Author: jpf_24rvpl

It is with deep sadness that we announce the passing of our longtime friend and fellow editor, Murray Polner, who died May 30th at the age of 91. Murray has been a model for us over the past several decades. We have lost a kind, generous, and courageous friend, a gifted writer and editor, a pacifist and anti-war activist with a lifelong unshakeable commitment to peace and interfaith fellowship. We know no one who lived his beliefs more faithfully and persistently than Murray. We mourn his loss. We will do our best to uphold the high standards that Murray set for Shalom.

We have this tragic misperception that humanity is predisposed to violence. The truth is that humanity is predisposed to peace. The default position for humanity is that of conscientious objection to war and violence.

In our work at the Center on Conscience & War, this is proven to us daily, through our individual Conscientious Objectors. Science has proven it, too. This tendency for cooperation over competition is evident in daily life: On an average day, most people will witness countless acts of cooperation, kindness and humanity toward one another, and not one act of violence or competition.

[Rest of content formatted with proper paragraphs and spacing…]

I lack patience. I admit it. There’s my confession. I couldn’t sit through Pope Francis’s slow and plodding and polite speech to Congress, waiting for him to say something against the primary thing that that body does and spends our money on.

But finally he got there: “Being at the service of dialogue and peace,” he said, “also means being truly determined to minimize and, in the long term, to end the many armed conflicts throughout our world. Here we have to ask ourselves: Why are deadly weapons being sold to those who plan to inflict untold suffering on individuals and society? Sadly, the answer, as we all know, is simply for money: money that is drenched in blood, often innocent blood. In the face of this shameful and culpable silence, it is our duty to confront the problem and to stop the arms trade.”

No, he didn’t list the wars that must be ended or the bases that must be closed or the resources that Congress itself must stop investing in militarism. But he told the world’s top arms dealers to end dealing arms. Perhaps they heard his words as a mandate to end the arms trade by everyone other than the US, since the US of course only sells and gives away weapons for the sake of peace and progress. But the pope explicitly rejected those justifications.

Perhaps, instead, members of Congress heard a condemnation of the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia, which is using them to slaughter innocents. Perhaps they heard a warning not to promise $45 billion in new free weapons to Israel. Perhaps they heard a verbal slap in the face to a body that often debates the violence of the Middle East without acknowledging that the majority of the weapons of war in the region originate in the US.

Perhaps Secretary of State John Kerry, whose hand the pope shook on his way to the podium, heard a suggestion to transform the State Department into something other than a marketing firm for weaponry. Perhaps in combination with the pope’s comments on aiding refugees some listeners heard his call to those responsible for fueling the violence to address the results and to cease making matters worse.

Perhaps they even heard the shout of honesty in the line: “Sadly, the answer, as we all know, is simply for money: money that is drenched in blood, often innocent blood.” We do all know that, don’t we? But we’re told that it’s good for the world for weapons to be shipped to dozens of nasty governments. It’s for a balance of power. It’s for US jobs distributed across unnecessarily large numbers of Congressional districts. It’s to counter terrorism with greater terrorism.

Pope Francis brushed aside such logic and spoke the truth. Weapons of war — which are sold and shipped by the US far more than any other nation — are sold for profit. They encourage, initiate, escalate and exacerbate wars for profit. But in the end, I’m not sure such a remark was hearable by members of Congress. I’m not sure they weren’t secretly thinking of something else. Because they gave those lines in the pope’s speech a standing ovation. Did they mean it? Will the US corporate media ask them if they meant it, if they’ll act on it? Of course not. But perhaps we can.

So who “won” the Iran nuclear agreement? Millions were spent for a stream of TV, radio and newspapers ads in the “war” over Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. But one day, while surfing TV’s vacuous channels, I watched as a local reporter visited a Midwest diner and asked diners what they thought of the Iran deal. Most replied that they’d never heard of it.

Back in the real world, though, a bruising battle was on. Opponents of the agreement were indifferent to the possibility of more war, which Obama said would result if the deal was rejected — indifferent, I suppose, as long as their kids didn’t have to fight. Supporters were branded “Israel-haters” and worse, and several pro-deal Jewish Democrats were told they belonged in the ovens.

