18518 items (18518 unread) in 36 feeds
news_mainstream_english
(3469 unread)
news_alternative_english
(4452 unread)
news_alternative_hebrew
(269 unread)
blogs_israel_english
(2070 unread)
blogs_lebanon_english
(238 unread)
blogs_palestin_english
(161 unread)
blogs_usa
(2764 unread)
blogs_others
(3685 unread)
blogs_iran_english
(1410 unread)
Debate over Museum of Tolerance - an exchange
By
Bradley Burston, Haaretz Correspondent
Tags: museum of tolerance
Dear Rabbi Hier,
It saddens me to find myself in opposition to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, whose goals and good works I have long supported.
But I have an honest and personal disagreement with a decision the center has taken, the location of the Museum of Tolerance on a Muslim burial ground.
I detailed my objection in an article entitled Dividing Jerusalem, one bad wall at a time. I noted that in the past, SWC had worked diligently and admirably in protecting the sanctity of cemeteries, in particular, that of the unmarked Jewish graves of Auschwitz.
You responded with a letter headed "Museum of Tolerance is a beacon of light, not a wall." You begin by saying that I deliberately hid the fact that the land was given to the Simon Wiesenthal Center by the government of Israel and the City of Jerusalem, who presented petitions to the Supreme Court in support of the Museum of Tolerance Jerusalem.
It remains unclear to me why I or anyone else would want, deliberately or otherwise, to hide that fact. But, since you brought it up, here's something else that I did not include: In an interview with the Jerusalem Post in February, 2006, when you said that the plot of land was not considered a cemetery and was given to the center in good faith by the government of Israel and the Jerusalem Municipality, you went on to say:
"We never would have accepted a site if the government of Israel or the Jerusalem Municipality had said it was a Muslim cemetery."
"We would have laughed. It would have been preposterous. We never would have accepted it."
I believe you. Just as I still believe that as soon as bones began to be unearthed at the site, it was time to recognize that the idea of building a Museum of Tolerance over a cemetery - whether Muslim, Jewish, Christian, non-denominational or animist - is, at its root, preposterous.
The same 2006 Post article, citing the Israel Antiquities Authority, notes that "The authority has already removed 250 skeletons and skulls from the site and has reported to the court that the cemetery dates back centuries and that there are at least five layers of density of graves there."
You have marshaled learned arguments to prove that the land is no longer legally sacred to Muslims.
But do you truly believe that Muslim individuals, who have come forward to state that their ancestors were buried there, are lying? Do you believe that they do not, in fact, consider this land sacred, or that their dismay over the museum plan is unjustified?
You have said that many of the critics of the plan are extremists, and that is true.
But seriously, on the most basic, human level, can you say in all honesty that you cannot understand why many Israeli citizens, moderate, tolerant Jews, Muslims and Christians alike, are vexed by the concept of a Museum of Tolerance built on a graveyard?
You have spoken eloquently and convincingly of the potential importance and contribution of the museum.
But you have not made one compelling argument for preferring the Mamilla site over other possible building sites in Jerusalem.
Finally, you have stressed that the bones found during construction were between 300 and 400 years old, the graves unmarked.
Are you telling us that in another 300 or 400 years, it will be all right for the Catholic Church to go ahead and re-build the convent near Auschwitz that you so strongly opposed 20 years ago?
Are you telling us that there is a statute of limitations on memory?
People of good will in Jerusalem and its environs, intelligent, sensitive, tolerant Christians, Muslims and Jews, want to support a museum like this. These are exactly the kinds of people the museum needs to attract. These are exactly the kinds of people you need to listen to.
They are telling you that your flagship project may have lost its moral compass.
They are telling you that for all of your good will, this project, and, no less, your legacy, are in clear danger of defeating their own purpose.
at some stage the people stop caring what you call it.. i remember the fading away of the second intifada.. we only really heard that the intifada was over when the palestinians were threatening a third one.. i remember thinking - when did the second one end?now there is talk of the end of the hudna in gaza.. the delicate ceasefire that brought so much imrpovement to the lives of many but wasnt enough to move the region to the next step of political engagement..does it still need to "collapse"? does it still "exist"? do we really care if it does or maybe we just want things to improve? is anyone asking us?!?!?anyway - someone else who wasnt asked too much other than to confess having spied for israel was iranian blogger - hussein derakhshan .. who has apparently been arrested for blogging.. i want to spell out his name because this cyber speaker is yet another one who has now been silenced by the regimes of this region..his recent posts seem very quasi pro-ahmadinejad.. but if you dig a bit deeper - u may (who knows) spot a difference in approach.. or maybe not..in any event - this too is a name that we should note.. interesting that wikipedia hasnt captured this development.. blogging may seem to some of you like just a chatty chest unloading.. but its a record of the people's voice as spoken by the people.. personally? i think its significant.. so do some others.. as the weekend creeps in - i wish us all a good one.. and hoping that gaza and its surrounds take it easy..

