Walking to a Place of Understanding

 

Davina Abujudeh

June 24, 2009

 For many Americans, 9/11 marked the start of a new era that represented just about anything other than greater inter-faith dialogue and understanding.  An era of fear, terror, war and suspicion—yes.  The last thing anyone would expect to gain from the events of 9/11 is an enlightened interaction between Jews and Muslims and an attempt to spread a message of tolerance between the two faiths.

 In Tucson, Arizona, however, this has been the case for the past 6 years.  Since 9/11, there has been a heightened level of dialogue between Jews and Muslims, supported and expressed by the city’s annual Jewish-Muslim Peace Walk.  The event’s goal each year is to get people talking to people outside of their regular circles about what’s going on and to promote mutual understanding between Tucson residents of the two faiths.  It seems to have been a pre-emptive measure taken by the city’s residents to prevent what has happened in many other parts of the country and the world—a greater rift between people of different religions and cultures, and an ever-increasing fear and marginalization of Muslims in America.

 The walk this year, which took place in March, began at a Jewish Synagogue and ended at a Mosque, where participants expanded their horizons even more with a Thai dinner.  The event has a different theme each year, and this year’s theme was water.  Participants learned how to spell the word water, as well as other words, in both Arabic and Hebrew. 

 Although the event is intended to serve only the city of Tucson with its message of coexistence and interfaith dialogue, its message has reached residents of cities as close as Phoenix and as far away as the state of Michigan.  Hopefully, the message will resound even further, proving to people everywhere that there is nothing to fear and much to gain from simply taking a walk with someone different from you. 

Another article I wrote for ALLMEP's website...a little late...

“Two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history”:

Obama’s Promise of Peace in Israel/Palestine

 

Davina Abujudeh

June 24, 2009

 

This is the quote that kicked off the Israeli-Palestinian conflict portion of President Obama’s June 4^th highly anticipated speech in Cairo, Egypt.  Within just 4 minutes and 45 seconds, the US’s still fairly new president laid down what he believes is the foundation for peace between Israel and Palestine. 

 

In the speech, President Obama makes it very clear that he supports a two-state solution and makes demands of both sides to change their behavior, lest any chance of peace be lost.  Many of the statements made by Obama can be remembered in speeches made by most other American presidents since this conflict has become significant enough for the US not to ignore.  However, there were significant differences in Obama’s speech which may give people the notion that we can actually believe that Obama means what he says and that, with his speech, he made have forced the peace process to take a step forward.

 

It is obvious in his speech that Obama was taking careful steps to be an unbiased as possible.  “If we see this conflict from one side or the other,” Obama states, “then we will be blind to the truth.  The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met, through two states where Israelis and Palestinians can each live in peace and security.” 

 

It was not these types of statements, however, which set Obama apart from the men who have previously held his position.  In the sentence following this statement, Obama says that, “That is in Israel’s interest, Palestine’s interest, America’s interest and the world’s interest.”  What makes this sentence stand out is the fact that, unlike former US Presidents, Obama refers to the West Bank and Gaza as ‘Palestine’, rather than ‘The Occupied Palestinian Territories’ or something similar, as many former presidents have while in office.  What this means for potential future peace between Israel and Palestine is yet to be seen, but in the meantime is has been taken as a very good sign, and a statement that was awarded with loud cheering and clapping by Obama’s audience. 

 

Obama promised to patiently dedicate himself to a peaceful process towards two secure states, but also called on Israelis and Palestinians to live up to their obligations, realize their mutual responsibilities and to remember and live up to past promises for peace.  Using a powerful comparison to Martin Luther King Jr.’s peaceful struggle for civil rights for black Americans, and pointing out that this peaceful struggle has been mirrored in all parts of the world, Obama called on Palestinians to abandon violence.

 

“Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed,” Obama stated.  “For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation.  But it was not violence that one full and equal rights.  It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America’s founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia.” 

 

These words, powerful enough on their own, are made all the more convincing and motivating coming from the mouth of America’s first black president.  Perhaps without even meaning to, Obama stood as a clear example that what he was saying was right.

