New series: How to hit "reset" & start again (1)

A caller asked the radio talk show host this morning for a list of things to do, in order of priority, to start to fix the problems (they were focused on American politics) today. Yikes about the response (!) But as usual this gives me the idea of what people are honestly seeking, and how I can be helpful. So I'm starting this new series of blog postings for you.

As I thought about the caller and the talk show guy response, I realized that they have the wrong impression in the first place, so while in the shower thinking about this, I realized a computer or media example is the best to start people with, which is the idea of hitting "reset."

As you know, when you hit "reset," you aren't destroying the device you are using (like the TV does not explode, or the computer melt down). "Reset" starts the device over again from the last point where it worked properly. That is why this is the theme for the renewal (and I mean globally, and not just in terms of politics, of course, but all the joys and challenges of life) is "reset." I will help you to reset both your mind and spirit, and the human made institutions around you, back to the actual (or theoretical) place where it was last functioning truthfully, factually, logically, faithfully and agenda free.

So these suggestions will be both actual activities to perform, and also mindset and meditative orientations. I'm going to start with big fundamentals that will lay the best foundation first. All other advisers unfortunately give advice from within the error, rather than stepping back. So here are some of the first essentials, and I'll add onto this as I think of more each day.

1. Immediately eliminate all combative speech and strategy from all your activities (unless of course you are in the military). In other words, if you are advocating an action, or opposing someone else's action, continue to do so but not at all in a military or combative stance.

Example: "We need to fight the healthcare bill" and then attack strategies and tactics are used by both "sides" *wrong.*

Instead: "I believe the healthcare bill is a mistake in these areas or for these reasons...... I will continue to try to persuade others of the facts and logic of my opinion....." and then do so. If you cannot persuade then vote your conscience but do not demonize the opposition no matter what.

Somehow the modern world has gone completely astray by soaking everyone in combative and military frameworks. It is an error to think that not doing so makes someone weak and ineffective. Ultimate effectiveness is in the middle, in the peaceable approach to achieving real gains, including when there is a "right" and "wrong" being debated.

Young people, you have been saturated by your ignorant parents, ignorant teachers, and money grubbing society to view everything through a combative, warlike lens. But by peaceable I do not mean being weak, giving up your honest strong stance, or giving up when you are on the "losing" "side." (See what I mean? Even your supposed faiths/beliefs have been soaked with the "spiritual combat" attitude, with winners and losers.)

Practice each day, everyone, to eliminate any speech and thought that pits your opinions "against" someone else's. This does not mean to ignore injustice or error, of course. See, that's the difference. A Peaceful person recognizes "injustice" and "error" and attempts to remedy them; they do not remedy "injustice" and "error" by increased injustice of hostile and combative thoughts and actions toward the other party.

I will explain each of these from a secular (reasoning) viewpoint and then also from the faith viewpoint. Non-believers can focus on the secular reasoning alone, if they wish, as what I am saying applies to everyone (see, this is how to be genuinely inclusive, and not "us" versus "them").

The secular reasons for eliminating combative speech and thoughts except from actual military conflict is as follows:

1. No one human is ever 100 percent right about anything. If you "oppose" the other view you cannot recognize the valid aspects of their view and the error in your own.

2. If you make bitter an "enemy" in one forum, you have lost him or her as a partner in any future dealings.

3. There is an old saying "Two heads are better than one." If you work with a second person to solve a problem, a third greater result occurs as your thoughts build off of each other's. Thus even if you are diametrically opposed on a solution to a commonly agreed upon problem, even polar opposites in opinions about the solution can, with good intentions, work together and achieve a) a combined solution b) one person's solution but with the other's refinement and input c) you both think of something out of the blue you had not thought of before at all d) realization that some other factor or problem is hindering a unified solution, and so you can report back to others that another issue must be addressed before the problem at hand can be solved.

4. Combative thought takes away the dignity and human rights of the other person.

5. Combative thought eliminates your own effectiveness and dignity.

6. Combative thought and actions tend to militarize problems that do not fit a military model. In other words, you think less about solving the problem (let's say something like delivering milk to schools for children) and more about being combative (my idea is right, I want to impose an agenda regarding food policy on someone else, I want to win the federal contract, etc).

