A ray of hope for Israeli Palestinian peace process

HOPE FOR ISRAEL PALESTINIAN PEACE PROCESSMoving forward with Israel Palestinian confederation

http://israel-palestine-dialogue.blogspot.com/2012/10/a-ray-of-hope-for-israeli-palestinian.html

Each one of us is responsible to contribute towards the common good of the society we live in. We must work towards creating cohesive societies, where no one has to feel insecure, apprehensive or fearful of the others.

Thank God for providing me the opportunity to do my share of the  peace work involving Israel-Palestine, India-Pakistan and a few other conflicts. I am inspired by the words of Jesus, and the commitment was reinforced when I stood on Mt. Beatitude where Jesus delivered his sermon, Blessed are the peace makers, I felt the sermon deeply touching me. My other three inspirers are Prophet Muhammad, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. 

 I have been to Jerusalem, talked to groups of Israelis and Palestinians, Knesset Members and Palestinian Parliamentarians, traveled extensively in Israel, and God willing I will be going to Jerusalem again on 12.12.12 to witness the elections proceedings in Israel as a board member of the Israeli Palestinian Confederation, more about it appended below.

Who am I to worry about Israelis and Palestinians? What inspires me to be involved in the Israel Palestine conflict? The following is the story of my struggle to see a cohesive world, the story will take you through different emotions but at the end, I hope you feel a sense of hope. It is a three part story published in Huffington post.  I have kept up with the conflict since I was a teenager, and had always wanted to contribute in the smallest possible way I can - Resulting in production of 5 Annual events called reflections on Holocaust and Genocides, with media coverage, and a full blog www.IsraelPalestineDialogue.com with 100 articles. 

.........................  

WHAT IS ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFEDERATION?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k9BnIWAtgE&feature=player_embedded

.........................  

THE GOOD NEWS

It is a blessing to have met Josef Avesar who heads the IPC. It was also a pleasure to write a note about the book, included in the inside pages of  the book,  “Peace, a case for an Israeli Palestinian Federation” and the book was presented to Sean Hannity of Fox News, when I was on his show. Check out the website to purchase the book www.ipconfederation.org, it was released on United Nations day last year.

It’s a small step forward, but will gradually bring about a positive change. Nothing ever happens without making an effort.  I am pleased to be a part of this organization and admire the leadership of Josef Avesar.

We have 633 candidates for Parliament and 117 for President. The elections will start in 72 days. To view the candidates or read about the Constitution, please go to our website: www.ipconfederation.org.

......................... 

NEW YORK TIMES AD SEEKS CANDIDATES FOR THE PARLIAMENT
http://israel-palestine-dialogue.blogspot.com/2012/10/new-york-times-ad-seeks-candidates-for.html

......................... 

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC: A PRAGMATIC WAY TO RESOLVE CONFLICT
http://israel-palestine-dialogue.blogspot.com/2012/10/a-pragmatic-way-to-resolve-israeli.html

......................... 

BASIC SOLUTIONS
http://israel-palestine-dialogue.blogspot.com/2009/09/solutions-for-israel-and-palestine.html

......................... 

HUFFINGTON POST  ON THE CONFLICT - 1 OF 3
 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-ghouse/israel-and-palestine-moving-forward_b_1258261.html

......................... 

HUFFINGTON POST ON THE CONFLICT -  2 OF 3
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-ghouse/commitment-to-israelpales_b_1263793.html

......................... 

HUFFINGTON POST ON THE CONFLICT - 3 OF 3
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-ghouse/commitment-to-israelpalestine_b_1263803.html

.........................Mike Ghouse is committed to building a Cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day. He is a professional speaker, thinker and a writer on pluralism, politics, civic affairs, Islam, India, Israel, peace and justice. Mike is a frequent guest onSean Hannity show on Fox TV, and a commentator on national radio networks, he contributes weekly to the Texas Faith Column at Dallas Morning News and regularly atHuffington post, and several other periodicals across the world. The blogwww.TheGhousediary.com is updated daily.

A Pragmatic Way to Resolve the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2012/10/04/israeli-palestinian-conflict/

Six years ago, I received an invitation to participate in an event on peace-building in the Middle East at the University of California, Los Angeles. The seminar had been organized by a local lawyer, Josef Avesar, along with academics at UCLA to find a novel way to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The idea was taken from other historic territorial conflicts and rivalries – to establish an Israeli-Palestinian  Confederation – analogous to the cantons of Switzerland uniting or indeed the articles of confederation of the United States, as noted by Amherst College political scientist Ronald Tiersky in the Jerusalem Post earlier this year.  However, unlike earlier efforts, this idea was to be implemented from the grassroots using the internet as a platform to recruit candidates for a “virtual parliament,” while the policy-makers remained deadlocked.