click to enlarge - the $250M complex is supposed to look amazing..
Is it out of habit or mental lassitude that we continue to build the fence, which was begun many years ago? It continues on its weary way, meter by meter, costing billions, causing anguish to many, damaging private property, keeping the High Court of Justice occupied with the complaints it arouses, stirring demonstrations against it, and keeping the Israel Defense Forces busy. Does anyone still remember what the original purpose was of this physical obstacle, hundreds of kilometers long, stringing across the country? Who is taking a second look to see whether it really serves its intended purpose?
Many of us prefer to forget those terrible days when Palestinian suicide bombers were roaming through our cities and murdering Israeli citizens daily. It was in thosestressful days that the cry went out: "Keep them out! Build a fence, no matter what it costs! The fence around the Gaza Strip works, and we need a fence like it around Judea and Samaria!"
Then-Shin Bet head Avi Dichter said we needed such a fence, and Haim Ramon accused those who opposed it of being dinosaurs prepared to endanger human lives for the sake of their outworn ideologies. No politician could withstand this pressure. A human life is worth everything, and if it took hundreds of kilometers of fence to save one, so be it. Besides, this fence was supposed to separate Israelis from Palestinians once and for all. So this humongous, unprecedented project began, and it has continued on its not-so-merry way, winding over hill and dale, ever since. Palestinian terrorism from Judea and Samaria has in the meantime been defeated, our streets and buses have become safe again, but the fence project seems to have assumed a life of its own. Advertisement Billions are still being spent, our beautiful country is being defaced, great anguish is being caused to tens of thousands living in the vicinity of the fence, and it is high time that we ask ourselves whether this fence serves any useful purpose. Is it the fence, far from completed, that is keeping terrorism out of our cities, or is it the presence of the IDF in Judea and Samaria? There is good reason to believe that it was the IDF's entry into Judea and Samaria, after the Park Hotel massacre in Netanya on the night of the 2002 seder, that largely ended the terror, and that the IDF's continued presence in Judea and Samaria is still Israel's primary defense. Without that presence, terrorism would be striking cities in central Israel. If that is the case, the fence is worse than useless. It is no more than the product of momentary hysteria and a Maginot-line mentality that seized some of our politicians, who deluded themselves into thinking that terrorism could be "fenced out."
But what happens when the IDF's presence in Judea and Samaria is no longer necessary? Will we need the fence then, and should we therefore continue building it for that eventuality? That hardly seems a reasonable course of action. The IDF will not withdraw from the area until the danger of Palestinian terror has passed, and then no fence will be necessary. Continuing to build the fence is a waste of time and money, and only breeds anger and hostility. In this case, the fence does not make for good neighbors.
But some will argue that the fence around the Gaza Strip works. Well, hardly. The terrorists have found ways of outwitting our politicians. Terror is coming over and under the fence. That fence did not stop the Qassam and Katyusha rockets from raining on Israel's citizens in the south. The fence did not keep the Olmert government from finally surrendering to this terror and agreeing to a cease-fire with Hamas in Gaza. And the same thing will happen if the IDF withdraws from Judea and Samaria before the terrorists there finally have been uprooted. The fence will not keep terror away. If not controlled on the ground, it will return to Israel's cities - it will come over and under the fence.
Some of us want the fence not in order to keep terrorists out, but to keep Jews in. Or, in other words, in order to keep Jews out of Judea and Samaria ("the occupied territories"). But that will not work. The British tried to keep Jews out when they blockaded Mandate Palestine's shores and pursued the MacDonald White Paper policy to prevent Jews from purchasing land here. It didn't work. Nor will the fence.
The time has come to take a good look at this outlandish project. Does it make any sense to continue building it? And maybe we should begin considering dismantling what has already been built. Do our politicians have the courage to admit they made a mistake?
