View of Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives

Quick update on new things for Euphrates!  I returned last month from three weeks in Israel, the West Bank, and Jordan planning a student study abroad to the region for 2011.  I toured with a former student of mine, Kateland Oakes, and her mom, Sue Oakes, who is a co-founder and director of the Center for Ecological Living and Learning  (CELL).  CELL focuses on “Sustainability through Community,” and runs study abroad programs to Central America and Iceland.  Because of Kateland’s interest in the Middle East after taking my classes at Principia, she connected me to her family, and we started discussing an abroad to the Middle East based on the same theme of sustainability.

We had an amazing and very full trip!  It had been three years since I had been to Israel and the West Bank, and it was wonderful to revisit my old stomping grounds in Birzeit and Jerusalem.  We also covered a lot of new ground in northern Israel to visit the headwaters of the Jordan river, to see the holy sites around the Sea of Galilee, and learn first-hand about border issues with Lebanon and Syria.  It was Sue’s and Kateland’s first trip to the region, and it was inspiring to see what an impact seeing the situation for themselves had on them.  We were all drinking in the beauty and mystery of the land, the warmth of Palestinian and Israeli hospitality, and the hope retained by so many individuals on both sides for a non-violent end to the conflict.

We had some remarkable examples of how safe and cared for we felt throughout the trip.  Several times in the West Bank, Palestinians went out of their way to make sure we made it to where we needed to go.  When we were lost after dark on a dirt road trying to locate an Israeli checkpoint, one Palestinian gas station attendant even went so far as to leave his work, and hop in our car with us, and drove for twenty minutes with us to ensure we made it there safely.  And he refused any money for a cab ride home!

Another highlight was visiting kibbutzim in the south of Israel, especially Kibbutz Ketura, on whose grounds is located the Arava Institute.  The stark, desert landscape provides a striking contrast to the green oasis of the kibbutz.  We enjoyed eating meals collectively with others and learning about the collective system in operation.

I’m really looking forward to planning this abroad, which will expose students directly to the region, its people, and its history, culture, and pressing environmental issues.

EI's Janessa Gans with Congressman Wally Herger (CA)

A couple weeks ago, I attended the first national conference of J Street, the new moderate voice–pro-Israel, pro-peace, on the Israel debate that has exploded on to the scene, to the elation of some and the chagrin of others, (namely, AIPAC.)  They had two plus full days of notable speakers, including Jim Jones, National Security Adviser, and a whole host of Israeli and Palestinian speakers.  The third day over 700 of us lobbied on the hill on behalf of strong American leadership to exert pressure on Israelis and Palestinians, (acknowledging that they will not do so on their own), to forge a solution–a final solution, that is–sooner rather than later.  I got to meet with the Congressman Wally Herger, (R-CA) of my hometown, Redding.  After my mom (another huge fan of J Street!) and I thanked him for nominating my brother to the Naval Academy so many years ago, tried to impress upon him that he has constituents heavily invested and involved in the Middle East, and the importance of a voice like J Street.  He wanted to know the differences between J Street and AIPAC, acknowledging that AIPAC “comes in here all the time”.  Would that J Street could be as big a player!

Interestingly, Tom Friedman today came out with an op-ed that suggests to do the exact opposite of what we were lobbying the Hill to do.  Friedman maintains that the U.S. wants the peace process to continue more than they do, and we should back off and go home.

I met a fascinating guy, Byron DeLear, who happened to be from St. Louis, had attended the Principia Upper School, and with whom I shared some acquaintances.  (I taught the past couple years at Principia College…)  His wife, Rebecca Tobias, works for United Religions Initiatives, a groundbreaking, interfaith institution. Byron writes a column for examiner.com, and has put together the best wrap-up of the conference of any I’ve read.  Check it out here!

Debunking Terrorism Myths

by Tom Quiggin

Co-written with Janessa Gans

President Obama appears to have dropped the ill-fated phrase— “Global War on Terror”, and for good reason. Terrorism is not war, but a political act which seeks to instil a sense of fear, vulnerability and divisiveness in its targets. Terrorism is the methodology of the weak against the strong and its only effective weapon is fear. If the population refuses to be intimidated, then the terrorist campaign is ineffective.