 

Obama insisted that the use of violence is, “…not how moral authority is claimed…that is how it is surrendered,” and called on Palestinians, including Hamas, to refocus their efforts on economic and social development, paving the road for their eventual independence.

 

Demands were made of Israel as well.  Obama insisted that, in order for peace to be possible, Israel must recognize Palestine’s right to exist just as Israel expects Hamas and Palestinians to recognize its own right to exist.  “At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine’s”, Obama stated.

 

Obama’s biggest criticism of Israeli policies was clearly the continue construction of settlements on Palestinian Territory.  He stated that the United States condemns their construction and reminds Israel of past promises not to continue this practice.  Of the settlements, Obama stated, “This construction violates previous agreements, and undermines efforts to achieve peace.  It is time for these settlements to stop.”  These statements as well as others condemning continued settlement construction were met with loud applause by the audience.

 

The portion of his speech dedicated to Israeli/Palestinian peace closed out with a reminder to of the basic humanitarian needs that are not being met in the West Bank and Gaza.  He called on Israel to live up to its responsibility of ensuring that Palestinians in both areas are able to lead free, happy and fulfilling lives, and called to attention the fact that not doing so only acts against the security of Israel.  “Progress in the daily lives of Palestinians must be a critical part of the Roadmap to Peace,” Obama proclaimed.  “And Israel must take concrete steps to enable its progress.”

 

Since Obama’s speech, there has been one faulty promise of a two-state solution made by Israel’s government and rejected by the Palestinian government.  Whether or not Obama will put continued pressure on both sides to live up to the expectations he set for them in his speech is yet to be seen.  Where this conflict will lie on his list of priorities, along side a crumbling economy, North Korea’s threatening actions, massive protests in Iran, healthcare and immigration reform, a war in Iraq and Afghanistan and the countless other issues the new president is facing, is something I and many others hope he considers very carefully.  Hopefully his determination to find peace will not have ended with that speech.  Hopefully he will, at some point during his presidency, make a concerted and determined effort to bring about a peaceful resolution.  Can we do it in the next four years?  Simple logic would likely tell us no, but I prefer to use the campaign slogan that brought Obama to where he is now to answer that question: Yes we can.

Giving In? Giving Up?

In the aftermath of Dr. George R. Tiller's murder at the hands of an anti-abortion extremist, I cannot hep but find it incredibly disheartening that Tiller's family is now choosing to close down the clinic.  Although there are certainly many reasons beyond my own understanding and comprehension, and I really have no place to judge their decision, I still can't help but feel that the action of shutting down the clinic sends one very clear message to radical anti-abortionists like Tiller's suspected assassin, Scott P. Roeder--that their wishes can and will be fulfilled through violent means.

Although it so far appears that Roeder planned and worked independently, a NY Times article provides statements from members of Operation Rescue, the anti-abortion group that generally targeted Dr. Tiller's clinic and was working towards its closing (through legal, not murderous means) in which they expressed their joy at the clinic's closing, and announcing their plans to move on from Wichita to other parts of the country.  

While Operation Rescue is certainly not directly responsible for Tiller's murder, the joy they express over the closing of his clinic (and subsequently his murder) and their plans to move on to the next abortion clinic is only motivating the next fanatic to put up a rifle, kill another doctor and hopefully shut down another clinic.  It's just a means to an end, right?  

I don't pretend to have the slightest idea of why Tiller's family is choosing to close down the clinic, but I hope that the decision was not one made out of fear.  Such a decision sends out the message to countless other extremists that they can get what they want by harming others. How many others will see what has happened and pick up their own weapons, knowing that by taking someone else's life they will scare others into submission.  Could this be part of the reason a white supremacist walked into the US Holocaust Memorial in DC today and opened fire, killing an innocent security guard?  What other lunatics, up until now teetering on the line between dangerous thought and deadly actions will now have the inspiration they needed to push them over that fragile edge?  

I never understood why politicians and military personnel employ the unwavering strategy of non-negotiation with terrorists.  Now I have a much better idea of why that is.  It's because they're crazy, they're lunatics, and there is no negotiations for what they want.  It's not right to win any fight by fear, and this situation is certainly no exception.  Giving in or giving up is not the right answer.