Syndication
German Jews Feud Over Criticizing Israel
Fight Mirrors Similar Debates in Britain and Australia
Print this article
Email this article
Other articles by Ben Weinthal
More in NewsBerlin - A declaration criticizing Israeli territorial policies is roiling the German Jewish community and raising questions about the limits of open debate on matters in relation to the Middle East.
At issue is a declaration published in January in one of the country’s most widely read Jewish newspapers, Die Jüdische Zeitung (The Jewish Newspaper). The statement, titled “Berlin Declaration Shalom 5767” — a reference to the current year in the Jewish calendar — and organized by a member of the presiding committee of the Central Council of German Jews, Rolf Verleger, called on Germany’s government to do more to press Israel to make concessions, and asserted that the “root of the problem is the continuing Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory since 1967.”
A related advertisement was placed in two of Germany’s large and influential dailies, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and the Süddeutsche Zeitung.
In addition, Die Jüdische Zeitung published an opinion essay by Kurt Goldstein, a Holocaust survivor and honorary chairman of the International Auschwitz Committee, rebutting criticisms of the declaration. “It was said that a Declaration like ‘Shalom 5767’ is grist to the mill of antisemites in the entire world,” he wrote. “However, the reality is that there is nothing more that helps the antisemites [than] what Israel did in the War in Lebanon.”
Leaders of the Central Council — which represents 105,000 German Jews, an overwhelming majority — have condemned the declaration, and the body is expected to discuss the matter later this month. The trustees of the newspaper published a statement in this month’s issue voicing their “indignation” over the publication of Goldstein’s piece.
The flap in Germany comes as similar controversies are unfolding in Australia and Britain, where a new group, Independent Jewish Voices, argues that the organized community is stifling debate over Israel.
“Independent Jewish Voices arose out of our sense of frustration that British Jewry [was] assumed to talk with one voice, and also that criticism of Israel from Jews is often targeted as antisemitic,” said Jacqueline Rose, a founding member of the group.
The group launched with an open letter and declaration posted February 5 to the Web site of the Guardian newspaper.
Among the signatories was Mike Leigh, an Academy Award-nominated director, and playwright/actor Stephen Fry.
The group’s letter put forth five principles it wanted upheld “in respect of the grave situation in the Middle East”: that human rights are universal; that Palestinians and Israelis have the right to live peaceful and secure lives; that peace and stability require a willingness to comply with international law; that there is no justification for any form of racism, and that the battle against antisemitism is undermined when opposition to Israeli government policies is automatically branded as antisemitic, as they claim it is.
It was the final point that most raised the hackles of the mainstream British Jewish community, with the implication that the Jewish establishment is somehow silencing voices of dissent.
“The whole suggestion that anti-Israeli voices are not heard is such nonsense that it really doesn’t merit a response,” said Jon Benjamin, chief executive of the Board of Deputies of British Jews.
The British critics of Israel have inspired a similar effort in Australia. The Sydney Morning Herald reported that the new Australian group, Independent Australian Jewish Voices, launched an online campaign this week, with one organizer saying Australian Jews were “basically brainwashed” into uncritical support of Israel.
In Germany, observers on both sides of the debate said that the new English group had done a better job of generating publicity.
The British activists “were able to carry it off better,” Verleger said, adding that the paltry press coverage was inexplicable.
Gideon Joffe, president of the Berlin Jewish community, speculated in an interview with the Forward that the story had not resonated in Germany because, for historical reasons, the country had a greater level of “sensitivity regarding antisemitism,” compared with Britain or the United States.
The declaration argued that guilt and shame over the Holocaust explain why German officials have not done more to press Israel to make a deal with the Palestinians.
Verleger, who is a professor of neuropsychology at the University of Lübeck, first upset other leaders in the Jewish community last summer, with a letter to the Central Council’s presiding committee regarding the war in Lebanon. He criticized the council for having “publicly taken sides with the military measures of the Israeli government against Lebanon.” His letter triggered a flood of criticism within the community, and the council’s secretary-general, Stephan Kramer, panned Verleger’s letter as “parroting anti-Israeli and antisemitic clichés and stereotypes.”