In six years, Mr.  Avesar has been determined despite all odds and has managed to get over 700 Israelis and Palestinians (including in Gaza) to run in a virtual election which will be held on December 12, 2012. Those who may dismissed this as a gimmick should note that even a willingness to run in an election of this kind poses peril to the candidates but they are willing to do so because they see this as the most tangible effort to “think outside the box” and move beyond the stagnation of one-state/ two-state fixes.

Last week, the New York Times published a full-page advertisement regarding the IPC and its election plan. Yet the level of suspicion, cynicism and contempt on all sides remains intense. There is still deep-rooted suspicion of even those of us who aspire for peace. As a board member of the IPC and as a Pakistani-American, I often hear from both Arabs and Israelis that such initiatives are merely a means of social-climbing or prize-fishing. Often we get labelled as “sell-outs” or “conspirators” or for those who like to offer a patronizing pat on the back, simply dismissed as “well-intentioned idealists.”

In my visit to Israel in 2010 on an invitation from Tel Aviv University and the U.S. embassy, I was alarmed to find how much the narrative of peace-building has eroded – to use an environmental metaphor. There is an uneasy calm, and a surprisingly sanguine sense of security, which many Israelis voiced to me across the political spectrum. Efforts such as the Israeli Palestinian Confederation are thus seen as an attempt to disrupt this calm. Yet, the reality remains that the status quo is untenable in the long-run. The Arab Spring and its aftermath reminds us that the magma of misery that many feel in the Middle East cannot be contained simply by higher walls and military security strategies. Initiatives such as the IPC deserve our attention because they urge us to consider hybridity in conflict resolution strategies – a pathway between the polarization of hard versus soft strategies.

Another path to peace which deserves  more attention is to get Israelis and Palestinians to study together and develop an epistemic community on fields such as environmental science. Such an approach is best exemplified by The Arava Institute for Environmental Studies in Israel. Environmental factors will ultimately define the quality of life in the regions for all ethnicities and political persuasion – particularly within Israel’s political landscape which has become more atomized in recent years. The administration of Arava noted that it is more difficult for Arava to recruit West Bank Jewish settlers to study with Palestinians than it is for them to recruit Palestinians to study with Israelis.

During my visit to the Arava Institute in January, 2010 I met a young Jewish-American student who told me how his brother had chided him for being a bleeding heart for wanting to study with Palestinians.

I share this somber example with you because any celebration of peace-building and environmental stewardship must remain grounded in “reality checks.” The willingness of the Arava Institute to challenge Israeli law concerning the lack of access of Palestinians to educational institutions in Israel is an important example of their bold willingness to engage on these matters. As with the 700+ election-runners in the IPC virtual parliament, it is heartening to see Israelis and Palestinian students willing to endure the scorn of many of their friends for studying at the Arava Institute – the yearning for peace is high and regrettably gets eclipsed by the cacophony of radicals.

Additional initiatives such as Friends of the Earth – Middle East or the University of the Middle East Project, must be supported no matter how bleak the prospects for peace may seem. Peace-building is a generational struggle and a responsibility that incrementally falls on us all. The success of the IPC in my view remains in the process of cognitive change which it is fostering. The December 12, 2012 virtual election will be a momentous achievement even if its symbolic. All those willing to engage and embrace a democratic mechanism through this novel idea deserve to be congratulated and supported.

 # # #

Video explaining Israel Palestinian confederation

ISRAELI PALESTINIAN CONFEDERATION, WHAT IT IS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k9BnIWAtgE&feature=player_embedded

# # 

New York Times ad seeks candidates for joint Israeli-Palestinian parliament

New York Times ad seeks candidates for joint Israeli-Palestinian parliament
http://www.timesofisrael.com/new-york-times-ad-seeks-candidates-for-joint-israeli-palestinian-parliament/

Confederation initiative launched by Israeli-born lawyer who now lives in California

An initiative to establish an Israeli-Palestinian confederation and joint parliament was publicized Monday with a full page advertisement in the New York Times, aimed at recruiting 1,500 parliamentary candidates from both sides of the conflict.

The initiative was launched by Israeli-born lawyer Josef Avesar, a California resident, and has been endorsed by former Israeli foreign minister Shlomo Ben Ami and Palestinian peace activist and National Council member Hanna Siniora.