7. Combative thought in non-military matters dilutes genuine combative thought when it is needed in military situations. If everyone is a "spiritual" or "video game" "warrior," it is less obvious how and when to shift into the genuine urgency of a true military mindset when it is needed. In the old days men and women knew when to set aside the farming tools in the field, and when to march to war. They did not weed their fields during peaceful times thinking that it is a "war" between them and the weeds, or the insect pests, or the weather, and they certainly were not in "competition" with the neighbors. People lived in the reality of their world without military or combative framework until it was genuinely needed.

Now, here is the faith framework for understanding my advice and admonishment:

1. Luke 244:36 Now while they were talking of these things, Jesus stood in their midst, and said to them, "Peace to you! It is I, do not be afraid."

When Jesus is "in your midst," you do not have to be warlike or afraid.

2. Luke 19:41-42 And when he [Jesus] drew near and saw the city, [Jerusalem] he wept over it, saying, "If thou hadst known, in this thy day, even thou, the things that are for thy peace! But now they are hidden from thy eyes."

The Jews did not recognize Jesus as being the Messiah, working for their peace and salvation, because they ignored the scripture that prophesied a peace bringer and instead with their militaristic and combative mindset expected a "fighting Messiah." Thus the actions of the Messiah, right there in their midst, for peace, was hidden from their eyes.

3. Matthew 10:19-20 [Jesus speaking to the disciples preparing them to go forth] "But when they deliver you up, do not be anxious how or what you are to speak; for what you are to speak will be given you in that hour. For it is not you who are speaking, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks through you..."

If the disciples were combative or spiritually militant, they would not be able to turn themselves over to the Spirit through what God will speak for them. Combative mentality does not allow genuine guidance from God to flow.

4. Matthew 5:9 "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God."

Peacemaking is a process so Jesus is referring to those who continually promote God's peace in their day to day lives, which is the opposite of a combative mentality.

5. Luke 7:50 But he [Jesus] said to the woman, "Thy faith has saved thee; go in peace."

Faith generates peacefulness, for to go in peace means to have a peaceful heart, not to be the winner in a war. The traditional salutation "go in peace" falls on deaf ears if it is said to someone who is combative.

6. Luke 9:51-56 Now it came to pass, when the days had come for him to be taken up, that he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem, and sent messengers before him. And they went and entered a Samaritan town to make ready for him, and they did not receive him, because his face was set for Jerusalem. But when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, "Lord, wilt thou that we bid fire come down from heaven and consume them?" But he turned and rebuked them, saying, "You do not know of what manner of spirit you are; for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." And they went to another village.

The disciples, with good reason, thought that a combative punishing reaction could be delivered by them onto the disbelieving (they believed in God but not in the authority of Jerusalem and thus they and the Jews discriminated against each other) residents for their rejection of hosting Jesus in his travels (a very rude thing to do to anyone). But Jesus points out the peaceable commission which is to save, not destroy, lives. Later Jesus would, of course, show the peaceable way wins, for he uses a Samaritan in his great parable of the Good Samaritan and he converted an entire Samaritan town through the intercession of the woman at the well. Peaceful problem solving and witnessing, not combative stances, yields genuine results.

7. Psalm 84(85):9-11 I will hear what God proclaims; the Lord-for he proclaims peace to his people, and to his faithful ones, and to those who put in him their hope. Near indeed is his salvation to those who fear him, glory dwelling in our land. Kindness and truth shall meet; justice and peace shall kiss.

This beautiful psalm written by "the sons of Core," recognizes that truth and kindness must meet and thus, within the context of God, "justice and peace shall kiss." It is not enough to have "truth" and lack "kindness." Combativeness in day to day life is antithesis of kindness, and without genuine kindness one will not have the joining of justice and peace in greeting (kissing is not intimate kissing in Bible speak but the kiss of genuine greeting as in a warm genuine handshake and embrace).

8. From the Qur'an 13:24 Peace be on you because you were constant, how excellent, is then, the issue of the abode.

Those who are constant in their belief in God have peace in their abode (home), both on earth and then upon death their heavenly home.

9. From the Qur'an 4:36 And serve Allah and so not associate any thing with Him, and be good to the parents and to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the neighbor of (your) kin and the alien [foreigner] neighbor, and the companion in a journey and the wayfarer and those whom your right hands possess; surely Allah does not love him who is proud, boastful.

Here one is instructed to be good to everyone (even the neighbors of your relatives, and the strangers who live in adjoining foreign lands, for example, and those who you "own," which means not only slaves but also employees and laborers) because God does not love those who are not kind but are instead proud and boastful. Combative attitudes come from pride and are a barrier to kindness; the Bible and the Qur'an certainly agree.