Those who advocate the use of political violence (terrorists) are usually lacking in physical resources, personnel, and money. They also usually have weakly defined ideologies and objectives. The irony of this situation is that terrorists can only have “power” if we grant it to them. If we give into this fear (an an individual or nation), then we are submitting ourselves to the power of this fear.

When we see the bitter divisiveness and vicious partisanship in public debates over security issues, we can see that al Qaeda’s terrorism campaign is having its desired effects. Fear and a false sense of vulnerability are driving the discussions, not rational thought or strengths. It’s as if terrorists have already won!

Debunking myths is a first step to quelling fear and ignorance at home, which at the same time would go a long way to desiccating the fertile ground in which terrorism grows. Terrorism can only grow on fear; it cannot grow on knowledge.

Myth #1: Large numbers of Muslims are terrorists.
False. Not every Muslim in the world is a terrorist out to destroy the West and take down freedom and democracy with it. Most still envy and desire greater freedom and wealth. Only a tiny number, somewhat less than .001% of the entire Muslim population, are actually willing to undertake a life of terrorism.

Myth #2: al Qaeda is strong—and growing.
Does this group and its ideology pose an existential threat to our very existence as has been claimed? Or is it nothing more than two cranky old men in a compound somewhere along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border? In 2001, Al Qaeda had some 3,000 plus members operating in the relatively benign environment of Afghanistan. The organization paid salaries, travel costs and family benefits and enjoyed a relatively high degree of loyalty and cohesion across its membership. Now, the core group of Al Qaeda consists of a maximum of 300 individuals operating in a hostile environment. Finances are tight and vicious infighting is occurring among current and former top leaders as to how Al Qaeda should face its future. And the future is not bright. Terrorist campaigns start….and they end. We’ve seen senior and junior die-hard al Qaeda vets walk away from violence as a means of advancing “the cause.” Al Qaeda’s core group will have to face one of two realities. It will either have to walk away from the violent part of its self-limiting ideology, or face generational extinction as their anit-Soviet jihad era leadership expires or is killed off.

Myth #3: Terrorists are Islamic fundamentalists.
Actually, Muslim youth are vulnerable to radicalization precisely because of their lack of religious knowledge, not because of their religious upbringing.
One of the greatest myths about Al Qaeda is that it is “represents Islam” and the grievances it has are somehow religious in nature. In reality, the grievances and objectives of Al Qaeda are political and social. Various Islamic concepts such as takfirism, and al wala wal bara etc. have been twisted to provide justification for the killing of innocents. To be certain, various religious themes are also used in appeals for recruitment and financing (hijra, the umma). But strangely enough, if you actually read the written works of key Al Qaeda ideologues and examine their objectives, they are primarily political. The ideologues talk of revolutionary vanguards, colonial oppression, the control of economies and the need for the leadership to inspire a series of revolutions to establish a new reality. The ideology of Al Qaeda is clearly political and it uses the language of the extreme left to express itself. In fact, most of the effective terrorists produced or inspired by Al Qaeda have come from low practicing or non-practicing Muslim families. In general terms, they have had secular, technical educations and their functional families have provided them with stability as they get these educations. They are more Marx than they are Mohammed.

Myth #4: Terrorists are insane. Who else would kill innocent people or kill themselves?
False. Like terrorists in most groups, Al Qaeda’s attackers are not brainwashed, drugged or suffering from claims of insanity. They tend to be middle class or better, and are educated in technical subjects at secular schools. They do, however, have a rather fixed, rigid and uninformed world political view and they see themselves as the intellectual and physical vanguards for new generations of revolutionaries. They’re also not irrational. They pursue their methods because they have seen that such methods sometimes work.

