Fed up with the Whiners by Gideon Levy (Haaretz)

"The candle kids" grew up and became the "protest movement" of this war. The confused youth who sat crying with their guitars and candles in the city square in Tel Aviv after Rabin's assassination are now sitting in the Rose Garden opposite the Prime Minister's Office, no less confused, and seemingly protesting against the war - of course only after it ended.

Just as it was impossible to know what the candle kids wanted, it is difficult to understand what the reservists and the bereaved families want. Most of their complaints should be directed at themselves: Where were you until now? If it is only the demand that some officials go home, it's a waste of their time and ours. Clones of those who are deposed will replace them very quickly and nothing will change. Olmert, Peretz and Halutz will go home, and Netanyahu, Mofaz and Barak will come to power.

For the first time after many terrible years in which we killed and were killed for no reason, there are question marks hanging over the public discourse. That change should be welcomed. But those who examine the content of the new protest should not hold out great hopes. The arguments of the protesters come down to two main issues, both of them as narrow as the world of the reservist: the IDF wasn't prepared for the war, and the war was cut short.

On the first matter, many are responsible, and the second issue doesn't warrant protest. Much weightier and deeper questions hover in the air about why we even went to this war, how it could have been avoided, why is war our only language, what are the limits of power that can be used and where are we going now. The new protest movement is not raising those questions.

Even if this wave of protests succeeds, a commission of inquiry is established and two or three people even pay with their seats, nothing will change. Just as the protests of 1973 did not bring about the desired change, except for a few people removed from office, the protests of 2006 won't bring real change. Whining after the war is not a national agenda, and certainly not if it runs for its life from any of the main questions. If it is just the "orange" disengagement protesters in disguise, it even foretells new dangers.

Above all, the petition signers and sit-in protesters in the Rose Garden should ask themselves where they were until now. Except for the "oranges" among them, most voted Kadima, maybe Likud or Labor, many of them served in reserves in the occupied territories, dealt with their personal affairs and kept quiet. For years they took direct or indirect part in worthless national projects, from building the wall to the settlement enterprise and deepening the occupation. With their own eyes they saw how the IDF was turned into an occupying police force, bullying the weak but untrained to deal with the strong.

They protected settlers, saw the suffering caused by the occupation, were witness to or participated in abuse of Palestinians. The responsibility for the IDF's lack of preparation, therefore, is theirs, partly because of what they did and partly because of their silence. They cannot claim now that they were surprised by the IDF's failure to execute: they were there when the army changed its face. They knew all these years that checking IDs at roadblocks, invading bedrooms, chasing children in alleys and demolishing thousands of houses is no preparation for war.

They were supposed to understand that the occupation army's activities in the territories inspires great hatred of us, that Israel's rejectionists policies endanger it more than anything else and that the real test of the army is not in the casbahs. Even the home front's lack of readiness should not have surprised them: a country that abuses its weak at times of quiet will do so in times of war, as well. What is so new and surprising about all this?

The other matter, the halt in the fighting, certainly does not warrant protest, but actually a compliment. Instead of asking why the war broke out, the protesters are asking why it ended. If there is anything that the war's command deserves credit for it is its hesitation in the final stages of the war. It is a shame they did not hesitate sooner. And if we had continued the war, where exactly would we have ended up? It was the resolve, hubris and haste of the war's leadership in the first stages that were the original sin against which the protest should be directed.

Above all, it is depressing to find out that none of the protesters are raising moral questions. A protest movement that says nothing about the terrible destruction we wreaked in Lebanon, how we killed hundreds of innocent civilians and turned tens of thousands into impoverished refugees is by definition not a moral movement. Even after it has been proved that the excessive force was not effective, no protest has been directed at it. How long will we only focus on ourselves and our distress?

Is it too much to ask for the protesters, who are supposedly the cadres of the avant garde, to look for a moment at what we did to another nation? Why is it that after Sabra and Chatilla massacres, which were not even directly our handiwork, masses of people took to the streets and now nobody peeps about the destruction we sowed in Lebanon with our own hands, and for nothing?

With such protest movements, Israel does not need the silent sheep that has so characterized it in recent years. We should be fed up with such whiners. Maybe they are brave soldiers on the battlefield, but on the fields of protest they are nothing more than cowardly soldiers.