***
Thus, no matter how small the issue or the thoughts, recognize and weed out and discard combative and militaristic thoughts toward even those you have the most extreme disagreements. You must discard "us" versus "them" as the framework for your thoughts and actions, even when there is (and I would say especially when there is) vital areas of great disagreement. It is disagreement, not combat. It may be dislike of a person, but that person is not a military target. It may be refusal by someone to witness to truth and honesty, that may be stupid, meanspirited and even criminal, but they are not your "foe" on the "battlefield."

Stop thinking of people and situations as being enemies, opponents, "wrong," or evil. Stop thinking of them that way even in the minority of times that you do genuinely encounter someone who is evil and who bears ill will to you. Their wrong mindedness should not lead you into similar categorization, prejudice and demonization of them. This does not mean you have to agree with them or cave in on their oppression. If you have a combative attitude you miss all the other optional ways for dealing with them (including ignoring them, as Jesus did when he was rejected by that town, until the time was to approach them again, or they learn their error the hard and painful way, but not delivered by you in "combat" mentality).

Cultivate your talents in diplomacy, sharing activities that you can agree upon first (and ignoring the rest if you can), mutual problem solving, kindness (but not smugness) toward their lacks and most of all start to reject the continual diet of combative entertainment and confrontational social tactics (the admiration of "in your face" etc).

Understand and value the genuinely combative and militaristic where it belongs, which is in the armed forces in legitimate situations of conflict and security.

Understand and value that even your "worst enemy" is not your enemy if you refuse to make him or her so. Avoid their negativity but lead your life in trust that God will handle them for you when the time comes.

Certainly remove the combative mentality from all politics and resolution of social issues. It's "community organizer" not "community army vanguard." It's "a person who disagrees with your policy and values" not "the enemy on the other side."

If you do this first you will do a huge part in hitting that individual, community, national and global "reset" button.

A humor oriented suggestion. Don't "hate" those certain people (you know who we mean), be "exasperated." Works for me: I don't hate but I sure am exasperated.
:-)

Second of a few end of calendar year thoughts

This will be short and to the point, but it is the "great unspoken," so I will once again speak and say it.

Another year has gone by, capping another decade that has gone by, without genuine justice, truth telling and peace in the Middle East.

I have found myself wondering often, as I see the evidence most clearly before me, if many humans have been so deluded that they genuinely prefer to see Armageddon type so called "signs" in the Middle East, rather than roll up their sleeves and achieve genuine and honorable peace and justice. You know who I mean.

The angels proclaimed their declarations from God upon the birth of Jesus of peace to men (people) of "good will." There will be no peace in the Middle East until people get back to work on it in the transparent and fresh air of truthfulness and genuine good will. Again, this comes down to living righteously, not self proclaimed self-righteousness.

Read Mr. Gadhafi's comments about the UN

Do a search for the AP article. I cannot disagree with his observations regarding the structure of the UN, its great failure to prevent 65 wars, and the pointlessness of the so called "Security Council" structure. Putting aside some of its significant, yet still flawed, humanitarian efforts, which Mr. Gadhafi is not addressing, one cannot argue with his acute and insightful observation of the facts.

Western propaganda and popular mindset wants to give high marks to great efforts, even if the results are all fails. It's like giving a student a passing grade because he or she tried to make the stuff up really hard. In stark contrast to that flawed mindset, the Bible teaches that by the fruit you shall know the tree.

Friends, especially young people, ask yourself in politics and in all life matters: what results, regardless of the effort put into it, are being yielded? What is the fruit from each tree? Do not start out with the assumption that a tree, such as the UN, is "good," and then make constant excuses for one rotten apple after the other falling out of the tree. Is that not a "duh" opportunity or what?

Evaluate objectively the dropping thuds of rotten fruit over the decades of the UN, such as:
1. Its dismal record in solving or preventing any conflict at all.
2. Sexual and other abuse by UN forces, particularly in Africa.
3. Crimes and corruption by UN staff who then have "diplomatic immunity."
4. UN "representatives" from the immoral media with laughable "role models."
5. Leadership in complex topics (climate change) that they know absolutely nothing about.

And there is more. There are a lot of dropped rotten apple "thuds" to overlook over the past decades while still parroting that "the UN 'does a lot of good.'"

