BAY AREA ACTIVISTS PUSH FOR ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN PEACE ON CAPITOL HILL

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Date: Tuesday, July 7th, 2008

CONTACT: Ryan Simon, raulkicks@gmail.com

BAY AREA ACTIVISTS PUSH FOR ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN PEACE ON CAPITOL HILL

Oakland— Several San Francisco Bay Area activists traveled to Capitol Hill the last week in June to advocate for vigorous U.S. involvement in facilitating a negotiated, two-state resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The delegation included the national Co-Chair of the Rabbinical Cabinet for Brit Tzedek v’Shalom as well as several young Jewish students and activists. Brit Tzedek activists also heard from Israeli Member of Knesset and key Geneva Initiative participant Yossi Beilin on the prospects for the peace process given the current situation in the region.

In meetings with Senator Feinstein and key aides from the offices of Senator Boxer, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, and Congressman Mike Honda, the Bay Area delegation urged lawmakers to embrace tangible foreign policy measures to seize on the political space created by the Israel-Hamas ceasefire brokered only days before to facilitate a negotiated, two-state resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The delegation advocated for U.S. insistence that both Israelis and Palestinians be held accountable for their Roadmap commitments and for comprehensive U.S. engagement in promoting negotiations between Israel and Syria.

Reflected one member of the delegation, “On Sunday we heard Yossi Beilin ask us as American Jews to implore our leadership in Washington to engage themselves in the peace process. The ceasefire is a wonderful development but he hoped that it does not sow complacency among those in Israel and the international community, if anything, the next step needs to be taken. With the window opening with Syria, I feel that that given Ehud Barak’s comments that a deal will never happen without the US, it is essential that the infrastructure for peace be further developed, and the United States play a key role especially into the beginning of the next Presidents administration."

The Capitol Hill meetings were part of Brit Tzedek v’Shalom’s annual National Advocacy Days programs, which brought more than 140 American Jewish activists from across the country to meet with representatives from 115 Congressional offices, as well as a number of other political and opinion leaders. In the days leading up to National Advocacy Days, the activists participated in Brit Tzedek’s Grassroots Leadership Training Institute, which included intensive training on community organizing and advocacy.

“It was an amazingly invigorating experience to be part of a growing movement of Jews and non-Jews in this country, and an organization that advocates what I believe. We support the State of Israel by ensuring that through peace with her neighbors and co-existence, her future is secure.”

#######

Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, also known as the Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace, is the largest Jewish grassroots peace organization, with 38,000 members and supporters nationwide. Brit Tzedek's mission is to educate and mobilize American Jews and others in support of a negotiated two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The San Francisco Bay Area chapter of the organization has more than 1100 members and supporters

Transforming Mountains into Molehills

Despite everything, an Israeli-Syrian peace deal could move forward

Thanks to the committed work of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Israel and Syria are in their fourth rounds of low-level talks. Despite this unprecedented peaceful interaction (the two nations last broke of talks in 2000), they are still as far away from any tangible “land-for-recognition” peace deal as they have ever been in the past decade. The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) is still licking its wounds from a resounding defeat in 2006 when the comparatively weak Hezbollah held them off for 33 days. Israel is also plagued by an unstable Kadima government lead by Prime Minister Olmert who is under investigation for multiple counts of fraud. Despite the Prime Minister’s aid's assertion that “the sky [has] not fallen,” many see Olmert as the very definition of a lame duck. With a Kadima primary set for September 17 of this year, there is no doubt that Foreign Minister Tzipi Livini or another party strongman will succeed him.

Unlike the United States, where presidents lose a considerable amount of power midway through their last year in office, Israeli prime ministers never fully lose control of the national agenda. Last week’s prisoner transfer with Hezbollah proves that the Olmert government is still able to effectively define the facts on the ground, meaning that despite the ongoing investigations against him, he may be able to make significant progress with the Syrians. It would be difficult for any future Israeli government, even one lead by Likud, to turn its back on major progress made with Syria. Israelis still overwhelmingly support peace with their northeastern neighbor, and any deal could have serious implications for the region. The Syrians are cautious of a weak Olmert but they too look forward to the change in the balance of power that negotiating a settlement with the Israelis would bring. Below is the framework for what a long overdue peace deal between Israel and Syria could look like.

At present, Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad is caught between a rock and a hard place. On one side, the United States has continued its push to keep Syria isolated from the West and the world community at large. UN Ambassador John Bolton went as far as to mention Syria in his ‘Beyond the Axis of Evil’ speech in 2002, and Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz have alluded to the possibility of overthrowing the Assad regime. Although such a scenario was more plausible before the invasion of Iraq, it still scares the militarily weak Assad.