Elections for a planned joint Israeli-Palestinian parliament are to be held on December 12, and the Confederation’s website allows Israeli and Palestinians over the age of 21 to submit their candidacy for parliament member or president. The parliament is to include 300 members, elected by 300 voting districts encompassing Israel and the Palestinian territories. Candidates must declare online “under penalty of perjury” that they are residents “of Israel or Palestine.”

The joint parliament is not intended to replace the existing Israeli and Palestinian legislatures, organizers explain, but rather help bridge the gap between the sides. According to the parliament’s constitution, legislation can only pass with the consent of both sides.

With a board of directors located in the United States, it is unclear where the parliament would convene once elected. Article 1 of the Israeli-Palestinian Confederation’s constitution stipulates only that “the time, place, and manner of the Parliament’s legislative sessions and voting mechanism shall be prescribed by the Parliament.”

# # #

Only The U.S. Can End The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

I have been reading Professor Ben-Meir's take on Israel and Palestine conflict, we have identical take on the issues. I have explored the same idea for years; the Neocons unfortunately have become parasites of the Republican party, them and guys like Netayahu and his ilk,  talk about the security of Israel, but do the exact opposite of it.  They believe in bully power, the power that will keep Israel insecure for generations, justice to the Palestinians and security to Israel will be sustainable, if it happens through a genuine dialogue.  

Romney would be bad for Israel's security and Justice for the Palestinians. He just does not have what it takes to bring deeply rooted conflicts to heal, he is business man, either he will cut the losses in the middle or stick with the friend Netanyahu to Israel's detriment. We the people,  will end up paying the price in terms of anguish, and a sense of doing the wrong to both the people. He will be no different than our former president, operating from the seat of his pants, rather than brains. Obama had great chances, but blew it, but he will not screw it up to hurt Israelis, Palestinians, and us the Americans. He is the least worst choice now.

Mike Ghouse
www.MikeGhouse.net 

Only The U.S. Can End The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Oct 1, 2012

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot be resolved without the direct and active involvement of the United States, using both inducements and coercive diplomacy to bring about a peaceful solution. If the conflict remains unresolved over the next couple of years it will most likely precipitate a massive violent conflagration to the detriment of the Israelis and Palestinians and will also severely damage the U.S.’ security, economic interests and its credibility in the region. For these reasons, what the next president of the U.S. does within a few months after his inauguration will determine the future prospect of a solution, and the extent to which the candidates adhere to their campaign rhetoric will have a clear and immediate effect on how the Israelis and Palestinians react to any new American initiative to resolve the conflict. 

Mitt Romney’s position toward the conflict raises serious questions not only about his timidity but also his shortsightedness in connection with a complex conflict that has been simmering for decades and will, without a doubt, explode if a resolution is not found soon. In a number of bewildering statements, Romney blamed Palestinian “culture” as the cause of their current predicaments and faulted them for having “no interest whatsoever in establishing peace.” With these comments, Romney is in fact sending the Israelis a clear message that they should maintain the occupation, further expand the settlements, and keep the blockade on Gaza, while inferring the U.S. will not bother to interfere. Conversely, Romney’s message to the Palestinians is that they have missed many opportunities in the past to achieve peace, their yearning for statehood is a pipe dream, and they should expect little, if any, assistance from a Romney administration. 

In the wake of the Arab Spring, however, as the Palestinians watch young men and women in several Arab states fighting and dying for their freedoms, their own relative passivity at the present will not last forever. Romney’s preference of “[kicking] the ball down the field,” (that is, letting events take their own course) is dangerously misguided and ultimately detrimental to the cause of peace. 

Indeed, should Romney become President and move to translate his campaign rhetoric into policy, he will seriously endanger Israel’s very existence, which he presumably wishes to protect, and will compromise its future as an independent democratic Jewish state while contributing to its isolation from the international community. At the same time, he will encourage the Palestinians to rise up out of desperation and hopelessness to end the occupation at whatever cost, akin to the rise of Arab youth against their own governments who are prepared to die for their freedom. 

President Obama himself has contributed to the current impasse in part by insisting early in 2009 that the peace negotiations should start by first freezing the settlements, which was a nonstarter for the Netanyahu government, and by failing to visit Israel when he travelled three times overseas visiting four Arab/Muslim states. The president went to Turkey in April of 2009, in June of the same year he visited Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and in November 2010 he traveled to Indonesia. For most Israelis, skipping Israel three times was nothing short of a slap in the face, especially in light of the fact that the President made a solution to the conflict a top priority by appointing former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell as a Special Envoy to the region only 2 days after his inauguration. To demonstrate his seriousness about the urgent need for a solution, the next President must visit Israel and the Palestinian Authority and make it abundantly clear where the US stands. 