Diplomacy case study: political parties

I want to use the occasion of President Obama and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton (congratulations by the way!) meeting with career diplomats at the State Department to offer another, hopefully helpful, case study. This case study, I think, is essential to speedy and fruitful progress in the Middle East, especially regarding Israel and Palestine, but also the Taliban in Afghanistan and all the groups, including Al Qaida, in Pakistan.

By the way, I remember watching George Mitchell’s great work as diplomatic envoy during The Troubles in Ireland and am glad to see him, and Richard Holbrook, back in the saddle again!

This case study is to help you to have clearer and more productive vision, and thus dialogue, with civilian populations who support radical organizations who regularly or occasionally engage in terrorism.

When an organization, such as Hamas, engages in terrorist activities, such as shooting rockets into civilian parts of Israel, it is natural that a certain skewing of viewpoint takes place by even the most seasoned diplomats. However, this skewing has become entirely too unconscious and routine and thus brings an error into the logical and the feelings that are brought to the diplomatic table. This case study is to help you to eliminate the skewing in perception that takes place when one contemplates or dialogues with an organization that is civilian based but conducts some or many terrorist activities. When you eliminate that skewing of perception, which is based on error, you can make greater progress in your objectives, including the halting of the terroristic component of their activities.

Let’s use some silly examples first. Suppose you are speaking to someone who is just wonderful but has bad breath. Doesn’t the bad breath totally mess up your encounter with them, and doesn’t it ruin your appreciation of their finer qualities? The person with the bad breath could be a beauty queen, or a young Einstein, or the holiest person you know, but you can’t appreciate any of those qualities so long as you are suffering from their bad breath!

This is what a civilian population who supports an organization with a terroristic component is like. Just because they have bad breath in their encounter, this does not mean they are not worthy and wonderful people. Thus, the people of Gaza, by having elected Hamas, are being treated as if they are nothing but gas bags of bad breath. That is unjust, incorrect and unfair.

Let us return to the bad breath example. Coffee, a wonderful beverage, is the cause of much bad breath. So there is an example of a great gift to humanity-coffee-having an unfortunate and often unconscious side effect in many, bad breath. I could not stand the breath of my ex- after he had drunk coffee; it was actually worse than how he smelled after smoking cigarettes. But that does not mean that he was no longer an intelligent person, or one who could look nice, or one that could be kind. He was all of those things, but with bad breath after drinking coffee. So coffee, a genuine gift to humanity and a beneficial thing, can, if not monitored, have an unpleasant side effect that masks all the other good, for those moments, in the person. We can also list other foods like this, such as onions and garlic, feta cheese and so forth.

However, bad breath can also be a warning sign of a health problem. Every mindful and caring parent of a small child knows this. When your child suddenly has bad breath, they are not doing it to annoy you or to be “dirty.” A child with bad breath usually has a nasal drip or an allergy, thus a respiratory health matter. Bad breath is a sign that is supposed to be helpful, to alert someone to a problematic health condition. So you don’t want to be angry at the small infant with bad breath, or just “cover it up,” but look as to why they have the bad breath so that the health matter can be attended to.

Thus the Gaza people with Hamas can be viewed as being like a person with bad breath, and one must see if it is an unconscious side effect of a good thing (coffee) or the sign of a health problem (respiratory distress). By the way, I am not saying Hamas is the bad breath, LOL! I am saying their terroristic actions are the bad breath. Separate from the terroristic acts Hamas members are the same as Gaza civilians, the good that is being masked by the bad breath.

So the first job of the diplomat is to recognize that the terroristic acts that one observes, whether by Hamas or any other group, is like “bad breath.” It has a disproportionate effect of masking the vast majority of normalcy and goodness, with common aspirations, of the people “underneath” the bad breath. Too often diplomats, to say nothing of the reactionary governments, not only just focus on the bad breath but they seem to have entire conversations (mostly threats) with the bad breath (the acts of terrorism) rather than the lips, mouths, brains and hearts of the people behind the terrorism bad breath. I’m faintly amazed that I have to explain this to so many people who think they are otherwise so intelligent.