The United States’ verbal attacks on Syria have pushed it to form an unlikely alliance with Iran. Assad’s Alawite regime is hardly a natural ally of the Iranian Ayatollahs, who see his sect as an apostate version of Shiism. The Iranians have chosen to look beyond this fact, because of the strategic location that Syria plays in the region. With Syria’s acquiescence, Iran is able to funnel arms and training to Hezbollah and Hamas, which in turn widens the Iranian sphere of influence. With a strong Hezbollah in play, Iran is able to indirectly attack both Israel and the pro-Western Christian leadership in Beirut. It is no secret that the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war began with the blessing of Tehran.

A destabilized Lebanon allows Syria to play a strong roll in the country. Hezbollah also acts as a buffer between the IDF and Damascus, ensuring that in any future conflict with Syria, Israel will have to fight a two-front war, a fact that keeps Israeli intelligence up at night while calming Assad. A weakened Lebanon also allows Syria to leverage its power over the lucrative legal and illegal financial centers in Beirut, providing hundreds of millions of dollars for the cash-strapped government.

Syria is wary of its current relationship with Iran, however. Damascus wants a weak Lebanon, not one controlled by the same extremists who run Tehran. Being surrounded by two potentially unfriendly Shii neighbors could prove dangerous for Syria who has continued to suppress its Shii minority. Because of this, Damascus is looking for a way to neutralize the Hezbollah threat by cutting of its supplies and training. This cannot be done however, until Syria has secured peace along its southern border with Israel. Until this is done, Damascus is determined to keep Hezbollah strong as a buffer against Tel Aviv.

Any peace deal with Syria is ultimately in Israel’s favor. The Golan Heights no longer holds the military significance that it did back in the 1970’s. Syrian missiles fired from Damascus can now reach Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Despite this, the Syrian air force is still impotent, and any troops attacking Israel from the Golan could be easily taken out. Because of this, not even the conservative Netanyahu government (1996-1999) made any serious attempts to annex the Golan. Since 1973, it has been accepted that Israel would someday return it to Syria in exchange for a permanent peace deal.

Now that the Kadima government is failing, those in power are looking for any rays of hope that will help them maintain their power. Olmert is attempting to divert attention away from his domestic failings by engaging the international community in attempts to make any kind of peace. This has been evident for several months now, as Israel has vigorously pursued peace with Syria and the Palestinians, as well as making overt calls for peace with Lebanon. Olmert has recently turned towards the United States (Annapolis Conference, November 2007), France (Mediterranean Summit, July 2008) and Turkey (Syrian Talks, ongoing), looking for any way to get a major peace deal done before his power completely erodes. Nonetheless, any peace deal will in all likelihood come only after Olmert has left government, as the primary election will occur in two months and any deal will certainly take more time than that to complete.

Assad, for his part, does not want to legitimize Olmert in any way since he holds the Prime Minister personally responsible for the Israeli attack on the Syrian nuclear reactor last fall. The attack both reaffirmed Israel’s continued dominance of the skies and demonstrated Damascus’s inability to defend against Israeli incursions into its territory. Giving up the Golan would not weaken Israel’s ability to strike at Syria, as even the most advanced Russian anti-aircraft weapons were unable to detect the Israeli strike. Assad knows this, but he also knows that ‘liberating’ the Golan would provide a huge boost for the government internally while also allowing Syria to declare a victory over its life-long enemy.

The actual returning of the Golan would be primarily symbolic for both sides. Israel would get peace with a neighbor that it views primarily as a pest, while Syria would get back a relatively uninhabitable piece of territory that is militarily insignificant. What would not be symbolic however, would be the implications of a Golan deal. It would be a significant step in isolating Iran, as the United States would surely make serious overtures to Syria after peace was reached (at the behest of Israel). It would be a serious step towards neutralizing the military component of Hezbollah, which would see its weapons caches dry up. It would also signify that Syria was serious in normalizing the relationship with Lebanon that it established at the Mediterranean Summit. For these reasons, returning the Golan to Syria would be a victory for both Israel and the United States.

Finding the Middle Way on China

Definition of "China" in "Jargon Watch" (solveclimate.com)

The best way to understand the role of China in America's global warming debate is to understand the function it plays in the national psyche. Here's one analysis.

America has made China the victim of its own psychological projection, a defense mechanism in which one blames others for one's own unacceptable attributes.

So rather than take responsibility for being far and away the world's biggest global warming polluters on a per capita basis, Americans have been duped into pointing the finger at China.

The average American is responsible for six times more greenhouse gas emissions than the average Chinese person. It's an inconvenient fact so uncomfortable that the response is to blame the Chinese instead.

Here's another one: all those coal plants and carbon emissions in China? A substantial chunk of that pollution is produced in order to supply the goods to feed the insatiable demand of American consumer culture. Whose emissions are they, really? Read this report from the Tyndall Centre on Climate Change Research called "Who Owns China's Carbon Emissions?" for an answer.

This is not to deny that China must be an important part of solving climate globally; but it is going to be impossible to engage in mature diplomatic discussions unless we stop blaming China for our own faults.