/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=755016

Gila Svirsky's letter in the New York Times

From Israel, a Voice Against the War (4 Letters)

Published: August 10, 2006

To the Editor:
Re "Left or Right, Israelis Are Pro-War'' (front page, Aug. 9):

There is a continuing, vocal and visible Israeli opposition to the war. Every day, the Women Against War Movement holds vigils in three cities: Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Haifa - yes, Haifa, even under shelling. Every Saturday, we hold mass marches through Tel Aviv, the most recent one 5,000 strong.

Several men have refused call-ups to serve in Lebanon, and a dozen young men and women were arrested on Aug. 8 for blocking the road to an air force base in an effort to prevent, in their words, the carrying out of more war crimes.

Haaretz is filled with articles criticizing the war not because it is going poorly but because the idea of preventing aggression by bombardment is both ludicrous and immoral.

These acts of criticism represent the views of thousands more, and if the war continues, they will also be out on the streets. Let's hope that it will end before that is necessary.

Gila Svirsky
Jerusalem, Aug. 9, 2006

The writer is co-founder of the Coalition of Women for Peace..

Saturday 5th August Demo in Tel Aviv

Uri Avnery of Gush Shalom, hero of peace, prophet and leader and almost lone voice in the Wilderness, whose analysis keeps us all focused. And Rahel, his wife... one wonders how much worse they may be feeling than the rest of us, since they have seen all this so many times before. Uri in the Palmach, fighting in the War of Independence. Subsequently the first Israeli to meet with Arafat, in Tunis -- and even recently, meeting with Hamas parliamentarians to try to make progress. A former Member of Knesset and journalist, who edited and published HaOlam HaZeh ("This World"), in the days when there was an alternative media. He has to live to 120 for we have no one to replace him.

THE CHOICE IS NOW

Jerusalem, the capital of a viable Palestine:

Whilst this is not the current "issue," it is in the wings waiting to take centre stage, as the current plan to create a buffer zone is intended to facilitate the Convergence Plan. 10.08.06.

Ehud Olmert's "convergence plan," detailed in an interview with Karby Leggett of The Wall Street Journal (April 12, 2006), has major ramifications for Israel-Palestine, regional peace and the international community. Olmert talks of "a large pullout from parts of the occupied West Bank within the next 18 months." He plans "to evacuate as many as 70,000 settlers…which could cost more than $10 billion – while annexing large chunks of disputed Palestinian territory. The goal … is to establish permanent, internationally recognized borders that will ensure Israel retains its Jewish majority for decades to come. Though he expects to carry out the plan without Palestinian input, he believes it ... could lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state and a negotiated peace settlement someday."

Of the 250,000 Israeli citizens living in over a hundred West Bank settlements, (not counting 200,000 settlers in occupied East Jerusalem), only one-third will face evacuation, says Leggett. "Many may be offered relocation to the large settlement blocs Israel plans to retain. ... Perhaps the most sensitive issue will be the question of Jerusalem. Palestinians claim the city as their future capital and say that must be reflected in any resolution to the Mideast's core conflict. The U.S. has generally supported the Palestinian position during previous peace negotiations."

Olmert ruled out sharing political control of Jerusalem and its holy sites: "Dividing Jerusalem will not bring peace, only more fighting," he said.

A glance at Map 1 shows Jerusalem sprawled midway between the northern and southern parts of the West Bank. To its west is Israel. To its east, the Judaean Desert –descends to the Jordanian border, dominated by the Maale Adumim settlement bloc. Contact between the northern and southern cantons – like contact with Gaza – will depend on Israel’s good graces. It is unlikely, to say the least, that the result will be the "viable Palestinian state" touted repeatedly by U.S. President George W. Bush since June 2002, when he introduced his "Road Map to Peace" and the Bush Vision.

The Economist, in an April 12, 2006 editorial on Jerusalem, disagrees with Olmert: "No peace is possible unless the city remains accessible, from both its east and west. At the very least, during this period of relative calm, Israel must keep its barrier as open as possible. Sealing in and cutting off the Palestinians of Jerusalem will only make another descent into violence more likely."

Leggett, in The Wall Street Journal article, comments on the expected Palestinian response to Olmert's plan: "Anger also could rise in the West Bank and Gaza, where many Palestinians see the pullout as an attempt by Israel to avoid negotiations and impose its will. Already, senior leaders of the militant Islamist organization Hamas … have called Mr. Olmert's plan a 'declaration of war.'"