The Conservative Jewish community in the Federal German State of Schleswig-Holstein sacked Verleger as its chairperson in late August; he remains a member of the presiding committee of the Central Council.
Fueling the controversy, the trustees of Die Jüdische Zeitung, the newspaper in which the declaration and Goldstein’s opinion piece appeared, issued their own statement criticizing the publication’s publishing decisions, asking, “Does this newspaper want to go about as the mouthpiece for anti-Israeli propaganda?”
Lutz Lorenz, an editor of the newspaper, told the Forward that in the upcoming March issue of Die Jüdische Zeitung, the following statement would appear: “The Board of Trustees of the Jewish Newspaper voiced unanimously once again in a routine session of the Board in February 2007 the indignation about the publication of the article ‘A Nation Like Every Other’ by Kurt Goldstein in the January issue of the newspaper.”
Joffe also criticized Goldstein’s article. He said, “It is a pity that such a one-sided declaration comes from Jews” and “that a Jew, who survived Auschwitz, signed the declaration.”
In an interview with the Forward, Henryk M. Broder, a best-selling author and an online journalist for the magazine Der Spiegel, said that the organizers of the declaration are “self-promoting idiots” and “megalomaniacs.”
Kramer told the Forward that the body plans to discuss the declaration this month. Though Kramer disagrees with the statement, he said: “We must have this discussion within the Jewish community, and the discussion must be open and honest. It is overdue.”
It is not “good,” he added, “that individuals carry out the discussion in the non-Jewish public arena before it is discussed within the Jewish community.”
JTA contributed to this report from London.
Comments
I feel for the dissident Jews. My novel, "THE BLACK BUG - the genetic bomb" caused an organized Jewish campaign against me and my family, in Canada, turing my life upside down. And they got away with it. The novel's crime was that its heroes were Blacks, Palestinians and Arabs and a Jewish woman who was in love with a Palestinian Resistance fighter.
Yes, Jews do shut down debate, casue books to be removed from libraries and stores and get away with these crimes.
I wish the Independent Voices of Jews in every country success.
It is only Jewish peace activists and organizations which help Palestinians, that have prevented me from reacting as would be normal, to the provocations of these horrible shouters.
It would appear that the world will be discussing "THE JEWISH QUESTION" again, this seems to be a recurring theme of history. Why is that? The thought control police within the jewish community is oppressive to the idea of free speech. Imagine how we would perceive this idea if it were the government of the united states saying that any discussions about how the government functions must first be discussed within the government and ought not to be allowed to be discussed in the general populace until the government.
Stephen Kramer asserts, “We must have this discussion within the Jewish community, and the discussion must be open and honest. It is overdue.” I could not agree more; but the first commandment in the Diaspora is, "Thou shalt not criticise Israel." Nor do Israelis appear to care what we think about them, since they discount the legitimacy of Jewish life outside the land. Israel appears to be in moral freefall. Maybe Israelis should get over their allergy to G-d and to enduring Jewish values.
Thanks for your article. I am organizing a similar effort in the US. we seem to be arising to address an improtant need. I am glad to hear about this. Diane Perlman
A Respectful Open Letter to President Bush, Prime Minister Olmert, the US Congress, AIPAC, and Others on the Dangers of War with Iran
From JAIPAC: Jewish Analysts Investigating Peace and Conflict
THE NEW PRO ISRAEL: MUTUALLY ASSURED SURVIVAL
We are writing to you out of our deep concern about catastrophic consequences that would result from an attack on Iran. We are Jewish professionals devoted to developing strategies for reducing tension, preventing violence, and transforming conflict. We work in the areas of political science, international relations, conflict analysis and resolution, psychology, history, Middle East studies, and other relevant fields, and are engaged in observation, research and practice in relevant bodies of knowledge. Many of us have family, friends, and colleagues in Israel. We are all committed to the survival and security of Israel and the elimination of anti-Semitism around the world.