Response:

I'm a little irritated by your note on 'China' in the jargon watch. The reason the average Chinese person produces on sixth of the carbon the average American does is because so many of them are peasants without cars, electronics or large houses. As more and more Chinese people move into the middle class, they are beggining to assume those things, however, and we're all worse off for it.

The United States has such a large carbon footprint because we developed before they did, at a time when the mal effects of our built environment and our consumerism were largely invisible. It's not a crime that we developed first, it's just an accident of history (a fact which Jim Hansen was at least keen to point out in his much-publicized letter to the Australian President). Now that the effects are known, well documented and widely understood, inaction has moral consequences, but that applies to both side of the Pacific. Owning two cars and having a large house is not a human right, despite what many people seem to be suggesting about China's right to development. China needs to grow in such a way that it does not bring the rest of the world down with it. If Greenland melts, in part, because an ucompromising Chinese middle class insisted on having its 'American lifestyle', then the rationale that we got our chance and now they should to will not hold water, and it certainly won't hold ice.

As for your comment that China's Co2 expenditures exist in large part to drive the American 'consumer culture', while this may true, it's true for a number of reasons, again, on both sides of the Pacific. That the Chinese state insists on articially lowering the value of the Yuan to make Chinese exports cheaper certainly does not help. America, plauged by a dissapearing middle class that's now in the midst of recession, shops at Wal Mart because its cheaper - often the only way to get the things it needs (much less the things it wants) at all. Had China not taken it upon itself to obliterate American industry with its own versions of material goods through years of dumping, monetary inflation, and suppression of human rights and, yes, environmental norms to make its exports cheaper, there might be an industrial sector in the United States now which the government and the American consumer could have pressured into adopting stricter environmental regulations. Despite what you might inform us, that all of our stuff is produced in China is not something that any American willingly chose, except incrementally, over years, through their own consumer choices, which, again, we should all be more sympathetic to.

That the Chinese government can make decisions on a whim without the burden of a democratic legislature and the long, drawn out process of passing bills, which, by its very nature requires that the concerns of all parties involved (including economic powerhouses such as polluting corporations) be considered, means that the Chinese state has a power to do things which the United States does not. Instead of building freeways they could build wind farms. Instead of making large houses for the rapidly expanding middle class built with no regard for the environmental impact they induce, they could do the opposite. I recognize that the Chinese state is doing some things right. They are arguably more aware of the potential of global warming than any other globally significant international power. But if they fulfill their plans for building as many coal plants as they have already proposed, then the whole world is in very, very big trouble. Would you really blame the American consumer, strapped for cash, with family in other parts of the country who he has to fly to see, a job that's an hour's commute away by car, and a big house from another time when the economy was good and when global warming was a fringe science that he can't sell now? We all have certain capabilities within our power to do good. Some of us can change light bulbs, buy local, drive less and keep our tires inflated, and across America, this is exactly what people are doing. Others can level entire villages and build a wind farm there. Those who can do the latter have lately tended to build coal plants instead. China has the power. Americans can't shoulder the blame all by ourselves any more any more than we can shovel the responsibility. This is their job, and ours as well, and neither should hide behind the cloak of denial any longer.

Back from Eretz Yisrael

(Mahane Yehuda Shuk, Jerusalem)

Dear Friends and Family,

As most of you know I was fortunate enough to go to Israel over the American new year and early into January. I returned to New York from the land of my ancestors January 12th in a daze, I left Tel Aviv at 6:15am Thursday morning Israel time, parked myself on Karen's couch at 7:30pm New York time Thursday night. Friday my flight was delayed 7 hours and switched airports which put me in bed in Oakland at 3am Saturday morning. I woke up with the same feeling I have felt since, damn I miss Israel. There was so many reasons why I loved being there, and enjoyed my first trip there, first and foremost being a deep sense of belonging to a place where I only spent 10 days. The Israeli's that joined us on our Birthright tour bus gave me my first sense of what it really meant to be a part of a Jewish nation. During a game and discussion of issues around Jews abroad and their relation to Israel, 6 out of 7 Israeli's around my age and currently serving in the IDF moved to the "Completely Agree" section of the room when asked "Should the role of the IDF be to protect Jews all over the world when in danger". I disagreed with their position, because I think humanity is in trouble if every ethnic group needs its own army to protect its people (even in a diaspora) from persecution. Nevertheless, it was just one of many statements of brotherhood the Israeli's showed us as Jews living abroad. Until meeting and hanging out with young Israeli's I hadn't really felt the extent of the meaning of this connection.

Our tour started in Tel Aviv, of which we was saw just a small part during our ride from the airport to hotel, and heading to the north (HaGalil) the next morning. As would be a theme for the rest of the trip the first night in Tel Aviv consisted of addresses by Avihu, the director of the Stand With Us Birthright Tour which were slightly uncomfortable if not a little nauseating. Unfortunately Stand With Us Israel like many other Israeli/Jewish organizations believes that it needs to be exceedingly pushy about Israel and Judaism and exaggerate the millions of Goyim who are out to get us. In order to get their point across. I was nonetheless grateful for the opportunity to go to Israel for free and of course got what I wanted out of the trip.