Olmert mentions a $10 billion price tag to his "convergence" plan, and implies that Washington will fund it. If the U.S. complies, writes Leggett, it "will likely be seen throughout the Middle East as assisting Israel's bid to take permanent control of large settlement blocs and Jerusalem. The fear is that this would add to regional anger toward the U.S., complicating efforts to stabilize Iraq and promote democracy in other countries."

Olmert's convergence plan is intended to establish final borders, already visible in the form of the Wall. In their report "Under the Guise of Security,"1 Israeli human-rights organizations, BIMKOM and B'Tselem, detail how the Wall has been erected to create prime real estate and hasten expansion of the settlements (which are illegal under international law). Olmert's agenda highlights what peace activists have long been saying: the Wall is a long-term political border, rather than the "temporary security installation" claimed by Israeli military planners, when testifying at Supreme Court hearings.

As to Jerusalem, B'Tselem states: "The decision to run the barrier along the municipal border, and the weak arguments given to explain that decision, lead to the conclusion that the primary consideration was political: the unwillingness of the government to pay the political price for choosing a route that will contradict the myth that 'unified Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel.'" 2

In Greater Jerusalem, the settlement bloc of Maale Adumim and the E-1 development (Map 2) have huge strategic impact on Palestinian viability. Jeff Halper of The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (“ICAHD”) writes: "Since 40% of the Palestinian economy revolves around Jerusalem and its tourist-based economy, the E-1 plan effectively cuts the economic heart out of any Palestinian state, rendering it nothing more than a set of non-viable Indian reservations."

E-1 is the only undeveloped tract of land immediately east of Jerusalem, and was illegally annexed to Maale Adumim in the mid-90s. Israel is developing it and surrounding it with the Wall, so that the Maale Adumim bloc will completely divide the West Bank and prevent Palestinian contiguity. Olmert says development of E-1will go ahead, despite the disapproval of the U.S. State Department. Real estate boards there already proclaim "Nof Adumim."

Maale Adumim, too, maintains frantically defiant growth. In a Real Estate supplement of Haaretz (Spring 2006) we read: "Maale Adumim continues to mushroom: The award winning 'model town', just ten minutes by car outside Jerusalem, just keeps on growing. This is the community – now approaching the 40,000 mark – where … a large shopping mall, four swimming pools, top quality religious and secular schools and communal facilities […are] coming up in a few months: 76 totally new units, coming off the drawing board and into an eagerly awaiting market."

The building of 3,500 units on E-1 also precludes natural expansion by Palestinians of East Jerusalem onto the last remaining open land. Likewise, the Jewish settlement of Pisgat Ze’ev in the city’s north isolates Jerusalem from Ramallah, just as Har Homa (“the mountain wall”) settlement in the south, fortified by the Wall, damages the vital Bethlehem-East Jerusalem-Ramallah economic salient. Where the Palestinian areas are concerned, de-development is the name of Israel’s game.

The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (”OCHA”) issued a report in February 2006: Access to Jerusalem – New Military Order Limits West Bank Palestinian Access,3 stating: "As the Barrier nears completion around Jerusalem, recent Israeli military orders further restrict West Bank Palestinian pedestrian and vehicle access into Jerusalem. These orders integrate the Barrier crossing regime into the closure system." The report details humanitarian impacts on Palestinian hospitals in East Jerusalem (Augusta Victoria has closed 30% of its beds, Makassed 40%), saying that the new military orders, "constitute an additional tightening of Palestinian movement. Prior to the institution of the closure policy in 1993 which limited Palestinian access into Jerusalem, [it was] the economic, political, medical, religious, educational and cultural centre for Palestinian lives in the West Bank. The new military order combined with the Barrier completion will physically seal off Jerusalem from the West Bank: accessing Jerusalem will become indistinguishable from accessing Israel. … Approximately 60,000 Palestinians cross through the checkpoints daily – to and from their destinations. Neighbourhoods are separated from each other; educational, medical and economic ties have been fractured. … The city is becoming largely isolated from Palestinian communities in the West Bank."