Nonetheless, President Obama, throughout his presidency and recently reiterated in his speech at the U.N. General Assembly, has insisted that the only solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict rests on creating two independent states, a Jewish and a Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace while growing and prospering together as neighbors. Any other message coming from the White House, regardless of party affiliation, will fundamentally be injurious to both the Israelis and the Palestinians. The notion from some American politicians who have said that the U.S. should not have a greater desire for peace than the parties to the conflict is shortsighted. The U.S. has serious stakes in the region and responsibility toward its allies. The lack of peace will continue to undermine the U.S.’ interest, erode its influence and jeopardize its role in shaping the outcome of the multiple upheavals sweeping the region in the wake of the Arab Spring. 

To advance the prospect for peace between Israel and Palestine, the next president must take a number of critical steps. First, within a few months after the election, the President should visit Israel and Palestine and directly address the Israeli people as well as the Palestinians, strongly suggesting that only peace will serve their greater interests. He must look into the eyes of the Israeli and Palestinian public and emphasize that the U.S. is committed to a two-state solution and will remain consistent and resilient until such a resolution is achieved. The president should also accentuate that the U.S. will use all means available at its disposal to advance the two-state solution and stress that further delay would only harden the many facts on the ground, especially the expansion of settlements, becoming irreversible and rendering any future peace agreement virtually impossible. 

Second, the President must carry with him a general framework for an Israeli-Palestinian peace based on prior agreements negotiated between the two sides, especially those achieved in 2000 (at Camp David between Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak) and in 2007-2008 between Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas. In both sets of these comprehensive negotiations, the two sides have been able to resolve the vast majority of the conflicting issues. In the 2007-2008 talks, then-Israeli Prime Minister Olmert stated both sides had come “very close, more than ever in the past, to complete a principle agreement that would have led to the end of the conflict.” These prior agreements should be placed on the table anew and modified in order to create a clear basis for negotiating a peace agreement with the U.S.’ direct participation. 

Third, to increase the framework’s effectiveness, a new internationally recognized special envoy of the caliber of President Clinton should be appointed with a clear presidential mandate to work relentlessly to advance the negotiating process while keeping a top level American official in the region to press on with the negotiations during the occasional absence of the special envoy. To avoid deadlocks, the rules of engagement should be based on an incremental agreement on various conflicting issues, ideally starting with borders. The Palestinians should abandon their precondition to freeze the settlements before they enter the negotiating process. An agreement on borders will in and of itself resolve 70 to 80 percent of the final status of the settlements and define the parameters of the Palestinian state. Such an agreement will also facilitate the negotiations of other conflicting issues, including the status of Palestinian refugees, Jerusalem, and Israel’s national security. Finally, the negotiations should not be open-ended; a timeline must be established, albeit with some flexibility, to prevent either party from playing for time. 

Fourth, it is imperative that the U.S. reaches out to other leading Arab and Muslim states such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, to exert pressure on the Palestinian Authority to make necessary concessions. Egypt must also be approached about beginning the process of influencing Hamas to change its open enmity towards and hardline policy against Israel. In particular, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood-led government should persuade Hamas to renounce violence as a tool by which to reach its political objective of establishing an independent Palestinian state and remove from its charter the clause that calls for Israel’s destruction. These Arab states, especially Egypt, have serious stakes in finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Indeed, any new conflagration between Israel and the Palestinians will impact directly and indirectly not only on their interests, but could also draw them into the conflict which they want to avoid at all costs given their own internal political combustion and uncertainty. 

Fifth, once the Israelis and Palestinians engage in negotiations, the U.S. should press both to immediately begin the process of changing their public narratives about each other by mutually ending acrimonious statements and expressions of hatred and distrust. To that end both governments should encourage universities, nonpartisan think tanks, and media outlets to deliberate publicly about the psychological dimensions of the conflicting issue and begin a process of changing mindsets about some of the inevitabilities of reaching an agreement. 

Even when the leaders reach an agreement behind closed doors, they cannot simply come out with pronouncements of concessions that were made by either side without first preparing the public. For example, an agreement on Palestinians refugees will of necessity entail the return of only a small fraction of refugees to Israel proper under family reunification, when in fact the vast majority of Palestinians still believe in the right of return. Additionally there can be no two-state solution without Jerusalem becoming the capital of Israel and Palestine, albeit the city will remain united, which will be difficult for the Israeli public to accept. For these reasons, changing public perception about each conflicting issue is central to ratifying any peace accord. 