The north is a beautiful landscape that for all intents and purposes could have been transplanted straight from Northern California, with the added element of being the front lines on Israel's battle with its neighbors. Part of the reason I wanted to go to Israel was because of my great interest politically, and journalistically in the country. I wanted to get a sense of the reality on the ground, and hearing how Israelis look outward at the world (through the slits in their bunker) was extremely valuable. Ive come to see that even with all their power, technology and “support” among the western world, they really don't trust anyone to protect them but themselves. That combined with the Israeli, we don't give a fuck what anyone thinks of us attitude, leads to some unfortunate, and ,in my view, self-defeating actions. This was especially evidenced by the trip to see the Lebanon border where Israel fought its disastrous Second Lebanon War in 2006 and talked to a militant man who talked about how the Arabs were always trying to kill him. We could see the Hezbollah flag in eyesight from Kibbutz Misgav Am and the question which arose in my mind, was; how long can a country truly flourish surrounded by barb wire? In the Golan, a place I saw before merely as a piece of land to be returned in an agreement with Syria, I fell prey to the Zionist propaganda, found attachment and fell in love with a beautiful place that felt like Muir Woods. Getting to know the geography and landscape of Israel also provided the Zionist conspiracy with another convert. The Golan was full of evidence as was Mount Hertzl (like Arlington cemetery) of the amount of blood that it took to build that country into what it is today. This experience gave a desire I would never have expected myself to have: to join the Israeli army (as a reserve soldier and a journalist). Of course unless Yossi Bellin (an Israeli “Peacenik” MK) was elected PM its likely I wouldn't agree with any war fought, but if its existence was in danger I would defend that country to the death.

All joking aside, despite their decidedly propagandistic strategy to get me to support Israel by painting it in a perfect light, the reason I chose to support Israel is much more personal. I chose to support and defend it as a nation in spite of its many grievous actions. The reason that Israelis feel no one cares about Israel is because, well, why should they? Israel is simply a powerful military oppressing a desperate population to some, or a “beacon of democracy and western power” to others. I care about Israel because it is a country of my people, and I don't need to be pushed to support it. I care because I have seen the country and conversed with its people as brothers and therefore my vehement criticism and my vehement support comes from a place of love. That is why when I see or hear people try to demonize or use Israel's wrong action to justify violence against it, I feel the need to fight back. I hear people refuse to acknowledge any other storyline but the one they choose, be it blind support or blind criticism. I hear evangelicals or western power brokers condemn Israel for doing their dirty work and hold it to a higher standard then themselves or applaud Israel for their own benefit. I see the US refuse to support a ceasefire in Lebanon where hundreds of innocents die. Or Cuba, chairing the human rights commission in the UN and making Israel a top agenda item. I see the lack of care, I see right through all the bullshit. Outside criticism is both warranted, necessary and inevitable given the mistakes of Israelis and their leaders, but before you fall into a storyline, take a step back and speak with perspective.

From the north we drove through the West Bank on an Israeli only road and entered Jerusalem from the east. My experience seeing Jerusalem reflected the conflicted nature of the trip. After taking off my blindfold I saw the old city in Jerusalem for the first time, I saw into the history of my people for an instant, then heard the Azaan (the Muslim call to prayer). Without doubt it was one of the most powerful experiences of my life and kindled in me a desire to live there. I said a prayer for peace in Jerusalem at the Kotel (Western Wall), and next to the holiest of holys, close to where the original Ark of the Covenant was housed. It was preceded by an uncomfortable experience of having the tour bus blindfolded and the curtains closed right before we went through the border post entering Jerusalem, making me wonder what they were trying to hide from us.

Israel simply felt like so much more meaningful a place than the US with all these bullshit existential crises because of the insulation and excessive comfort and security that doesn't exist in the rest of the world. If I was living in the beautiful city of Jerusalem doing my life's work (working for peace agreements and co-existence, working on alternative energy and community, journalism, etc.) it would mean that much more.

Israel is in many ways opposite of the US in ways that are quite refreshing. With such a small space to work with, society seems very space efficient. There are none of the huge open expanses of streets like you would find in American suburbs or malls. Tel Aviv and Jerusalem are both full of apartments and people but neither seemed overcrowded, or overwhelming the way Manhattan was. The Mahane Yehuda Shuk (market) in Jerusalem was exciting and good test for the Israeli tradition of impoliteness in needing to push through crowds of people getting ready for Shabbat, at the same time as smiles and Shabbat Shaloms all around. It was so much more of a rewarding experience getting food there than a bi-monthly trip to Trader Joe's and the seeds of my love for Shoarma and Falafel has been planted. I also was lucky enough to get a taste of the best rugalach in the entire world (according Ron our Israeli-American tour guide) and I can confirm this is in fact true.