Security is always a useful alibi in a militarised society, where a political agenda may be served by inciting fear and promoting violence. Amir Cheshin (Mayor Teddy Kollek’s adviser on Arab Affairs until 1993), in Municipal Policies in Jerusalem: An Account from Within (Passia, 1998), describes the policy in the 1970s: "The main idea behind the land appropriation was to isolate East Jerusalem from the West Bank and to create a ring of Jewish neighbourhoods as an urban buffer between the two." The Wall in Jerusalem, then, becomes a fulfilment of longstanding policy. No surprise therefore that the planned route around the city, 75 kilometres long, has only 5 kilometres on the "Green Line" (the 1949 Armistice Line).

All this represents basic strategy: Israel intends to withdrawal unilaterally from minor areas in order to keep geopolitically strategic ones, especially Jerusalem and other blocs. The intention has always been to undermine Palestinian viability while controlling demographics. Jeff Halper's "matrix of control" is another name for this strategy.4 It is no coincidence that the Wall has grabbed the best farmland and most of the water ("Security or Greed?" asks Avraham Tal in Haaretz, April 20), and has destroyed all economic interfaces and market towns (Nazlat Issa, Qalqilya, Mas'ha, A-Ram, Abu Dis and Al-Azariya), while Israel has marginalised the Palestinian transport system.

The political die has been cast, and Israel is officially entering the world community as an Apartheid state, with unilaterally-determined, colonialist borders set in concrete, delineating a non-viable, truncated Bantustan version of Palestine, which will be trapped and stifled in the bear hug of Big Brother Israel. All of which is being accomplished with American and European complicity, contrary to international law and human rights.

Whilst it may be easy for the pro-Israel lobby to cry "Anti-Semite!" one hopes world leaders will wake up and recognize their own denial of facts that have long been staring them in the face, while peace activists have gone blue repeating the warnings.

The past 38 years of occupation have been used to put belligerent facts on the ground – facts which could be reversed at a price, if the political will exists. But Ariel Sharon's coup de grace, the Bush-Sharon Letter of Understanding (April 2004), has granted Israel carte blanche to avoid peace negotiations leading to a viable Palestinian state. Since "redeploying" from Gaza, Israel has neither implemented its commitments to Condoleezza Rice (no Gazans work here or travel to the West Bank) nor held negotiations with Abu Mazen. It has not enacted any trust-building measures at all. Its soldiers continue with impunity to kill Palestinian civilians on a daily basis. While the latest suicide attack, on April 17 in Tel Aviv, has traumatized Israel yet again, we should not forget, as Amnesty International reminds us in its press release condemning the bombing: "Yesterday's attack brings to 15 the number of Israeli civilians killed by Palestinian armed groups since the beginning of this year. In the same period Israeli forces killed some 75 Palestinians, many of them unarmed and including more than 15 children."

To quote Dov Weisglass (an adviser to Ariel Sharon and now to Olmert), Israel has "put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger." It has deliberately weakened and undermined Abu Mazen. The Saudi Initiative, offering regional integration and full peace in exchange for the '67 borders, has been ignored. Completely. Twice.

The intention is to make the Palestinians force Hamas to change its attitude towards Israel as part of the broader, perpetual intention of forcing the Palestinians to accept the lot that Israel assigns them. Hamas is willing to recognize Israel beyond the 1967 borders on a long-term unofficial basis, in exchange for an extended ceasefire – a ceasefire it has maintained for over a year, in spite of all. But the 1967 borders are precisely the anathema that unilateralism intends to escape. Those borders, which would cede the Palestinians 22% of historic Palestine, just might give them, including all those returning refugees, a chance for real statehood and a decent life.

Jailed Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti said of Olmert's plan (in a YNet interview on April 15): "This plan attempts to eliminate the intention to establish an independent Palestinian state. … [I]t is impossible to achieve trust before the occupation ends and we establish an independent state with Jerusalem as its capital, the refugees will return, all prisoners will be released, and our people will enjoy freedom and independence." It is the Palestinians, he said, who can't find a partner for peace. He accuses Israel of using the Hamas victory as a convenient pretext, “because negotiations have been paralyzed for six years at least, and Israel even assassinated President Yasser Arafat, even though he complied with all the international conditions for peace.”

Again, The Economist: "If the barrier really is just for security, Israel … could stop the incessant encroachment of Jewish neighbourhoods into Palestinian areas. But so far its main concern seems to be to ensure that this conquest of Jerusalem be the last one."