Myth #5: Terrorism should be fought with military means.
This is where GWOT got it wrong. The military should actually play only a small role. The Washington based RAND Corporation did an extensive study on how terrorism campaigns end and they showed that military counter terrorism campaigns were effective about 7% of the time. The tried and true Cold War DIME approach is more applicable (Diplomacy, Intelligence, Ideology, Military, and Economic). The Cold War response used all the assets of the state to confront and prevail in the face of a determined, but weak, ideology. This is the type of response required now.

The Role of the Public
Perhaps the greatest myth of them all is that the public has little to do with the struggle against terrorism. For one, terrorist attacks are usually carried out on the public rather than the entity against whom the group perceives it is fighting. But the terrorist act itself does not shape the future. It is how we respond to that event that determines the outcome. If we choose to make our own response, according to our principles and norms, then it is we who determines what the future looks like. On the other hand, if we react to a terrorist attack with fear, as the terrorists wish us to do, then we are empowering them. Terrorism can only work if we react, rather than respond. A response grounded in reality rather than myths is the only way to be effective.

Janessa Gans strives to allay Western fear of the Middle East, and restore Arab trust in the West in the aftermath of 9/11. A former U.S. official, she served two years in Iraq, and has lived and worked extensively throughout the Middle East. Gans is the Founder and President of Euphrates Institute (EI), a non-governmental organization dedicated to improving relations between the Middle East and the West. EI inspires new solutions for the region through individual awareness, action, and peace to build bridges between the Middle East and West. Gans also taught Middle East studies at Principia College from 2007-2009, and has published over a dozen articles on Iraq and the Middle East, including in the Christian Science Monitor and the Los Angeles Times. She has been interviewed on national and international outlets, such as CBS, CNN, Radio Netherlands, American Public Media, and Democracy Now. Gans holds a Master’s degree in International Policy Studies from Stanford University and a Bachelor’s degree in International Relations from Principia College.

September 11, 2004

I know a man here in Baghdad who is from New York and who lost 61 people from his neighborhood on September 11, 2001.  I asked him how he felt today.  He recounted that after 9/11, he went up to New York from Florida (where he was living at the time) to support his friends and their families, the guys from his neighborhood, many of whom, being firemen and policemen, were part of the unfolding events of that day.  He told me with tears in his eyes that they told him when they pulled up to the World Trade Center that they all knew that some of them would die that day; yet they did not question for a moment going in.  They went into those buildings, helped the disabled and the elderly and, with a joke and a smile, said, “Don’t worry, we’ll take care of you.”  He commented that it surprised him that the country and the world marveled at what they called heroism during these circumstances.  They didn’t consider themselves heroes; it was just what you do.  This was how they were raised:  duty, honor, and loyalty were everything.  This man told me no question 9/11 and those guys are the reason he is here today risking his own life in Iraq.

I so appreciate the reminder that acting with honor, risking everything, loyalty, and duty to God and our fellow man are not supernatural acts of heroism, but are just what you do, what God made us capable of doing.  I am grateful to be reminded that no loss can occur from such action, since we can’t really lose anything when we are doing what God would have us do.  I am constantly in awe, inspired, and humbled by the tremendous acts of courage, commitment, and love that I see daily here on all sides, Iraqi, American, European, etc.  I start the day greeting the gurkas that protect our compound day and night, which must be a terribly boring duty just to check badges and stand guard.  These gurkas who are so mild-mannered, polite, and cheery, but who are highly trained killers. (A Marine who tried to test the resolve of one of the gurkas by creeping up behind him almost had his throat slit in an instant.) I then make it to the Embassy where more than half of the political officers are married with kids at home — both women and men — who volunteered to serve in a war zone away from their family, work ridiculous hours and live in cramped conditions.  Although many express cynicism at times, I have not found one person who does not believe that he can make a difference here and who does not admit that that is truly why he is here.  I am fortunate to spend all day with Iraqis from all backgrounds, faiths, and experiences, ranging from returning expatriates who had fled Saddam’s regime and lived comfortable lives abroad but who returned to deplorable and dangerous conditions just to help rebuild their country, and others who stayed and endured the full brutality and hardships of the Baathist regime.  I am moved by not only the stories of their past and what they have endured but their unwavering commitment, grace, and hope for the future in the face of situations and conditions that do not seem to be improving.