There were many joys in my connecting with my culture, people and heritage, not the least of which was learning many new Hebrew words. I can now greet a good male friend appropriately, tell someone to fuck off or that they are ridiculous, and hit on gorgeous Israeli girls (At yafo!). I was disappointed that I didn't have time to meet more Israeli Arabs besides the one that sent his kids to a Jewish school, and I now have more desire to into the Palestinian territories, because to me Israel and her neighbors are inseparable, for better or worse. Its probably one of the happiest times of my life, being surrounded group of Jews from all over the US diverse in both perspective and cultural background.

I figured I would send this e-mail as a summary of my experiences and thoughts since being home, so I wouldn't have to tell the same story over and over. That said, now that y'all know about my trip, I am more than happy to answer any questions anybody might have about it.

Ciao and Bivracha,

Ryan

P.S. Turkish Airlines is LAME

Speaking Event Coverage from Jerusalem - Khaled Abu Toameh

Khaled Abu Toameh - West Bank and Gaza correspondent for the Jerusalem Post and U.S. News and World Report and a documentary filmmaker.

January 5^th 2007 at the Jerusalem Gate Hotel presented by Stand With Us - Israel to a Winter 2008 Birthright group.

• Israeli Arab, has Palestinian mother from the West Bank, born in Tulkarem in 1963
  

• Worked for PLO, as reporter licensed by the Israeli government because in those days you had to work for the PLO

• Graduated from Hebrew University, 7 years Jerusalem post

• Foreign journalists don't face any problems in Israel, no intimidation, they can write anti-Israeli stuff

  • Journalists covering the Arab world stay in Israel

• US journalists cant speak to Hamas

• 20 years adviser to foreign journalists

  • NBC Palestinian Affairs producer

• Has to work in Israeli newspapers to practice real journalism

• No free media in Arab world

• Palestinians got exposed to good things inside Israel

  • Hoping Arafat would set up democracy

  • Oslo implementation was bad, bad partner

  • Note: Says “we” in reference to Israel

• Palestinians never saw the fruits of peace, Arafat stole the money

  • Built a casino opposite refugee camp

  • Gave Suha Arafat $100k a month for shopping in Paris

  • Lost faith in the process because of corruption

• Arafat promised 100% or nothing, didn't sign anything at Camp David

• When you ask 12 year old in refugee camp what he wants to be when he grows up, he says I want to be suicide bomber

• In 2005 Abbas said I will fix corruption and build institutions, that was his platform, 60% gave a mandate in elections

• More Palestinians killed in internal fighting than by Israel

  • More lawlessness

• January 2006 Hamas ran on change and reform, appropriated Abbas' platform

  • Put Israel destruction on bottom of list of platform

  • Good governance against PLO

• Free and democratic election went for Hamas

  • Worst violence in territories between Fatah and Hamas

  • Not between bad and good, between bad and bad

  • Fighting over money and power

• Mistakes by us and Europe, didn't tell them to reform, gave them guns and told them to

• “PLO can never be reformed”

• When Palestinians saw US giving money to Fatah

• Egypt sealed border and made Fatah knock on Israel's door, Israel saved them dumped them to West Bank

  • Hamas is a very dangerous regime, Iran is in Gaza, Syria, Lebanon

  • PLO only in west bank because of IDF

  • If he were Olmert he couldn't give any land to Abbas

  • PLO weak and corrupt, not legitimate

Question and Answer Session:

• We don't know in west Hamas has provided social services

  • Hamas was doing what PLO should be doing

  • vote was combination between ideology and services

  • Hamas came into vacuum in Gaza

• American influence in Arab country

  • Why doesn't the US tell gulf countries to help

  • Law in Lebanon says Palestinians cant work in 72 professions

  • In Kuwait they are banned by law from buying apartment

• Iran

  • [In Iran] I wouldn't be standing here talking to you, [I wouldn't be allowed]
    

  • Ahmadinejad: Muslim Hitler

    • Will kill him [Khaled] if he speaks out against the regime
      

  • [Khaled] Hopes students will bring him [Admadinejad] down

• How can we as Americans influence the situation?

  • All about education, talk to PLO demand something for your money, they are dependent

  • This generation more radical then last

Closing remarks

• Dictators are radicalizing people

  • We are suppressing reformists

Jerusalm Gate Hotel, Jerusalem, Israel

Are the Peacemakers Even Relevant?