[Rest of content follows same formatting pattern…]

It may be a dumb question, but it’s nonetheless useful to ask: Are there any VIPs in the Imperial City and elsewhere who really care enough about unrestricted arms races and the wars they instigate?

When all is said and done, the recently-approved Iran nuclear agreement is all about ensuring that Iran honors its commitment not to develop nuclear weapons under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). But the NPT, which was ratified in 1968 and which went into force in 1970, has two kinds of provisions. The first is that non-nuclear powers renounce developing a nuclear weapons capability. The second is that nuclear-armed nations divest themselves of their nuclear weapons.

Article VI of the treaty is explicit on this second point: “Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”

What is the record of nuclear powers when it comes to compliance with the NPT? The good news is that there has been some compliance. Thanks to a variety of nuclear arms control and disarmament agreements negotiated among the major nuclear powers, plus some unilateral action, the world’s total nuclear weapons stockpile has been reduced by more than two-thirds.

On the other hand, forty-five years after the NPT went into effect, nine nations continue to cling to about sixteen thousand nuclear weapons, thousands of which remain on hair-trigger alert. These nations include not only the US and Russia (which together possess more than ninety percent of them), but Britain, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea.

Equally dangerous from the standpoint of the future is that these nations have recently abandoned negotiating incremental nuclear disarmament agreements and have plunged instead into programs of nuclear weapons “modernization.” In the US, modernization — projected to cost $1 trillion over the next thirty years — will include everything from ballistic missiles, bombers, and warheads to naval vessels, Cruise missiles and nuclear weapons factories.

Thus, despite the nuclear powers’ insistence that Iran comply with the NPT, it is pretty clear that these nuclear-armed countries do not consider themselves bound to comply with this landmark agreement, signed by a hundred and eighty-nine nations.

In the aftermath of the Iranian government’s agreement to comply with the treaty, would it not be an appropriate time to demand that the nuclear-armed nations do so? At the least, the nuclear nations should agree to halt nuclear weapons “modernization” and to begin negotiating the long-delayed treaty to scrap the sixteen thousand nuclear weapons remaining in their arsenals.

On a bright, sunny day in September of 1993, I stood on the White House lawn to watch Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat sign the Oslo peace accords in front of President Bill Clinton. At that moment, it was possible to suspend disbelief and imagine a two-state solution, with Israel and Palestine living side by side.

Twenty years on, Rabin and Arafat are dead, and so is the Oslo peace process — although politicians from Israel and the West are loath to admit this. Last month at the United Nations, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas said his government could no longer be bound by the Oslo pact, emphasizing Israeli settlement-building on the West Bank among his many grievances.

Abbas warned that the Palestinian Authority would halt all cooperation with Israel, which would require Jerusalem to resume full occupation of the West Bank. His remarks are a warning of serious trouble ahead. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was focused on denouncing the Iran nuclear deal, made only a pro forma reference to peace talks, along with a slap at Abbas.

There was little sign that the Israeli leader recognized the high cost to his nation of allowing the Oslo process to come to a formal close. Netanyahu’s worries about Iran are understandable given Iranian leaders’ frequent denunciations of ‘the Zionist state’ and insistence that Israel will cease to exist in coming decades. But Netanyahu’s obsession with the ayatollahs — who aren’t likely to ever attack the nuclear-armed Jewish state directly — seems to have blinded him to dangers closer to home.

Foremost among these is long-term Israeli rule over millions of disenfranchised Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. Rabin signed the Oslo accords because he recognized the risk of such rule. He warned in 1976 that it could lead to a form of apartheid. He also warned that Israeli settlements were ‘comparable to a cancer in the tissue of Israel’s democratic society.’ A fanatic advocate of those settlements shot Rabin dead in 1995.

With peace talks on hold, irrespective of who is to blame, the vast expansion of Jewish settlements convinces Palestinians — and the world — that Israel wants to keep the West Bank. The placement of settler towns and roads splits the area into cantons connected mainly by tunnels and bridges. An even broader network of dozens of ‘illegal’ settlements, built by radical youths and allegedly slated for dismantlement, is instead being gradually legalized by the Israeli government.