This is one of the things that the diplomats of, in particular the British Empire, for all their faults well understood. These foreign servants lived among the local people so much that many were accused of “going native” or “going bush,” which is that they embrace the local culture. Thus they were not reactionary when there were “bad breath” incidents, because they maintained their 80 percent to 20 percent understanding of the people who are behind the bad breath and the bad breath acts itself. This was one of the great attributes of the golden age of diplomacy, this ability to maintain vision on not only the “bad breath,” but keep the majority of one’s understanding on the people and the underlying reasons for the bad breath acts.

Now, here is another analogy to help you to understand. There are certain things that the Republican party tends to do that makes me just vomit in disgust, just as there are certain things that the Democrat party does that also makes me vomit. But I do not reduce all the millions of people who agree in each party with those particular positions into thinking of them as just barf making sub-humans, LOL. I know that behind the party platforms and individual heinous viewpoints are, in general, a bunch of individual people who share aspirations and are trying to do the best that they can.

Here is a related analogy. Let’s look at the political party affiliation of the ten Presidents after our first, George Washington.

John Adams: Federalist

Thomas Jefferson: Democratic-Republican

James Madison: Democratic-Republican

James Monroe: Democratic-Republican

John Quincy Adams: Federalist until 1808, Democratic-Republican until 1825, National Republican (Whig) thereafter

Andrew Jackson: Democratic

Martin Van Buren: Democratic (during Presidency); Free Soil (from 1848)

William Henry Harrison: Whig

John Tyler: Whig

James Knox Polk: Democratic

Now, from this list you can observe without reading a “too long” dissertation that political parties came into being and evolved at a rapid rate. Democratic-Republican used to be one party, and they evolved and split. Federalists were the party of our country’s founding, yet even though they were the “original” they did not maintain a mandate once the country was well established. Other parties such as “Free Soil” sprang up in response to current conditions, yet they are forgotten today. Political parties and affiliations are a living and vibrant thing. Likewise people like the Palestinians have an evolving attempt to organize around “parties,” for lack of a better word, that reflect their aspirations and their current reality. Yet countries such as the United States and Israel act like they should be frozen in time.

It is a diplomatic error to think that, “Well, the Palestinians had the PLO, which we denounced since they were terrorists, but they gave up terrorism to become Fatah and thus they are ‘OK’ and we will ‘allow’ the Palestinians to ‘have’ Fatah and Fatah alone.” Huh? What if the United States was forced to only have the Federalist party, one party, the “first and only” alone? After all, the USA was formed by the Federalists. Shouldn’t the USA be forced to have only one party, the Federalists? Are not the Democratic and Republican parties invalid?

When Gaza people voted Hamas into power they were doing so because they were frustrated with the shortcomings, including financial corruption, of Fatah. Yet to this day western diplomats are mouthing off that Hamas is not “legitimate?” Well, I don’t think that any USA political party since the Federalists is valid. I’m not joking. If you are going to tell me that people halfway around the world do not live like the rest of us, having evolving needs and evolving responses in affiliation (and yes, some of them have some bad breath) then I think we should live by the same “rules,” else we are shameless hypocrites. So I am quite serious that I believe that all political parties since the Federalist Party are invalid.

If a diplomat cannot look at a people, such as the Palestinians in Gaza, and have the most fundamental understanding that despite the terroristic actions that are the bad breath of the party in power that this is part of normal democracy and the urges of the people, then one can neither achieve peace nor even have correct vision of the problems, challenges and opportunities. You are punishing the Gaza people for trying to self correct what they thought was a problem with the ruling party, Fatah. You are enabling Israel, by focusing only on the bad breath terrorism, to bomb the hell out of people to punish them for trying to “kick the bums out of office and elect new people,” which was just what they did. It is one of the democratic hypocrisies of the century, in my opinion.

So to wrap up this case study, the point I am trying to make is that politicians, most especially diplomats, must learn to recognize normal democratic process in the natural form that it takes place in other countries and cultures, such as the forming and electing of new parties. Second one must recognize if the bad breath of terrorism of those parties are due to systemic health problems which must be addressed, rather than punching the teeth and gums of innocent men, women and children out of their mouths to “cure the bad breath” and then blame them for it to boot. Third, one must look at the diplomatic challenge and see the parallels in our own history (the British thought we were terrorists, by the way) and respond with a resonance and firm guidance in more fruitful channels rather than denial. Fourth, we need to invest in people’s political interest and participation, not discourage it when we don’t like the results. Fifth we must not have dialogue with the bad breath acts and, instead, go back to having dialogue with the people, friend and foe alike. Sixth, just as the USA would resent being told we must go back to Federalist party alone, so too we must not expect people to have “one size fit all” political parties that meet our (or Israel’s) approval.