President Bush recently announced his shiny new Middle East Peace Initiative, which he hopes, will restore some luster to his seriously tarnished image. He plans to have Secretary Rice lead an international peace conference that will bring to the table the Jordanians, Egyptians, Saudis, French, British, Russian, the Israeli Prime Minister Olmert, the Palestinian President Abbas, and his Prime Minister Fayyad. Despite the far-reaching implications of the Arab-Israeli conflict, President Bush has failed to invite to the conference any of the parties whose participation could actually lead to a meaningful, long-term peace between Palestinians and Israelis. And, by failing to engage those who could turn the tide towards peace, Bush is missing a prime opportunity to remake America’s image that he so blatantly squandered in Iraq.
The parties whose presence will ensure at least an opportunity for viable peace are Marwan Barghouti, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran. Any peace negotiations must involve the non-state actors who create the daily realities in the Middle East. No longer can we afford to sit back and play outdated Cold War politics that fail to take into account those non-state actors. Our only hope for bringing about a lasting peace is by addressing those who act without state sanction. Hamas and Hezbollah are prime examples of such groups, as are the more extremist elements within the Iranian government, who act without consulting their political leaders. This said, it appears that despite his good intentions our lame-duck president has failed to do more than introduce a non-starter to the conversation of Middle East peace.

Irrelevant: The Moderate Arab States (Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia):

These countries are seen as too pro-Western by the Palestinian street, and hold little sway over residents in Hebron or Ramallah. Both Egypt and Jordan exploited the Palestinians under their control from 1948 until they signed peace agreements with Israel in 1976 and 1992 respectively. Neither one attempted to integrate the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, instead choosing to funnel weapons to extremists in refugee camps. Their desire for proxy war with Israel meant guns and rockets instead of roads and power lines for the Palestinian people. Since peace was reached, the Hashemite King’s in Jordan have kept the West Bank as distant from Amman as possible, not wanting an influx of poor, Sunni Arabs to destabilize his regime. Egypt, not wanting to extend its already taxed government services has refused to give citizenship to its Palestinian population. In response to the recent events in Gaza, Egypt closed its embassy in Gaza City and stepped up its repression of the Muslim Brotherhood (Hamas’ parent organization). Saudi Arabia, despite its massive oil wealth, has done little to support to the Palestinian people. The Saudis give symbolic aid, but stop far short of providing anything meaningful. Because of their counterproductive actions in the PA and their close ties to America, none of these states hold enough sway over the Palestinians to get them to accept a peace deal.

Irrelevant: The Europeans (France, Great Britain, and Russia):

The British and French bid farewell to Mid East relevance back in 1956 when their serious miscalculations (see Suez Crisis) forced them to take a back seat in the region. The Russians lost prominence with the collapse of Arab nationalism at the hands of Israel in 1967 and 1973. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the flow of Russian arms to the region faded along with the Arab’s interest in what Moscow had to say.

Irrelevant: The Unpopular Israeli (Prime Minister Olmert)

The Israeli public has not, and will not, forgive Olmert for his severely botched war against Hezbollah last summer. With his popularity hovering around 10% it appears that only the delay of the Winograd Report is saving him from an almost certain vote of no confidence. Israelis are notorious for sacking failed leaders, as was the case with the Golda Meir following the 1973 war. Despite the fact that Olmert was elected on a ‘unilateral withdrawal’ platform, any move towards peace he makes will face staunch opposition in the Knesset. The Israeli population, despite yearning for peace sees their Arab counterparts as unwilling to denounce terrorism, throwing a wrench in any future peace negotiations.

Irrelevant: The Weak Palestinians (President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad)

It has been said that no leader ‘without blood on his hands’ will ever be able to credibly represent the Palestinian people, who still sees violent opposition to Israel as a prerequisite for achieving statehood. The new prime minister, Fayyad has no such credibility. The Western-trained economist has no history of jihad against Israel or participation in the Second Intifada. This will always make him appear weak to the Palestinians. The very reasons that Fayyad is appealing to the West (a background in economics and opposition to armed resistance) make him ineffectual as a leader. The man who appointed him, President Abbas, is suffering from a lack of credibility as well. His recent split with ex-prime minister Ismail Haniya cost him control of Gaza, and any peace deal he makes with Israel will essentially create two Palestinian states, one in Gaza, and one in the West Bank. The Palestinian people will find this solution completely unacceptable and the extremists will use all available means to destroy any such peace deal.

Most Relavent: Marwan Barghouti

The one man who does have ‘blood on his hands’ and thus maintains the credibility necessary to lead the Palestinians to statehood is currently locked in an Israeli jail. His name is Marwan Barghouti. Although he is serving two consecutive life sentences for killing five Israelis his Prisoners Letter proves that he is willing to work with Israel to create a sustainable, singular Palestinian state. He is essentially the Palestinian strong man whose career has evolved along the lines of Ariel Sharon, who transformed from fighter to peacemaker without loosing the legitimacy and trust of his people. Is Israel willing to free this convicted terrorist? The fact is that there may not even be a choice. Since he represents a legitimate path towards peace, the Israeli government must free him for the long-term good that he will bring to the Middle East.