Next year in Jerusalem? A Jerusalem where the Old City already houses 41 settlements, with plans to develop 33 more housing units near Herod's Gate? A Jerusalem with almost as many settlers as Palestinians (200,000 : 230,000)? A Jerusalem where ethnic transfer is the name of the game? Where the values are pride and hubris, greed, lust, fear and covetousness? A Jerusalem which secular Israelis have increasingly abandoned? A Jerusalem where separation is enforced and co-existence nullified?

A ten year old child once wrote about the hungry of the world: "We have got to understand that they dream our dreams and we dream theirs." Her dream then was to end world hunger by the year 2000. An Israeli bulldozer killed her, three years ago. When she died, her mother wrote: “Rachel was filled with love and a sense of duty to her fellow man, wherever they lived. And, she gave her life trying to protect those that are unable to protect themselves.”

So who, now, will stand up for a Free Palestine? The choice is now. Ongoing conflict and official apartheid, or finally, once and for all, a real peace. Finally, a viable Palestine. It's our choice.

ICAHD STATEMENT ON LEBANON

END THE WAR!

END THE OCCUPATION!

END STATE TERROR!

END AMERICAN EMPIRE!

ICAHD, the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, condemns all attacks on civilians, whether by Israel, the Palestinians or Hezbollah. We recognize Israel’s ever-repressive Occupation as the main source of conflict and instability in our region. Had Israel taken the many opportunities it had to secure a just peace, the peoples of the region would never have reached this point of despair and futile violence. Israel believes it can achieve "quiet" and normalcy through military power while retaining its Occupation, encouraged and protected by the US. This is the true convergence: Israel’s Occupation in return for an active Israeli role in expanding American Empire.

Israel’s disproportionate attacks on both Gaza and Lebanon, on the pretext of freeing Israeli soldiers, is intended to destroy any resistance to the imposition of the apartheid regime represented by Olmert’s "convergence plan." Indeed, the democratically-elected government of Hamas, which had been moving steadily towards a negotiated two-state settlement, constitutes the greatest threat to the perpetuation of Israel’s Occupation, as witnessed by Israel’s delegitimization of that government and its systematic campaign to liquidate Hamas leaders. Israel’s illegal and immoral use of collective punishment against the civilian population of Gaza, in which 3000 houses have been demolished in recent years and its months-long campaign of starving the local population into submission continues, must be condemned. ICAHD will work with the international courts to bring the military and political perpetrators of these crimes against humanity to justice.

Hezbollah, whose very existence comes by way of resistance to repeated Israeli invasions, illustrates how counter-productive are the attempts of Israel and the US to impose by force a "new order" on the Middle East, whose only rationale is to serve Israeli Occupation and American Empire. Without equating the two politically or in terms of power, both Israel and Hezbollah must refrain from attacks on civilian populations.

Israel, of course, could not have reached this point without American and European complicity. Indeed, American refusal to countenance a ceasefire only affirms Israel’s role as its military surrogate in the Middle East. Their shared aim is a Pax Americana over the region for which Israel will be allowed to keep its settlements.

The war must end immediately, all attacks on civilians must cease immediately and permanently and UN resolutions must be implemented. The international community, especially a complicit and passive Europe, must intervene. Israel, which holds some 9000 Palestinian and Arab political prisoners, must negotiate a meaningful exchange in return for its captured soldiers. Above all, Israel must realize that there is no military solution to the conflict in our region. Relinquishing its Occupation in favor of genuine negotiations with the Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese is the only guarantee of Israel’s security. America must cease to exacerbate regional conflicts for its own ends.

END THE WAR!
END THE OCCUPATION!
END ISRAELI STATE TERROR!
END ATTACKS ON CIVILIANS!
END AMERICAN EMPIRE!


[Photos at a demonstration at the U.S. Consulate, West Jerusalem on 31st July]

Open Letter to South African Jewry (see below)

I write to you as an Israeli living in Jerusalem, working for Peace.

The spiritual values taught in both Judaism and Christianity (and indeed Islam) tell us that war is not the Way, that only by actively seeking peace and honouring God's creation shall we fulfil God's word. All life is sacred and all life created (equally and to be equal) by God. Unfortunately, His people forget even the Ten Commandments, not to mention Tikkun Olam.