Most of us accurately predicted the consequences of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and warned politicians and the public about predictable, preventable unintended consequences. We are unanimous now in predicting the dangers for Jews, Israel, the U.S., and efforts to reduce global terrorism that would be triggered by any military action against Iran.
Spirals of Violence We are aware of your deep distrust of the Iranian regime and of the belief that military action will make Israel more secure. Our training and experience inform us that attacking Iran puts Israel and other nations in far greater danger. Short-term thinking, using violence to physically eliminate threats, fails to correct underlying causes of conflict, including unsatisfied human needs and desires for recognition. It creates deeper, wider, more enduring problems that are more difficult to resolve. Fortunately, there exist more mature strategies capable of producing enduring security.
Desires for a success after a failure and memories of past victories can lead to overconfidence about the potential for success and denial of the potential for catastrophe. Decisive actions of the past, such as the destruction of Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981, are not replicable in today's world, and have no chance of making Israel safer. Globalization, media, technology, lethality, non-state actors, environmental risks, and high civilian death tolls, have completely changed the nature of warfare. In the recent Lebanon war, as the Iraq war, the "quick fix" of military action left everyone traumatized, more vulnerable and resentful.
Unintentionally, such tactics too often serve to: * escalate instability and cycles of violence * increase the popularity of those attacked * undermine popular movements for peace, democracy, and acceptance of Israel in the Muslim world * increase incentives for nuclear weapons development * increase trauma, fear, humiliation, despair, and rage * provoke desires for revenge, and the motivation and rationales for increased recruitment and terrorist actions * alienate Israel from its neighbors and make it more dependent upon the U.S. * cause irreversible environmental catastrophe and health crises from radiation and oil fires * desensitize people to the taking of human life on all sides
Most experts predict that an assault on Iran would produce immediate retaliation against U.S. and British troops in the region, attacks on shipping in the Straits of Hormuz, sharp increases in the worldwide prices of oil and gas, and an explosion of violence against Israel, Jews, and United States interests around the globe. Israel could be subject to missile attacks by Iran or Hezbollah, and the war could become regional, spiraling out of control. The continuing toll of innocent life will play into extremists' hands, creating another generation of anti-American, anti-Israel terrorists, motivating attacks here and abroad.
If either Israel or the US is reckless enough to use tactical nuclear weapons (bunker busters) in the planned attack, Israel's might pay a terrible price. If the US does so, it is likely to provoke worldwide outrage and attacks against the US, impeachment proceedings against the President, and charges brought in the Hague against the President for war crimes.
Fear Based Decision-making Still, some believe that the only way to prevent a nuclear Iran is to attack now, and that not to do so would be more dangerous. As Otto von Bismarck said, however, “Preventive war is like committing suicide out of fear of death.” Acting out of fear, we make unintelligent decisions that backfire and play into the hands of extremists.
Many politicians assume they must “leave the military option on the table.” Threatening war to prevent war is likely to provoke war. Actions taken out of existential fear, “in self defense” trigger existential fear in those threatened, creating a self-fulfilling paranoia. Actors are most dangerous when afraid and most violent when attacked, humiliated, and despairing. Paradoxically, the way to be more secure is to make your enemy more secure. We have such strategies for accomplishing this in our tool kits.
Exaggerated Enemy Images People are motivated to make war by enemy images that are exaggerated, simplified, one-sided and distorted in predictable ways. Notwithstanding President Ahmadinejad's provocative statements about Israel and the Holocaust, he is portrayed as far more dangerous than he actually is. He has offended many Iranians, suffered a significant defeat in the last election, and may well be removed from office -- unless, of course, we unite his people behind him by attacking their homeland.
Few Americans realize that one million Iranians held a candlelight vigil in Teheran in support of the United States on September 12, 2001. Iran's leaders subsequently helped us by providing intelligence about Al Qaeda, and in 2003, they approached the U.S. with an offer to improve relations, recognize Israel and the two-state solution, to demilitarize Hezbollah, and to discourage violence against Israel. The offer was ignored. Still, Ahmadinejad offered peace talks with the US, and Iran's deputy Oil Minister, Iran's OPEC representative, offered one billion barrels of oil after Katrina. The US administration's consistently negative responses have been perceived as demonization, humiliation, and refusal, and thus have been counterproductive.