Relavent: The Terrorists and Those who Fund Them (Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran)

By not inviting Hamas to the negotiating table, President Bush is essentially sinking the peace deal before it even has a chance to take form. Hamas is in complete control of Gaza. They are currently smuggling in weapons and explosives through the Philadelphi Corridor, which links Gaza to Egypt. Their ranks have swollen to 15,000 fighters and they continue to fire rockets into Israel. Daily, they demonstrate that they care more about killing Jews than improving the lives of Gazans. Their actions effectively veto any peace agreement signed by Abbas and Israel. Iran is actively financing Hamas and must be pressured to stop them from funneling the weapons into Gaza, an action that stalls the peace in its tracks. Syria and Hezbollah must also be brought into the conversation, as the ‘hot summer’ that Nasrallah promised (after meeting with the Iranian president Ahmadinejad in Damascus) will surely put any peace agreement on the backburner.

You make peace with your enemies not your friends. Bush, however, seems to be forgetting this paramount rule of realpolitik, it is not the moderate Arabs, Europeans, and Abbas we need to be talking with. We must reckon with the real players whose destabilizing actions would instantly torpedo any future peace deal. Gone are days when heads of states can sit down and sign comprehensive agreements ending hostilities. In today’s world non-state actors must be regarded as just as, or perhaps more important than the states they act within. President Bush must come to understand that a peaceful future in the Middle East depends on it.

The Future of our Cities: Sustaining Affluence Beyond Cheap Oil

The Twentieth Century saw the United States and many other nations complete the transition to an urbanized society, a process that included the centralization of commerce and population. The Twentieth Century also witnessed the suburbanization of the United States following World War II based on the widespread availability of personal transportation and highways. This allowed population centers to decentralize from commercial centers, which led to the massive and unnecessary usage of natural resources. Depending how you look at the issue of suburbanization, it either was a serious lack of planning or seriously short sided planning. Either way it was a great mistake, and it brings the United States to a unique predicament. Either we can right the mistake of the decentralization of society into suburbs with smart and innovative planning, or we can wait until we are forced by global disaster and a crumbling economy built almost solely on a finite resource. If we as a society opt to take the route of smart planning there is a number of issues we will need to address.

Water Availability

Because of the availability of cheap energy, water has been easily and unsustainably pumped to population centers far from natural sources. There are several poignant examples of this potentially dire, future problem. As a Northern Californian I feel I should address a problem in my own backyard. The California State Water Project that supplies a significant portion of Los Angeles’ water needs burns energy pumping water 2,000 feet over the Tehachapi Mountains -- the highest lift of any water system in the world. The amount of energy used to deliver that water to residential customers in Southern California is equivalent to approximately one-third of the total average household electric use in the region.[1] A number made essential by the positioning of ten million people in the Los Angeles River basin, a largely semi-arid desert. The Average Net Electricity use of the California State water project is 5.1 Billion kilowatt hours of electricity[2]. What will happen when the energy supply increasingly scarce? Will it still be considered prudent to spend our scarce energy resources bringing in water from far away to support certain communities.
A distinct problem awaits many coastal nations with limited water supplies, specifically in Africa and the Middle East. Such an example is the large portion of Dubai’s water that is sourced from desalinization plants run entirely on a finite supply of cheap crude oil, without which the processes costs would be astronomical. IPS news reports that

"the six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries have an urbanisation level of about 85 percent. As a result, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), for example, is the world's second largest consumer of water per capita after the United States. Its average daily domestic consumption is 353 litres (80 gallons) per person compared to 425 litres (96 gallons) in the U.S." (AEM 2007)

Without the desalinization plants that supply Dubai with water, the aspirations of the up and coming global cosmopolitan center that is Dubai would be but a pipe dream.


Food production

Cheap energy also brought about the so-called “green revolution” which created crops ill suited to local environments, heavily dependent on petroleum-derived products such as pesticides, and increased irrigation, leading to further water depletion[3]. Additionally, these genetically modified seeds are dependent on outside factors such as pesticides for their survival and they do not adapt to local environments like their indigenous cousins. They are also highly invasive; they destroy crop diversity in major global food staples such as corn, wheat, rice, barley, and oats, posing a dire problem for the future of many ecosystems. The lack of natural diversity can cause an entire harvest to be wiped out if insects or other natural disaster attacks it.
The practice of comparative advantage in global trade will have to cease if every country is to be able to feed their populations, the international transportation will simply be too expensive. Although in theory, it is supposed to reduce opportunity cost for the economies of countries in practice it evolves mostly from dictation of specialization by loans from global financial institutions.