If Abbas’ security cooperation lapses, Israel will have to formally reinstate military control of the West Bank. That would be bound to provoke a major resumption of terrorist attacks in Greater Israel, provoking Israeli countermeasures, which in turn would guarantee more terrorism.

So rather than ignore Abbas’ words, the Israeli government should start thinking seriously about how to prevent such an outcome. Yes, Abbas has threatened to dissolve the Palestinian Authority before and failed to follow through but the death of the Oslo process may force his hand. It’s time for Netanyahu to pay attention. The best way to start would be to freeze the expansion of settlements that rule out any future agreement with the Palestinians. Otherwise, Israel will soon face a growing security threat from within.

Recent biographies of Leonard Cohen have attempted to explain how this shy Canadian poet-turned-songwriter achieved celebrity after the age of seventy. Sylvie Simmons’s ‘I’m Your Man: The Life of Leonard Cohen’ traces Cohen’s development from his first concert in New York in 1967, where his discomfort before the audience required three attempts to perform a single song, to the worldwide concert tours he undertook since 2008, which are famous for their length and the singer’s humility before his audience and musicians.

In her concluding chapter, ‘A Manual for Living with Defeat,’ Simmons praises Cohen for overcoming unhappy love affairs, depression, drug and alcohol dependency, financial woes, as well as his dislike of appearing before a public, to become a generous artist who never runs out of energy to write songs or please his audience.

Cohen has not only changed his life but also the subject matter of his poetry and songs. His early lyrics, with their emphasis on the artist’s unhappiness, alienation, and the ephemerality of love, earned him the title Duke of Doom at the start of his career. Beginning in 1985 with the album ‘Various Positions,’ however, Cohen’s songs express more positive sentiments — the possibility of reconciling our physical and spiritual natures, the peace that comes from surrendering to a higher power, the joy that derives from admitting our human limitations.

In many of his recent, more optimistic songs, Cohen incorporates stories and symbolism from the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament. A contemporary audience, largely secular, may not recognize such biblical allusions, but Cohen is quite purposeful in using them.

Cohen’s frequent allusions to the Bible should come as no surprise considering his upbringing. He is the grandson of a rabbi and was raised in the Jewish faith, which exposed him to the rituals, music, and literature based on Hebrew Scripture. His Irish nanny brought him to Mass in the churches of Montreal, where he sang Latin hymns while gazing at the crucifix and statues of the saints.

His upbringing in two religions enables him to celebrate Jesus, the Virgin Mary, and the holy men and women of Catholicism along with David, Samson, and the prophets. Cohen has also practiced Zen Buddhism for many years, even becoming a Buddhist monk and spending several years away from the public at Mount Baldy Zen Center.

Through his songs, Cohen tells us that there is no conflict between the religions of the East and the West. All are paths to inner peace, understanding of our mortal condition, and sources of consolation. The beauty of Cohen’s lyrics has often provoked comparisons with Bob Dylan. Both are, fundamentally, poets who have succeeded in turning their poems into popular music. But the religious impulse in Cohen’s work is much stronger and more constant. His songs demonstrate the common ground of Judaism, Christianity, and Buddhism. His best loved songs work toward a reconciliation of the human and the divine.

Last March, academics and former policy-makers during George W. Bush’s presidency gathered for a conference at Hofstra University, to provide a retrospective and preliminary assessment of the Bush II years. Many of its top officials, including George W. himself, refused to attend, deeming it a “hostile environment.”

This is in stark contrast to previous Hofstra presidential conferences, and it says something profound about the unpopularity of the Bush administration and its alienation from the academic community.

The most memorable exchange occurred in a plenary forum involving Porter J. Goss, a former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee who resigned in 2004 to become director of the CIA, and Amy Goodman, of Democracy Now. During the Q & A session, Goss criticized last December’s Senate committee report on the CIA’s use of torture as a cherry-picked document that consisted of a series of half-truths.