Paradigm Shift What possibilities exist for resolving this conflict? According to old thinking we have three limiting options; 1- coercive diplomacy (an oxymoron) - control by threats, ultimata, sanctions, carrots and sticks, which can be humiliating, provocative, and likely (or intended) to backfire, 2 - negotiation and diplomacy- which are considered impossible with a dehumanized enemy, or 3 - military action, considered a last resort, unleashes catastrophic consequences. In this paradigm, beliefs, premises and assumptions often drive parties towards violence.
Fortunately, there is another category of responses, which is just now becoming known outside of academia. It is based on a different set of premises, which have been tested extensively through research and practice. Rather than focusing on controlling symptoms and behavior, the new paradigm employs techniques that address root causes, underlying vital needs and fears, and transforms the nature of the relationship to create a new reality. The old coercive paradigm, in efforts to eliminate enemies, in fact creates more. The new paradigm is designed to eliminate enmity. These methods may seem counterintuitive, or impossible, but they have been demonstrated to offer a way out of cycles of violence.
Some Principles for Reversing Cycles of Violence
Psychological Intelligence for Intended Consequences - Violence escalates through “natural” automatic processes. Political and military blunders occur when actors are gripped by emotions, fear, anger, and indignation. People feel compelled respond with violence, as though it was an absolute requirement. Such reactions unleash unintended consequences that are predictable and preventable. Spirals of violence can be reversed by applying effort, intelligence, maturity, a long-term view, and conscious intention to create a best-case scenario. Reducing violence is much more challenging.
The Law of Opposites - It is obvious that many of our policies have the effect opposite of that intended, like escalating violence, hatred, recruitment, terrorism, and nuclear proliferation. Carl Jung observed that an extreme one-sided position creates and provokes its opposite. By avoiding one-sidedness, taking on the perspective of the Other, one can transcend destructive tendencies and arrive at more creative solutions.
Terror Reduction - Terrorism cannot be “defeated.” In the years of the “war on terrorism,” with all the money and human effort poured into counterterrorism, incidents of terrorism have multiplied six fold. Focusing on the symptom to eliminate “bad guys” is an irrational, failing policy that most people seem to believe in. The good news, however is that terrorism can be drastically reduced by reducing the desire of actors to take revenge on us. If we understand the knowable forces that drive extremism we can mitigate them by reducing tension, addressing and correcting root causes, vital human needs, just grievances, and other strategies that have been demonstrated to be effective. It is far less expensive and more effective to address the “demand side” of terrorism than “the supply side.”
Learning from History and Experience - Gripped by emotions, actors do not rely on higher level intellectual functions, including learning from the history of previous wars, insurgencies, and occupations. We can also learn from historical examples of successful nonviolent strategies, such as those documented in A Force More Powerful, and other places. Policies fail because history is ignored. For example, there is a body of literature on the ineffectiveness of sanctions, yet politicians continue to employ destructive policies.
Radical Empathy and The Mirror Image of the Enemy In a conflict, each side claims the same positive things about themselves, and the same negative things about the Other. According to “the mirror image of the enemy,” each side sees themselves as noble, just and true, and sees the Other as innately hostile, evil and aggressive. We explain our own behavior as being caused by their actions. We explain our enemies' behavior as due to the inherent genetic factors. They are dangerous because of who they are. We don't want to fight, but we have to because they are so evil and dangerous, that the only way we can protect ourselves is to kill them first. Radical empathy (not sympathy) requires trying to understand them by mentally putting ourselves in their position, including their history, culture, and past trauma, and designing strategies in ways that can reduce enmity.