From: David Lehrer (AIES) [mailto:david.lehrer@arava.org]
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 14:16
To: 'foreign@sfchronicle.com'
Cc: Gershon Baskin; 'Libby Friedlander'; Hannah Schafer (AIES); Sharon Benheim (AIES)
Subject: Letter to the editor
To the Editor of the San Francisco Chronicle,
Your article entitled "Few results seen from Mideast teen peace camps" published on October 19th, does not represent the reality on the ground. There are numerous non-governmental organizations (NGO's) doing critical work here in the Middle East which allow Palestinians and Israelis the opportunity to work towards the common goals of an end to the military occupation in the territories and a peaceful resolution of the Arab Israeli conflict. The activities of the NGO's engaged in reconciliation are laying the ground work for trust and partnership in a renewed Middle East.
I cannot speak for all NGO's in the region but I can speak for my own organization, the Arava Institute for Environmental Studies. The Arava Institute is the premier environmental teaching and research program in the Middle East, preparing future Arab and Jewish leaders to cooperatively solve the region's environmental challenges. Together, faculty and students are advancing a critical common cause: a sustainable future for the region’s human and natural resources. The institute, located on Kibbutz Ketura in Israel, was founded in 1996 as a center for environmental leadership in the Middle East and since then has hosted Israelis, Palestinians, Jordanians and students from around the world in an academic study program now accredited by Ben Gurion University. There are over 500 graduates of our program. We are in contact with about 400 of them through our Arava Alumni Peace and Environmental Network (AAPEN). The alumni network hosts an annual alumni conference and sponsors workshops, internships and numerous grassroots trans-boundary environmental projects that the alumni themselves have created. At the Arava Institute, we are teaching students to speak a new language of trust and understanding between Arabs and Jews. Our alumni are carrying this message back to their home communities and given enough time and resources, will change the face of the Middle East.
The Middle East is not an easy place to work for peace. For every two steps forward, there is one step backward. Governments, both locally and world wide have failed to bring peace to the region. So far, neither have the non-governmental organizations but with enough time and resources, a true grass roots approach that trains and empowers future leadership on both sides can lead to the breakthrough we are all praying for.
David Lehrer-Executive Director
Arava Institute for Environmental Studies
Kibbutz Ketura, Israel
Dear Gershon,
Thank you for forwarding this.
I would be interested in seeing the actual study, how it was conducted, etc. I am currently writing my dissertation, a survey of long-term peace-building participation by hundreds of Israeli and Palestinian graduates of Seeds of Peace programs. I have work yet to do before releasing my findings, but I can certainly say even at this point that my findings are quite different from the results of this study, at least as represented in this article.
The article contains one important statement that is absolutely, verifiably, false. The article asserts that these programs have not produced a single "prominent peace activist." In fact, there are numerous graduates of SOP (and other international programs like Building Bridges for Peace, not to mention the many indigenous dialogue programs such as Neve Shalom/Wahat A-Salaam) who are, as adults, working as staff or trained facilitators for peace-building NGOs or volunteering in peace-building and cross-conflict initiatives. Graduates of Seeds of Peace and of Building Bridges for Peace have or are working or volunteering as adults for SOP, BBFP and similar programs, as well as for Peace Now, Search for Common Ground, Just Vision, IPCRI, student activist coalitions and dialogue programs at universities in Israel and abroad. Numerous graduates of these programs have gone on to obtain advanced degrees in the Conflict Resolution and International Affairs fields.
In addition--at least among SOP graduates, with whom I have worked and studied for many years--the rates of follow-up participation are starkly different than those cited from this study. I don't know how the study's authors managed to select a group of graduates in which 93% had no follow-up participation, but they would have had to be quite "selective" indeed. Over the first ten years of the SOP program's existence (1993-2003) approximately half of the program's 826 Israeli and Palestinian graduates participated in some of the many hundreds of follow-up activities, and more than 25% of them remained actively involved in 2003, years after their initial trips to SOP summer camp.
I am not attempting to present some sort of airbrushed portrait of unqualified success. The organizations I worked for and studied have repeatedly faced crises brought on by the ongoing occupation and escalating conflict, and by their own internal management issues. They also face a constant campaign of de-legitimization within both Israeli and Palestinian communities, but especially in Palestinian society. Just as there are numerous graduates involved in dialogue and cross-conflict activism, there are also numerous graduates who are not, and some who are stridently opposed. But the opposition is nowhere near the unanimous voice portrayed in this piece. While the study to which the article refers is correct in a general sense in its portrayal of significant resistance in Palestinian society to encounter programs and other forms of dialogue with Israeli Jews, its utterly bogus statistical claims make it seem more a part of that de-legitimization campaign, rather than any kind of scientific research.