Economic and Population growth

The fast-paced, perpetually growing, consumption-driven economy fuelled by cheap energy solutions allowed the US to have sustained long-term growth throughout the Twentieth Century. Fueling the growth of the suburbs were city planners who make the assumption that 3% economic growth would occur forever, despite the fact that a finite resource underpins this growth. The miracle of the development and economic growth has provided Americans—and citizens around the developed world—with a “culture of affluence” where it becomes almost a right to consume at will. This culture has long included the option to work in suburbs far away from home and from the resources that sustain their lifestyles, a practice that must end.
Rapid economic and population growth has been achieved by a myriad of private investment and free market policies, which are light on macro planning and heavy on consumption. Such an example is the strategy of GM in the early Twentieth Century to buy up electric urban light-rail systems all around the country and push for federally built highways on which their busses would cruise back and forth from newly built suburbs, with massive sub developments outside major cities.
None of this growth or infrastructure would have been possible without the presence of an extremely cheap and relatively efficient energy source: crude oil.

Alternative Energies

There are many creative solutions available to solve the problem of sustainable planning. There are a myriad of renewable energy sources could replace a significant amount of the fossil fuel consumption in the United States, however Ethanol is not one of them. Ethanol is touted as the greatest alternative to petroleum in the US, but unfortunately its benefits are largely political, providing a godsend to politicians seeking support in the Iowa caucuses. Ethanol is a feasible alternative fuel for a country like Brazil, which already has massive exportation in the more efficient ethanol from sugar cane industry. The corn-based ethanol from the US is a different story all together. To begin, corn-ethanol based biofuel is much more efficient of an energy source than its sugar-cane based cousin, which cannot feasibly be imported to the US because of tariffs in the US market. Brazilian sugar-cane ethanol has an efficiency ratio of 8-to-1, i.e. the energy output is eight times higher than the energy inputs. Gasoline by comparison clocks in at just 5-to-1 says an oil-industry engineer at R-Squared Energy Blog. The US Department of Energy states that “The most recent findings show that corn ethanol fuel is energy efficient and yields an energy output: input ratio of 1.6” (DOE 2007). Industry experts predict that number will increase very slowly if at all, given that most corn ethanol in the US is heavily dependent of petroleum products.




Although there are many renewable energy sources that can help offset the Peak Oil crisis—a phenomenon where oil’s efficiency ratio will drop below 1:1—some geologists and energy experts have warned that no combination of renewable energy sources can replace the sheer amount of energy output the world currently attributes to petroleum-derived products. John Busby, a British scientist with background in power generation, chemical manufacture, agriculture, and food processing, along with experience in the economies of the developing world, wrote The Busby Report, an independent guide for the energy future of the UK. In it, he writes that

"…with the dwindling of global oil and gas reserves, international competition for supplies of coal, the demise of the indigenous coal industry together with the gradual termination of nuclear power mean that in order to be secure from the consequences of external events, the UK has to rearrange its economy to run with only around 25% of its current energy consumption.”

Although this will be a momentous challenge for Britain to undertake, the alternatives are far worse. To do no long-term planning for the coming difficulties would invite catastrophe and chaos as essential functions of the country simply shut down, think Iraq, 2007. The smarter our future planning is, the less likelihood these potential “water wars” will occur over the resources of coal and oil on a global scale. As far as the U.S. goes, our situation is no easier than the U.K.; in fact, it may be more severe. Britain does not suffer from decentralization and suburbanization, if anything we have farther to go them the UK.[4]

Solutions

The question we should be asking as a society is not how can plan to keep our lifestyles the same, what we should be asking is how can we re-plan our cities so that the transition from cheap oil can be made less-jarring, without mass rationing or conservation. The planning of our states and countries should have conservation and sustainability built in. Because we allowed city planners and the federal government to decentralize our society without an eye on the long term, we have more work to do for the coming transition.
To transition from a global economy in the world and a decentralized US society there are two important concepts. We can transition from a suburban society with New Urbanism, a movement dedicated to transforming our communities into walkable, neighborhood based development, what the Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU) calls “transforming growth patterns from the inside out.” This will help reduce energy use by reducing transportation energy costs by working and playing closer to where we live. The Local Government Commission is another New Urbanist group self-described as “local elected officials, city and county staff, planners, architects, and community leaders who are committed to making their communities more livable, prosperous, and resource-efficient.” Whether or not these organizations are effective, this philosophy is the one that is needed to bring cities into the future.
A modern version of Localism, what British Labour Party MP Alan Milburn calls "making services more locally accountable, devolving more power to local communities and, in the process, forging a modern relationship between the state, citizens and services”, will be dedicated to increasing local self-sufficiency in the areas of food production and commerce. One country has done an excellent job in many ways, developing government-run produce gardens in cities across the island. Although Cuba is by no means a model society, this is a great example of somewhere with limited resources creating a model project (Washington Post 1999). It shows the innovation and future planning can come from any source in the modern world.

[1] http://www.nrdc.org/water/conservation/edrain/execsum.asp
[2] http://www.publicaffairs.water.ca.gov/swp/swptoday.cfm
[3]http://www.macalester.edu/environmentalstudies/students/projects/citizenscience2007/geneticallymodifiedcrops/issues.html
[4] http://www.energybulletin.net/13737.html