Every day is 9/11 here.  Every day we are looking up at that World Trade Center, knowing that someone may die today, but it is just what you do.  You smile at the gurka, say “hooah” to the Marine, march up Saddam’s palace’s crumbled steps, throw on your body armor and helmet, and face the day.

His talk was entitled, “Terrorism:  From Fear to Knowledge and Solutions.”  And he definitely delivered on it–leaving the audience with a feeling of hope and empowerment.  The guy was nice enough to stay two more hours to take questions, and then drove an hour the next morning back to campus to speak to two of my Summer Session classes on “Rising Religious Fundamentalism” and “America’s Role in a Globalized World.”

Tom debunked many myths on terrorism, i.e. “No, suicide bombing is NOT sanctioned by Islam.”  And “Guess what?  Major terrorists largely come from good backgrounds:  educated, middle class, non-religious (or religious in name only) families.”  He also gave an over view of al Qa’ida’s decline over the past few years, and the importance of the DIME approach to combating terrorism:  Diplomacy, Intelligence, Military, Economics.  He said the military should only constitute about 7 percent of that equation, since terrorism is a political ideology and has to be defeated with ideas, not just with military might.

He also raised the important point that terrorists’ key aim is to intimidate the public and to instill fear in their minds.  So, if we don’t respond with fear, then their objective has failed.  Tom reinforced how vigilant we should be in not allowing that fear to take over our thinking or our society.  I found that to be an extremely helpful and important point!

Here is a very incomplete bio.

Tom Quiggin is a 20 year veteran of the intelligence world and has worked in an intelligence capacity for a number of agencies such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the International War Crimes Tribunal, the Privy Council Office, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the UN and the Canadian Armed Forces. He is also a court qualified expert on jihadism. His area of expertise as noted by the Court in 2005 was the “Structure, organization and evolution of the global jihadist movement.” He has a recently completed sole author book on national security intelligence requirements (Seeing the Invisible: National Security Intelligence in an Uncertain World, Feb 2007). He has also written numerous book chapters and articles on security, intelligence and terrorism in the UK, Germany, the Netherlands, The USA, Singapore and Canada. He is currently an Adjunct Senior Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, NTU, Singapore.

I wish Tom were on the news every night or in Washington briefing our experts on terrorism.  But perhaps even more so, I hope he’ll go on the road and take his exciting and informative briefing to the masses, who would learn so much from what he has to say.  He’s able to see connections in a broader and deeper way, given his varied and diverse background in so many fields and regions.  He’s an invaluable asset to our struggle to combat terrorism in the most effective manner.  Spread the word!

Here’s a short write-up about a similar talk he gave…expert184207.html

Best to all…

Janessa

Rabbi David Louis

I should issue a disclaimer up front since this blog title belies what follows.  It’s not a concise entry of a particular rabbi commenting on Iran and Obama.  It’s actually a jumble of so many things I have wanted to write about the past few weeks and yet have not.  (Blame it on grading finals, summer travels, camping, insert excuse of your choice.)

There are so many interesting developments on Middle East issues right now that reducing them to pithy blog entries seems beyond challenging.  Does anyone else sense that major shifts are emerging?  It seems we are headed toward a basis of reconciliation rather than divisions, building on mutual understandings rather than assumptions and prejudices, and focusing more on the underlying principles of democracy and of the Golden Rule.

In that vein, and in forgiveness of the fact that I’m sitting in a San Francisco coffee shop about to rush off on another adventure, I’ll give you a smattering of things that have been on my radar screen the past few weeks.  (And with the hopes that I will return to flesh these out in the next few days—insha’allah!)