In the militarism that Israel has chosen, there is no emphasis either on negotiation or compromise or sharing or respect for The Other. This militarism (and its cursed sisters Racism, Fascism and Slaughter) is a plague destroying modern life. What would God say today? That we are sinning against him in this senseless slaughter of innocents, this increase in tension, fear, revenge and hatred. And we ignore Him.

I fear God might send us again out of Zion and bring down yet another Temple on us, for we are now far more sinning than sinned against.

So where are the strong spirits and lovers of life to lead us out of this wilderness? Or are there only sheep among us?

Go tell the Jews of South Africa that desecration of God's laws will undermine not only Israel's longterm existence, but also the standing of Judaism and international Jewry. If they could find it in themselves to sit with their enemies (Mandela was once known as a terrorist, no?), why are they now so silent? Why are they not leading their Jewish family here in Israel with experience and advice, bringing them too to the table? Telling them that negotiation works, where unilateralism can't. Why are they allowing Israel to follow this self-destructive line?

Please pass this letter to any rabbis you know. I strongly believe them to be delinquent in their spiritual duty to lead their flocks wisely and work with those in Israel seeking and working for peace.

I write this in biblical code, hoping against hope that this will penetrate those stiff necks and closed minds that are so proud and stubborn and self-righteous. They must listen to the still small voice and work for PEACE. Inasmuch as they do not, perhaps they haven't even thought deeply and meditated on what the conditions for peace are. What the tolerance, what the love. What the respect and ability to share, yeah even the last bowl of pottage or crumb of bread. We are all brothers. We are all one race. Dust to dust and ashes to ashes, from this miracle of creation we all depart. Each one of us dreaming of dying quietly in bed in old age, surrounded by love.

In this sinning of war, is abomination. This killing and Occupation harms us spiritually. As does the silence of the world. Where the healers? Where the peacemakers? Where the strong spirits to halt the evil and weakness that now threaten us all? Blaming others is not the Way. If we search our consciences, we know we sin. For the sake of a future Israeli people, please work for conflict resolution instead of war.


[The above was written in support of the call below, by South African Jews, now under attack by their fellow Jews:

THE MID EAST CRISIS: A CALL BY CONCERNED SOUTH AFRICAN JEWS:

Hundreds of thousands of refugees are fleeing their homes in Lebanon as a result of Israeli military actions. Mounting deaths and injuries, over half of them children, are disproportionately affecting one side in this unequal war. An entire infrastructure of a country recently recovering from decades of conflict has been destroyed once again. A humanitarian crisis so severe has been caused that aid agencies have had to beg Israel to open a corridor to allow for the delivery of aid to what remains of shattered lives. These are innocent civilian victims of an extraordinarily violent attack by Israel. They had no part in the actions to which the Israeli state claims it is responding and there is no moral justification for the appalling pricethey are being forced to pay by Israel’s action which is a contravention of humanitarian law.

For the most part, the response of the Jewish community here has been to endorse this aggression – either through active support or by remaining silent and failing to condemn it. For many, any means adopted by the state of Israel, including these extraordinary attacks, are acceptable or even warranted because they contribute to Jewish survival.

We differ strongly from this view. We believe that Jewish support for Israeli aggression threatens both the moral and physical survival of the Jewish people. The overt support and the silent echo-chamber around it robs us of our humanity and denies the lessons we Jews should have learned from our own history of oppression. Complicity, active or passive, in the subjugation of others also damages the credibility of the Jewish people, by seeking to identify all Jews with actions which people of goodwill around the world rightly find shameful.

As South Africans with a common heritage, both as Jews and as people privileged to be a part of the ending of an evil system of discrimination here, we have learned that the path to peace can never lie in killing and destruction. Peace is only possible when antagonists start talking on the basis of a just solution for all. The pain of the people of Lebanon and of Palestine will not achieve peace. It will only continue the spiral of violence which threatens everyone in the Middle East, including those among our fellow Jews who see this violence as a means to security. Only dialogue and compromise can secure the future. We appeal to all who share our commitment to a common humanity and our belief that our shared history imposes moral duties on us to join calls for the immediate cessation of hostilities.

We raise our voices for calm, sanity and the restoration of human values to prevail so that a properly negotiated peace can be achieved between all the people of the Middle East.

24 July 2006]