can find a peaceful territorial compromise along the lines of UN Resolutions 242 and 338, under which Israel would withdraw from the lands it occupied in the 1967 War, including [East] Jerusalem, and make peace with a Palestinian state, then the Arab world would not only accept Israel’s existence, but have normal relations with it.”

The Saudi plan, as described by the ambassador Wednesday, would not be acceptable to Israel in that form because of the reference to East Jerusalem. But it is close enough to what Israelis would accept that it is worth negotiating over -- as would be any plan that offers Israel peace and normalization of relations with the Arab world.

Besides, the Saudis are not offering their plan as a treaty they simply expect Israel to sign. It is a document, an opening offer, which they would like to see Israel respond to with its own ideas. This back and forth is called negotiations.

Similarly, Gideon Sher, a former Israeli diplomat who played an instrumental role in the Camp David negotiations of 2000, wrote in Yediot Ahronot this week that Israel should seriously explore the signals coming out of Damascus these days.

President Bashar Assad told Der Spiegel last week that he favors a comprehensive peace settlement with Israel in exchange for the Golan Heights. Rather than demand the return of Palestinian refugees to Israel, he said they should be permitted to assume citizenship in a West Bank/Gaza Palestinian state. He also said he would not rule out a meeting with Prime Minister Olmert to discuss outstanding issues.

Is he serious? Who knows. One day Assad is a dove and the next the hawk of all hawks.

But Sher says: “A resumption of talks is a far cry from achieving an agreement, but it can provide us with a sense as to what Assad's intentions are. Therefore, Israel must not reject Assad's hints outright but, rather, it must begin a cautious, measured and pragmatic process in which Assad's willingness is analyzed. If it is all merely a ruse, we will know as much very quickly….After all, one can always say, ‘no’."

And that’s the point. There is no way of knowing what the other side will offer until you engage it in negotiations. What’s the worst that can happen? You fail to reach an agreement and you are back where you started. But the best that can happen is something very good indeed.

Those who will read this as naiveté might do well to consider the words of a rather hardheaded political scientist from Stanford who is now Secretary of State.

This is what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told the ATFP: “I know that sometimes a Palestinian state living side by side in peace with Israel must seem like a very distant dream. But I know too, as a student of international history, that there are so many things that once seemed impossible that, after they happened, simply seemed inevitable. I've read over the last summer the biographies of America's Founding Fathers. By all rights, America, the United States of America, should never have come into being. We should never have survived our civil war. I should never have grown up in segregated Birmingham, Alabama to become the Secretary of State of the United States of America.

“And yet, time and time again, whether in Europe or in Asia or even in parts of Africa, states that no one thought would come into being, and certainly not peacefully and democratically, did. And then looking back on them, we wonder why did anyone ever doubt that it was possible.”

Those are sentiments Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism would definitely relate to. It is Rice’s way of saying, as Herzl famously did, “if you will it, it is no dream.”