Two days ago, I attended a Bible conference at Asilomar, to which I travelled, interestingly enough, to hear a Rabbi.  (Bible conference – Rabbi–get the irony?)  I had the opportunity have lunch with him, Rabbi David Louis, and hear him speak.  A remarkable, spell-binding, inspiring, ground-breaking figure.  I had chills and was moved beyond words.  He is a deep, spiritual, loving character, working for unity between Jews and Christians on the basis of metaphysics.  He “gets” it at the deepest level and sees beyond human divisions.  Here are a few links:

–Rabbi Louis article and video interview on Christian Science.

Another major development–a true stake in the ground–was President Obama’s speech in Cairo on June 4.  I hope that everyone gets the chance to listen or read it.  His comments address head-on issues and challenges I heard so often from individuals in the Middle East.  Obama appeals to the better part of each of us–individuals in both regions–to move forward on the basis of the fundamental principles of decency that unite all mankind.  It’s a watershed speech, and truly lays the groundwork for a new chapter in this most contentious and fragile relationship in the world–that of Middle East and West.

Cairo speech text and video

Finally, Frontline last night aired a wonderful program, Egypt: Middle East, Inc.

It follows a competition for young entrepreneurs sponsored by an organization, INJAZ, I encountered at last year’s Middle East World Economic Forum in Cairo.  They are doing wonderful things and PBS’s production is very well done.  Check it out!

Well folks, that’s all for now.  Warm greetings to all and wishing you a wonderful summer!

Following Bacevich’s lead, perhaps on this day we can begin thinking of how we can support our soldiers in meaningful ways by becoming truly engaged with our nation’s foreign policy and its actions abroad, not just by placing stickers on our cars.

Here is a brief excerpt:

BILL MOYERS: You say, and this is another one of my highlighted sentences, that “Anyone with a conscience sending soldiers back to Iraq or Afghanistan for multiple combat tours, while the rest of the country chills out, can hardly be seen as an acceptable arrangement. It is unfair. Unjust. And morally corrosive.” And, yet, that’s what we’re doing.

ANDREW BACEVICH: Absolutely. And I think – I don’t want to talk about my son here.

BILL MOYERS: Your son?

ANDREW BACEVICH: Yeah.

BILL MOYERS: You dedicate the book to your son.

ANDREW BACEVICH: Yeah. Well, my son was killed in Iraq. And I don’t want to talk about that, because it’s very personal. But it has long stuck in my craw, this posturing of supporting the troops. I don’t want to insult people.

There are many people who say they support the troops, and they really mean it. But when it comes, really, down to understanding what does it mean to support the troops? It needs to mean more than putting a sticker on the back of your car.

I don’t think we actually support the troops. We the people. What we the people do is we contract out the business of national security to approximately 0.5 percent of the population. About a million and a half people that are on active duty.

And then we really turn away. We don’t want to look when they go back for two or three or four or five combat tours. That’s not supporting the troops. That’s an abdication of civic responsibility. And I do think it – there’s something fundamentally immoral about that.

Again, as I tried to say, I think the global war on terror, as a framework of thinking about policy, is deeply defective. But if one believes in the global war on terror, then why isn’t the country actually supporting it? In a meaningful substantive sense?

Where is the country?

Yesterday too, I re-watched the documentary Encounter Point with my students of my History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict class.  It is an incredibly powerful film, portraying a group of Israelis and Palestinians, who have lost loved ones due to the conflict, and yet are championing reconciliation, non-violence, and true peace.  If those very individuals who have lost the most to this conflict can put their fears and tragedies behind them and work together, why can’t the leadership?  These are the true unsung heroes, whose efforts deserve American attention, support, and bolstering.

From the Encounter Point website, “If you lost your loved ones to violence…If you spent ten years in prison…If conflict drove you from your home…Would you seek revenge?  Or would you struggle for peace?”

Encounter Point

We came back with ten hours of footage we now get to

Former Iraqi Prime Minister Ja'fari and Janessa Gans

 wade through to put together a short “teaser” video to help secure funding for a return trip in the fall to finish filming.  Would love to hear your feedback on the theme and the ideas!

The dictator in Iraqi hearts must be toppled

Real change requires shifts at the individual level nudged by programs that focus on respect and accomodation.