Tension reduction is a basic organizing principle. Threats, hostile rhetoric, coercion, humiliation, and violence increase tension, while recognition, communication, security assurances, unilateral moves to avoid violence reduce tension. Tension reduction reduces volatility in the system and allows for healthier interactions and more creative strategies. Rhetoric and behavior that increase tension increase volatility in the system and potential for violence.
Political Heisenberg Principle - Our behavior creates relationship dynamics that affect those engaged with us. We cannot judge our adversary's behavior independently from our effect on them. With asymmetrical power, the dominant party is in a position to change the dynamics for better or worse. When parties lose perspective, trained facilitators can be helpful. If we view adversaries as inherently, unchangeably evil (which is how they may also see us) and if we treat them with threats, rejection, and humiliation, we can provoke violence in a self-fulfilling prophecy. In contrast, when we give assurances of security, recognition, and satisfaction of vital human needs, we reduce fear and make it safe for others to be less violent. We have seen evidence of Iranians' desire to improve our relationship. As the more powerful partner, we have the ability to transform our relationship.
Need Theory - People would prefer to get their vital human needs, including identity, dignity, and sovereignty, met by using decent means. When these means are ignored or refused, or worse met with rejection and humiliation, people tend to resort to more devious means. Once hostile processes develop, it is felt that meeting vital human needs at this point would be rewarding violence. This creates a “double-bind,” meaning damned if you do and damned if you don't, a lose-lose situation. Parties can get locked in a power struggle, which makes conflicts seem intractable. Trained facilitators can be helpful in such situations.
Axis of Possibility - Conflicts are usually framed in terms of right/wrong, us/them, right/left, good/evil. Each party in the conflict gets to be right and good, but conflicts will be virtually impossible to solve and violence may seem justified. It is more productive to frame language, behavior, policies and strategies in terms of whether they will increase or decrease fear, tension, violence, pain and suffering, or whether it can produce possibilities for healing and enduring security.
Second Order Change and Conflict Transformation - In general systems theory, first order change techniques are superficial, attempting to change the symptoms, or make changes within a system. Second order change involves changing the nature of the relationship system itself. Conflict transformation, as opposed to conflict management or conflict resolution, involves creating new realities.
21st Century Security - The nature of warfare has changed so dramatically, that war has become obsolete, although we don't realize it yet. To paraphrase Einstein, n 9/11 has changed everything except the way we think. When recent wars fail, some, feeling the need for victory, war planners may feel a need to escalate until they win. Even if a victory could be achieved, it would be destabilizing and quickly lead to asymmetrical responses, including terrorism. Winning has lost its meaning. There is no endgame to war and nuclear proliferation, and we are threatened by increasing lethality. We need to shift to a survivable paradigm, and we have the tools to replace war with nonviolent strategies.
Mutually Assured Survival - Effective measures aimed at satisfying the Iranian people's needs for identity, dignity, security, autonomy, and development will remove the fundamental causes of Iranian hostility toward Israel and the West and can initiate a new era of peaceful cooperation. Either everybody wins or everybody loses. Win-win strategies replace zero sum approaches.
Some Conflict Transformation Strategies What are some measures we can use now to avert a catastrophe? Many can be imagined, but they may include the following:
* The US, as the most powerful actor, is in the best position to create an atmosphere for success by taking the initiative to reduce tension quickly by offering security assurances that we will not attack and initiating a series of de-escalatory, confidence-building measures designed to create an atmosphere conducive to further dialogue.
* The US can dramatically reduce tension by recalling the carrier groups recently dispatched to the Persian Gulf. To reciprocate, Iran can redeploy its missiles and weapons now positioned to threaten warships and shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. This would initiate a cycle of reciprocated de-escalation.
* Influential members of the U.S. and Iranian communities enter into confidential "track two" dialogues, assisted by nonpartisan facilitators to define the major underlying issues alienating our nations and to envision methods of solving those problems. This is neither a threatening "negotiation from strength," which inflames deep-rooted conflicts, nor a naive idealistic "let's be friends" procedure. This type of process has helped resolve or prevent violent conflicts in dozens of locales since 1960, including Northern Ireland, South Africa, Macedonia, Mozambique, Indonesia, Peru, etc.