I hope that you have found this helpful. I have a lot more to say about how to get going in productive diplomacy but I don't want to make this "tl/dr" (too long; didn't read).

Cultural diplomacy and friendship

Cultural diplomacy and “friendship”

Of course the vast majority of diplomacy is routine and takes place among friendly or at least neutral nations. Yet all nations have a circle of fellow nations who they consider friends. Despite what I said about the USA being biased on behalf of Israel and against the Palestinians, and thus not valid in terms of calling themselves diplomatic peace makers, there is nothing wrong with friendly nations and the taking of sides. But there is a big caution that must be realized that among nations, even as among individuals, there are two types of friends.

Listening to the political talk shows today I heard various American politicians be referred to as “friends of Israel.” My children, it is not difficult to be a ‘friend’ to Israel if you are of the one type of friend and not the other type of friend. Here is an analogy.

Suppose that you are a woman who has a dear friend who is a drug addict. You love him very much and what do you do to ‘keep’ his friendship? You buy him drugs. That is what American diplomats who are ‘friends’ with Israel are like.

Here is the type of friend that Israel needs. Israel needs a woman who loves Israel very much, but tells Israel “You cannot keep taking drugs. It is destroying your soul and it puts blinders on you so that you only see one ‘answer’ to every problem.”

What will happen to that true friend? She will be called an old, stupid, ugly fat bitch, and a whore. She will be dragged through the mud and Israel will tell everyone that she is a Nazi, a Jew hater, an anti-Semite and an ignorant cow. Just to teach that true friend ‘a lesson’ Israel will take even more drugs, and parade around posing for photographs with Israel’s ‘best friend friends’ who supply the drugs that you refuse to do.

Well, gosh, who would want to go through that? No one really wants to go through that, and so American diplomats have all chosen to be the enabling first type of ‘friend.’ If one even questions the drug use of Israel one has seen how the wrath of people who cannot agree about anything except how much they now hate you fall upon you like an anvil. And so when you see what happens to genuine friends who even raise an eyebrow of questioning toward Israel, you keep your mouth shut and you ask Israel, “How much do you want and when do you want it?” You then also join with them in bashing the bad Palestinians who “drive Israel to drugs” and who “make us the way we are.”

Yes, it sure is not difficult to be an enabling friend of Israel, one who does not care about its health or soul. It sure is difficult and, thus far, impossible to be a genuine friend of Israel.

Cultural diplomacy tutorial and RANT

This is another in my series regarding how to understand and achieve successful cultural diplomacy. Here I will explain to you things you must understand about how resistance, subversive and even “terroristic” organizations arise and important characteristics to keep in mind to achieve peace. I have Hamas in the Gaza strip in my mind as the specific case study, but will reference the wide range of groups in history who have been in a revolutionary or uprising role. The only group I want to reserve for separate consideration because they are totally unique is Al Qaeda.

The main point of this tutorial and case study will be to refute the modern assumptions by many, especially those in the western world, that a resistance, subversive or terrorist organization is a separate entity from the civilian population. All resistance, subversive and terrorist organizations arise from the populace; they are not “imposed” on an unwilling population nor are they “side by side” with the populace. Thus Israel and the United States are being deliberately dishonest to imply that Hamas is an organization that can be “rooted out” of the populace, like weeds being pulled from among good corn. Think of Hamas as corn with guns. The same is true of Hezbollah in Lebanon and of course the PLO, now Fatah, the legitimate government, before Fatah lost credibility. One would be more accurate to understand such organizations, with the exception of Al Qaeda, as being violent political parties that non-violent people also support or they would not be on the “ballot” of public opinion.

Look at the two historical examples of the American Revolution and the overthrow of the Czars by the Communists. It’s not like a bunch of people in what would become the United States imposed their will to revolt against England on top of the citizen populace. The delegates to the Congress from the states and then the men who fought in the armies all were drawn from and empowered by the people. Imagine if England thought that the Revolutionaries were a distinct group that they could “kill off” and then the desire for freedom would just die out in America. That would have been a huge military error one that, obviously, they did not make. The English understood very well that the civilian populace fueled and supported the revolution and were part of it, not a separate entity. Those of the civilians who disagreed with the Revolution either remained in place silently and accepted the tide of change, or left for England or Canada. Likewise in the former USSR, one must understand that the populace was behind and part of the Communists who overthrew the monarchy. The problem is that they didn’t know what they were bargaining for, how ruinous Communism would be for body and soul. But the excesses of the monarchy and their ignoring of the extreme and dire poverty of the people allowed the Bolsheviks to arise from among the populace, not as a superimposed force.

