Three Reasons. . .
- Four Thousand Middle Eastern Women
Recently a group of 20 Israeli women set off from northern Israel, near the Lebanese border, planning to walk to Jerusalem. All along the way they were joined by other women and two weeks later, 3,000 strong, they reached the Palestinian city of Jericho where they were met by approximately 1,000 Palestinian women. The purpose of the march, staged by Women Wage Peace, was to demand that the Israeli government and Palestinian leaders restart the peace process.
After hugs and speeches, the group turned uphill toward Jerusalem, minus most of the Palestinians who could not cross the barrier between Israel proper and the West Bank. Finally, in front of Netanyahu’s formal residence, they held an emotional rally, declaring, in the words of Olfat Haider, an Arab Israeli from Haifa, “Jews and Arabs can live together, and must live together.”
Calling itself a movement, not an organization, Women Wage Peace claims 10,000 participants, expressing their conviction that women can lead peace movements, because they talk to each other and “don’t fight with their egos.”
Now, I want to ask, Who is listening? I want to say, If only…
Because…a U.S. Department of Peace would be listening. It would be available to join hands, if wanted, with these women, ready to dialog with the leaders of the movement, asking what we can do to help, sharing strategies for achieving their goal, offering diplomatic support.
A Department of Peace would be functioning, even at this time of transition between two presidents, if peace in the Middle East were on our agenda and somebody’s job description.
The U.S. has since 1948 had a heavy hand in Israel, and Israel at times has a heavy hand in the U.S. Everything that happens there we made our business long ago. Truthfully, every problem there we helped create. It only follows that we have a major role to play in finding a place from which the parties on the ground can get traction for moving into a better future.
We have tried, of course. Jimmy Carter tried. Bill Clinton tried. Joe Biden tried. At the same time we have constantly reinforced the status quo with our policies: permitting Israel to build cities on occupied land, granting them astronomical sums of money with no strings attached. A Department of Peace could say, “Wait a minute; this undermines what we are trying to do.”
When thousands of Israeli women are marching to demonstrate their desire to wage peace, when Israeli demonstrators and Palestinian demonstrators join hands, this is a situation calling for a U.S. Department of Peace. The Department of Peace that we do not have!
- Fighting for Aleppo and Mosul, Then What?
What happens after the Syrian, Russian, Iranian, Hizballah coalition takes Aleppo?
What happens after the Iraqi, Kurdish, U.S. coalition takes Mosul?
Both cities are in splintered countries. Both cities have citizens now scattered and homeless. Both cities still have deeply wounded and needy populations. Both cities have their weary heroes and miles and heaps of rubble. Both have beloved and legendary histories. Both are crucial to the control of their geographical territories.
As General David Petraeus said recently of Mosul, …its new government must represent and respond to “the most complex human terrain in all of Iraq.” This includes Sunni Arabs, Shia, Kurds, Yazidis, Christians. All have grievances about the past and conflicting wishes for the future.
Such complex situations need the attitude and skills of a Department of Peace. So many questions exist for Syria and Iraq. Will there be new borders? Will displaced people be able to go home? How will the needs of every group be considered in new power structures?
This is about more than negotiation. It is about healing wounds and building trust (or else admitting that it cannot be done). It is about finding ways for people with conflicting cultures to live together safely. It is about planting seeds that will grow into something positive. I do not claim to know how to do these things, but I believe they can be done and there are people with the wisdom and skill to make it happen. It is time to use peacemakers instead of warriors.
The end of any conflict is an opportunity to set the stage for something new. It could be a new kind of harmony or it could be reasons for the next war. The time of decision will be here before we are ready.
Because our American intention has been to dominate, we have not established a Department of Peace. And now we need it immediately.
- A Terrifyingly Contentious Presidential Election.
Insults back and forth. Accusations. Fist fights at rallies. Insinuations that violence might be used against one of the candidates after the election, subtly suggesting that the right to own guns would make this possible. One candidate promising to put the other in jail, if elected, then refusing to say that he will accept losing. Statements that one party will block any Supreme Court nomination made by the other.
I wish I would wake up and discover that this was all just a nightmare.
In the Middle East I learned that some people, especially political leaders, easily say outrageous things and the toughest talker gets the biggest cheers. Abdin Nasser used to say, We will drive Israel into the sea. He knew he would not. His followers knew he would not, but they loved the sound of it. Then Israel used the words against them with great effectiveness. The rhetoric served Nasser’s purpose and that of his enemy. In this election, too, outrageous words have been used against those who said them, but I am not at all sure that is the whole story.
This is not the Middle East; it is America. We have a system. We check our choices on a ballot, and the votes are counted. The side with the most votes win. A lot of people might be disappointed, but they concede and start working to persuade more people of their position. They figure out how to live with the reality.
Threats of violence and vengeance and zero cooperation ignore this democratic system; and the outrageous suggestions have excited angry people who are armed.
The Secret Service will of course be vigilant in protecting our president whoever it is. Other people, however, may be vulnerable. The stage has been set for civil strife.
A U.S. Department of Peace, if we had one, would be listening to all of this and considering how to defuse the anger and coax this country back to civil conversation.
There should have been at least one more question at the end of that last debate. I wanted to ask, If elected, what will you do to make peace with the other party and all those people who do not trust you to be president?
This will be the first problem of the new president, and if it is not dealt with wisely the wild seeds planted will grow up and choke our political process.
I would feel so much safer if we had a peace department, led by an innovator with heart and finesse, a leader who can bring people together. A president concerned about peace in our country would be so much stronger with a Department of Peace ready to advise and act.
This is the most vivid and imminent reason we have to insist that our government organize itself to create peace, then put peacemaking on the agenda and assign the responsibility to capable leaders.
We must have a Department of Peace.
Vote for it here: http://bit.ly/2eywfWy