Goodman responded by quoting from Senator John McCain, who said that torture “damaged American national security interests and the American reputation as a force for good in the world.” Goss said he respected Senator McCain and what he had sacrificed for “our country,” but that McCain may not have read the report and did not have all the facts.

Goodman also asked pointed questions of John Negroponte, a former deputy secretary of state and ambassador to Iraq, who conceded that “torture is wrong,” and said he had urged caution before going into Iraq. When an audience member asked why, as ambassador, he had failed to reign in death squads allegedly supported by a colonel in the US Army, Negroponte responded by denying that the officer had backed death squads, and suggested that “war is hell.”

Carolyn Eisenberg, a professor in Hofstra’s history department, responded by stating that Bush’s decisions did not consider popular attitudes at the grass roots. The Bush doctrine implied the strong trampling over the weak, and she bemoaned the billions of dollars spent on war which could have been used to improve conditions domestically.

The conference provided a good beginning for a historical assessment of Bush’s presidency. It is imperative though to move beyond assessment, as Amy Goodman urged, and to hold Bush administration officials accountable for preemptive war, rendition, torture and the suspension of constitutional liberties, which, she argued, have unfortunately continued under Obama.

Benjamin Netanyahu has won again. He will have no difficulty putting together a solid right-wing coalition. But the naked numbers may be deceptive. What really counts is the fact that the Israeli electorate is still dominated by hypernationalist, in some cases proto-fascist, figures. It is in no way inclined to make peace.

It has given a clear mandate for policies that preclude any possibility of moving toward a settlement with the Palestinians and that will further deepen Israel’s colonial venture in the Palestinian territories, probably irreversibly.

[Content continues with analysis of Netanyahu’s pre-election statements, consequences for Israeli-Palestinian relations, and future implications for Israeli democracy and international relations…]

One thing is certain. The demand to fully enfranchise the Palestinians now suffering under Israeli rule will eventually prove irresistible. What happens after that, no one can say.

The Fellowship of Reconciliation (FOR-USA) joins peace-loving people around the world in celebrating the ratification of the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear weapons. Passage of the Treaty happened on an already auspicious date—the 75th anniversary of the United Nations—October 24th, 2020 when Honduras became the 50th UN member state to ratify the convention.

With this treaty, each ratifying country is telling the world to follow them in investing in peace and human security. On January 22, 2021 it will become international law. UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, commented that its passage represented ‘culmination of a worldwide movement to draw attention to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons.’

The treaty requires that signatories should never under any circumstances ‘develop, test, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess or stockpile nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.’ The accord also prohibits the transfer or use of nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices and the threat to use such weapons.

Nine nuclear-armed powers, including the United States, continue to stand unified against the treaty, and they should be ashamed. The message of this treaty is that the world must do more than just ‘reduce nuclear risks.’ The world must eliminate nuclear risks by eliminating nuclear weapons.

Emma Jordan-Simpson, Executive Director of the Fellowship of Reconciliation’s U.S. branch, expressed a note of optimism at the new international law. ‘In the face of potential backlash, the ratification of this treaty by 50 nations is evidence that millions of people across the world believe another world is possible. A billion more people represented by the additional countries that have signed this treaty, but not yet ratified it, represents a formidable momentum toward the rejection of the lie that safety and security can only be achieved through the build-up of world-destroying nuclear weapons.’

‘The world is being ravaged by a lethal pandemic, the effects of which could have been mitigated to some degree by the resources that have foolishly been lavished on the 26 major corporations that lobby to produce more nuclear weapons. Instead of guaranteeing the profitability of the 382 banks, insurance companies, pension funds and asset managers invested in the nuclear weapons industry, we could be using those resources to guarantee medical equipment, income, and food. The fact that such a large group of nations is moving forward to outlaw nuclear weapons is a welcome sign of sanity and hope. I believe peacemaking begins at home. Many have called this treaty naïve and meaningless, yet it serves as inspiration to those with the vision and commitment to work to secure a wise, just, and meaningful future for our children and the planet. That reality of that future rises brightly as we reject the idea of national security through weapons and bombs, and as we reject the idea of community safety through policing and prisons.’