* Citizens of both nations can work to transform U.S.-Iranian relations and to reconcile two nations alienated by recent and historical wounds. We can establish people-to-people and group-to-group connections between American and Iranian citizen and institutions, and can use popular media to show peacemaking images, such as the million Iranian 9/12/01 vigil.
* Concerned states can convene a series of regional conferences to discuss outstanding current issues affecting the relations between Persian Gulf/Middle East nations and the industrialized nations. The nations of the region may decide to form a multi-state association, like the European Union, to represent their collective interests. Conferences can explore the guarantee of local ownership and control of regional oil resources while recognizing the industrialized states' need for access to oil on reasonable terms, the recognition of the State of Israel and normalization of relations, and the issue of nuclear proliferation in a regional context.
* Academics of concerned nations can convene a series of conferences involving American, European, Israeli, Arab and Persian scholars to discuss historical issues affecting the relations between the nations of the region. Conferences might deal with the effects of colonization on the region; the historicity and effects of the European Holocaust; and measures needed to heal the wounds caused by the historic clash between Palestinian nationalism and Zionism.
Once the war trend is reversed, there will be many opportunities to restore strained or severed relations. Traditional inter-state negotiation is better than war -- but to make peace between seriously estranged nations, more imaginative and transformative processes are needed. The technology of peacemaking exists. It is up to us to employ it. The New Pro Israel: Mutually Assured Survival “For more than half a century, AIPAC has worked to help make Israel more secure by ensuring that American support remains strong.” (AIPAC website.) In light of 21st century warfare and new security realities, we must rethink the deepest meaning of “unwavering support” for Israel. Collaboration between the US and Israel against Iran, encouraging, enabling, and even using Israel to engage in military ventures is the greatest existential threat to Israel - physically, morally and spiritually. War is no longer a “last resort.” It is an unnecessary resort, and in today's world it is the “worst resort.” It would invite retaliation, increase global anti-Semitism and threaten American security. Israel and the US would be the world's pariah states, living in infamy.
As Americans, Jews, and conflict analysts, we are appealing to you to think through the catastrophic consequences and consider the potential for effective strategies to dramatically improve Israel's short and long-term security, role, and image in the region and the world. Surely we can draw upon our collective intelligence, resources, and tradition of social justice to turn this around.
The “New Pro Israel” requires helping Israel find ways to live cooperatively and productively within a Middle East Community. It can only be based on a policy of Mutually Assured Survival, which is in everyone's best interest. This approach reflects our Jewish prophetic moral vision.
We would be happy to dialogue with members of AIPAC, policy advisors, or others interested in further exploring the application of principles of this paradigm to the current conflicts than endanger Israel, the US and other countries. We offer our knowledge, insights, and experience regarding more effective strategies that can help produce conditions that will reduce tension, prevent violence, and create a new reality so that Israel can live in peace, stability and prosperous cooperation with its neighbors.