Ned Lazarus
American
University
From: Erin Breeze erin@s-c-g.orgDate: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:42:55
-0600To: 'Melodye Feldman' melodye@s-c-g.orgSubject: SCG response to San Francisco Chronicle
ArticleDear Friends and
Colleagues, We wish to express to you our deep concerns about the article published October 19th in the San Francisco Chronicle by Matthew Kalman titled Few Results from Mideast Teen Peace Camps. Based on one unpublished report commissioned by an unidentified donor nation funding one specific Palestinian youth organization, (Pal Vision), the article makes the sweeping claim that programs bringing together Israeli and Palestinian teens have been “a waste of time and money.” We find the widespread claims this article makes about an entire arena of organizations and programs based on such limited evidence surprising, particularly from a newspaper of this stature, and we are concerned about the negative effect such an article may have on the important work being done by our organization and similar organizations around the world. We are therefore sending a letter to the editor to express our concerns and provide a much needed response to Mr. Kalman’s claims to set the record straight. Seeking Common Ground (note: not to be confused with the Washington D.C. based Search for Common Ground; www.s-c-g.org) is a non-profit organization based in Denver, CO, that works with teenagers from conflict regions worldwide. Our flagship program, Building Bridges for Peace (BBfP) brings together Israeli, Palestinian and American teens from diverse backgrounds from throughout Israel, East Jerusalem, the West Bank (Gaza prior to 2000), and the United States, through a yearlong leadership development and peacebuilding program. BBfP begins with a 2-week residential summer intensive (camp) held in Colorado followed by a follow-up program conducted in the region.
After 15 years of BBfP best practices and a wealth of anecdotal success stories, we have recently completed an unprecedented objective assessment of the program and its impact on participants. With a grant from the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), we have undergone a two-year pilot study, including evaluation conducted by outside evaluators from the University of Delaware and the University of Denver – the results of which clearly refute the claims Mr. Kalman makes in his article. This research, which is currently being compiled in a final report* that will be published and widely disseminated in December of this year, shows that as a result of their participation in the BBfP program:
Participants form friendships with the ‘other’ and alumni often maintain them over time (by email, phone, and, when possible, in person); Participants develop positive attitudes of the ‘other’ and alumni report influencing family members, peers, and colleagues to meet and work with the ‘other’ – including recruiting them to take part in BBfP or similar programs; Participants and alumni gain concrete communication and dialogue skills that they report using with friends, family members, and in their communities to build relationships and resolve problems; Participants and alumni report gaining a new way of thinking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict including greater empathy for and understanding of the perspective and experience of the ‘other;’ Alumni report feeling more empowered to take action in their communities, pursue educational and professional goals, and apply what they had learned at BBfP in these pursuits; Participants value the follow-up program and alumni seek opportunities to stay involved with cross-community peacebuilding work after their participation has ended; Participants and alumni find hope that there is an alternative to the current status quo in the
region.
Clearly, all of these conclusions contradict Mr. Kalman’s assertions. Among the many damaging claims made Mr. Kalman, we take exception with the following points: It fails to acknowledge that there are many different types of programs with different approaches and methodologies, goals and outcomes. Nor does it acknowledge other research and evaluation in the field.
It faults what it calls this “peace industry” as not successful by the measure of failing to “produce a single prominent peace activist on either side”. Most people-to-people programs are not seeking to produce peace activists per se but instead to impart communication, leadership, dialogue and other skills and to build relationships, reduce negative stereotypes, and improve attitudes and understanding between adversaries. The article’s use of this measure minimizes the importance that these programs have had on imparting precisely these skills to many young people who are emerging leaders in various fields necessary to the construction a of healthy, vibrant and peaceful society: education, the sciences, business, media, etc.
It fails to identify the methodology of the research Pal Vision conducted stating only that the results the report claims are based on 400 ‘surveys’ of Palestinian participants and counselors. No details of the type of survey design and analysis and who conducted the surveys is shared.
Furthermore, only three organizations are named among those presumably evaluated: Seeds of Peace, Kids for Peace and Breaking Borders. It offers no evidence to support