Sixth, in reaching out to the Arab and Muslim world, the President should help reignite the Arab Peace Initiative (API) which still represents the most comprehensive solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The revival of the API remains critically important as even top Israeli officials, including the former head of the Israeli Mossad, Meir Dagan, have stated that the plan is central to resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict. As the whole region undergoes revolutionary change in the wake of the Arab Spring, restarting the API will have special importance in reaching a comprehensive peace and long-term stability. The creation of a “sovereign, independent Palestinian state,” which the API calls for, will greatly contribute to stabilizing the region. Indeed, various Arab and Muslim countries will begin to normalize relations with Israel and foster a lasting peace that will ultimately improve the lives of millions of ordinary citizens throughout the region. 

The Arab-Israeli conflict has been overshadowed in recent months by international concerns over Iran’s nuclear program, the bloody civil war which continues to rage in Syria and the unending insurgencies and terrorism that continues to plague many nations. Meanwhile, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is quietly simmering underneath the surface and is becoming ever more perilous. Israel continues to expand existing settlements and legalize others while the Palestinians remain hopelessly factionalized and aimless, unable to present a unified front to be taken seriously, and thus, leaving the festering conflict in the hands of radicals on both sides. 

For either President Obama or Mitt Romney, finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should remain a top priority. The status quo is explosive and it can only lead to a new violent and death-defying confrontation that will leave no victors behind but will result in horrifying destruction and will irreparably deepen the already existing divide between the two sides.

The United States has both the interest and the responsibility to put an end to the Israeli-Palestinian self-consuming conflict in a region where the stakes for all concerned cannot be overestimated.

Peace day celebrations between Israelis and Palestinians

https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10151226624619859

If we replace the damned career hardened politicians from both sides, and put mothers with smaller children in governance... peace would be imminent. People want peace and want to get along.. but hardened politicians keep the wedge and deepen the chasm.

Mike Ghouse on Hannity show with Reza Kahlili

Today, I was with Sean Hannity and Reza Kahlili (former member of Iranian national guard and under cover CIA operative) today. I was clear - War is not the option, it will screw the Average American more than any one else, and will destroy America besides guaranteeing insecurity for Israel for centuries to come.

On my part, I will do whatever it takes to protest bloody war. The screwed up heads Netanyahu, Obama/Romney and loose mouth Ahmedinejad will be fine - its the average Iranian, Israeli and American that will be screwed.

Has there been a time when CIA and Mossad intelligence was right? 

They have been wrong all the times and so is this time.

I am against war, especially the ones based on falsities, and will do every thing I can to protest it. 

Sean Hannity, Mike Ghouse & Reza Kahlil

About Iran Israel conflict - the drums of war

Wednesday at 5 PM on August 22, 2012Check for local listings - http://www.hannity.com/stations

Mike Ghouse Talking points   

• The war would be disastrous to Israel, Iran and America.
• Even if you don't care about Israel and Iran, we would be the losers.
• More Americans will lose homes, jobs and everything they got.
• The War Monger SOB’s on the other hand will enrich themselves.
• No personal loss to Obama/Romney, Netanyahu, Ahmedinejad and others.
• Ahmedinejad did not say, annihilate Israel, it was cooked up
• The ordinary folks - Israeli, Iranians and Americans will be screwed.
• The information of Mossad and CIA is cooked up to please the big dogs.
• When was the last time CIA and Mossad were right?
• Animals settle scores by locking horns and humans settle through dialogue
• War is evil, and it should not happen.
• Is this an elaborate scheme to weaken America?
• We let America down when Bush went to war, not any more.
• I will stand up against war, it is the patriotic thing to do
• I hope you would aggressively stand up against war

Share your talking points in the comments below

Should we trust Ahmedinejad? Netanyahu?

Nopes!

Both are faking to protect their nations, but will ruin it unless people dump them.

Iran’s defense industry achievements will never be used for conquest: Ahmedinejad

“We do not (seek) the progress of the defense industry for conquest and domination over other countries: Ahmedinejad

“We have to reach the point where the country’s defense capabilities stop all the tyrants and hegemony and even make them back down.”

http://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-begins-construction-of-300-million-anti-aircraft-missile-base/

http://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-determined-to-attack-iran-before-us-elections-claims-israels-channel-10/

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israeli-defense-officials-consult-with-rabbi-ovadia-yosef-over-iran-strike.premium-1.459547