******* JAIPAC - Jewish Analysts Investigating Peace and Conflict
Diane Perlman, PhD. The Paragon Institute for Enduring Security, Executive Director, Co-Chair, Working group on Global Violence and Security, Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict, & Violence, Division 48 of the American Psychological Association TRANSCEND Richard E. Rubenstein, Professor of Conflict Resolution and Public Affairs, Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University, TRANSCEND Morton Deutsch, PhD E.L.Thorndike Professor Emeritus and Director Emeritus,International Center of Cooperation and Conflict Resolution,Teachers College,Columbia University. Professor Ian Lustick, PhD, Chair, Political Science, University of Pennsylvania, Author, Trapped in the War on Terror, Associate Director, Asch Center for the Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict Rona M. Fields, Ph.D. Author, journalist, President, DC Psychological Association (former) Senior Research Fellow, Institute for Cyber-Security Policy, George Washington University Jessica Benjamin, PhD, Author, psychoanalyst, Co-Founder, Psychotherapists for Social Responsibility Alan E. Gross, Ph.D. social psychologist, mediator, conflict resolution trainer James M. Statman, Ph.D. Political psychologist, international development and conflict mitigation practitioner Paul Kimmel, PhD, Past President, Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict, & Violence, Division 48 of the American Psychological Association Professor Andrew Samuels, University of Essex, England; Psychoanalyst; Political Consultant Co-Founder, Jews for Justice for Palestinians, and Independent Jewish Voices in the UK Louis Kriesberg, Professor Emeritus of Social Conflict Studies, Syracuse University Professor Barbara J. Wien, Editor, Peace and World Order Studies: A Curriculum Guide, Former Program Officer, The U.S. Institute of Peace, Professor, The Catholic University of America, Peace Studies Program, Co-Director, Peace Brigades International-USA Neil Wollman; Ph. D.; Senior Fellow, Peace Studies Institute; Professor of Psychology; Manchester College Ethel Tobach, PhD, Past President, Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict, & Violence, Division 48 of the American Psychological Association Marc Howard Ross, PhD, Department of Political Science, Bryn Mawr College Simona Sharoni,PhD, conflict transformation and gender studies, St.Martin's University Julie Oxenberg, Ph.D., clinical psychologist; Director, Tikkun Institute; co-founder, Psychology of Peace program, Massachusetts School of Professional Psychology Milton Schwebel, PhD, Emeritus Dean, Graduate School of Education Emeritus Professor, Graduate School of Applied & Professional Psychology Rutgers University, Past President, Psychologists for Social Responsibility, Former Editor, Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology Robert A. Rubinstein, Ph.D., Ms.P.H. Professor of Anthropology and International Relations The Maxwell School of Syracuse University Dr. Joyce Neu Executive Director, Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace & Justice, University of San Diego, <a href="http://peace.sandiego.edu">http://peace.sandiego.edu</a>, 2006-7 Jennings Randolph Senior Fellow U.S. Institute of Peace
Press Release Contact Diane Perlman, 202 775 0777 ninedots@aol.com posted on <a href="www.consciouspolitics.org">www.consciouspolitics.org</a> and <a href="http://progressivegovernment.org/page.php?name=JAIPAC1">http://progressivegovernment.org/page.php?name=JAIPAC1</a>
A group of Jewish professionals, working in fields associated with conflict studies and related social sciences, have written a warning and an appeal to those who believe that military action against Iran is necessary for the security of Israel and the US. Observing hostile rhetoric, escalating tensions and provocative actions, they fear momentum is building towards war. Moreover, they fear that military action taken for Israel's security would unleash a cascade of catastrophic consequences that would greatly endanger Israel, the US and escalate anti-Semitism and global terrorism. In addition to this, they offer insights from their collective professional experience regarding underlying principles for a tension reducing paradigm, and practical strategies for reducing enmity, violence, terrorism, and transforming conflict. They are post partisan, and their approach is not hostile or confrontational. They reframe the new meaning of "unwavering support for Israel" as the "New Pro Israel," in light of the realities of our 21st century, post 9/11 security realities. They introduce a policy of Mutually Assured Survival as necessary reverse cycles of violence to secure Israel, the US and other nations from escalating threats.
The reactions of those like Joffe, Broder, and Lorenz only prove Verleger and Goldstein to be correct. The Israel-right-or-wrong reactionaries do not want to debate the issues of Israel's criminal and immoral occupation of Palestine nor of its criminal and anti-humanitarian attack on Lebanon. In what way is salting the soil with cluster bombs a virtue in God's eye?
Micah 3: 9 Hear this, you leaders of the house of Jacob, you rulers of the house of Israel, who despise justice and distort all that is right;
10 who build Zion with bloodshed, and Jerusalem with wickedness.
11 Her leaders judge for a bribe, her priests teach for a price, and her prophets tell fortunes for money. Yet they lean upon the LORD and say, "Is not the LORD among us? No disaster will come upon us."
12 Therefore because of you, Zion will be plowed like a field, Jerusalem will become a heap of rubble, the temple hill a mound overgrown with thickets.