Another example is “The Troubles” in Northern Ireland, the conflict between paramilitary Protestant Irish and paramilitary Catholic Irish. Again, right or wrong, it’s not like these groups fell out of the sky and imposed their will on the people. They were members of the populace who felt the need for resistance (Catholic minorities) and counter resistance (the ruling Protestants). That is why one simply could not “go in” and “jail or kill” every paramilitary IRA member, for example, without at the same time pursuing genuine diplomacy. Because these extremist organizations arise from and belong to the populace, one cannot EVER pursue a “sequential” process where “step one” is “stop the violence” and then step two as the “reward” is the diplomacy.

The United States is guilty of naïve and even stupid beliefs such as that. I cannot remember the last time we had “diplomats” who were actually even adequate in understanding the principles of diplomacy and the origins of revolutionary, subversive or terrorist movements. Israel knows darn well the difference but they have made a cultural decision to have a “backs against the wall” stance that insists on total “peace” before social injustice is addressed. Thus Israel is delighted at the naiveté of the past several generations of US “diplomats” who they view as public relations mouthpieces and “defensive” weapons suppliers. I mean, give me a break. Any diplomat worth his or her salt realizes that one cannot “wait” for a total “cease fire” before diplomacy while at the same time one side is turning up the heat of the social injustice that, genuine or perceived, is the result of the valid or invalid violence. It is like expecting a pit bull to stop biting while you are still hitting it with a stick. Israel knows full well that they have tightened the screws on the Palestinians to make their day to day economic life a misery and, in fact, a gulag and thus they continue to poke the pit bull while loudly screaming with feigned senses of grievance that “total peace” is needed before “diplomacy can begin.”

President Bush and his “expert on Russia,” Condoleezza Rice, have not earned one penny of their paychecks regarding the Middle East. What an embarrassment they have been.

Notice I have mixed examples of what people could say are “justifiable” revolution, subversion and while terrorism is never justified one must acknowledge that obviously someone thinks it is or they’d be home planting grape vines, with examples that obviously came to very unhappy fruition, such as the Bolshevik Revolution that brought Communism to power. You don’t “agree” with the people you are engaging in diplomacy with, for cripes sake. Golda Meir (the last Israeli leader that I think understood diplomacy) herself said that you negotiate with your enemies, not your friends. Diplomats should not be “step and fetch its” for one side in the diplomatic endeavor.

I mean, think about this slowly and carefully. In resolving a dispute, how reasonable and fair can that diplomat be if they are supplying one side with the weaponry? The idea of the USA being a diplomat in the Middle East problem is a joke and always has been. All the USA does is supply Israel with weapons and pats on the back. That’s fine if that is the foreign policy stance of the USA but what nerve they have to call themselves “partners in a peace process” and “diplomats.”

Europeans used to be very savvy about diplomacy, having centuries of genuine experience, and they used to laugh at Americans being clods and naïve. In turn, in fairness, Americans spotted the mote in the Europeans’ own diplomatic eye with their soft stance toward the grave and mortal dangers of Communism. But because the Americans were right about Communism, the Europeans shut up and just let it slide as the Americans make a mess of the Middle East. In turn the Americans think that they are foreign policy geniuses (for recognizing that Communism is bad, duh) and as a result have missed cultivating at least three generations of genuine diplomats.

There is another cultural problem with Americans. Because they have experienced over the past forty years the freakish forming of cults and criminal individuals or groups that are terrorists, they have done an unconscious and totally invalid pattern matching in their minds. Thus when America had domestic terrorists such as the SLA (the folks who kidnapped Patty Hearst back in the 60's) who are a few nuts who united for havoc, the lack of diplomatic savvy in the government resulted in Americans just assuming that all terrorists throughout the world are a loose coalition of "nuts" "imposing” terrorism on the populace. In other words, Americans have become so simplistic that they have only two models of understanding of armed resistance: a group of criminal nuts like the SLA from the 60's, or Al Qaeda from 2001. Americans seem to understand absolutely nothing in between which is where all the conflicts in the world actually reside, in that space in between.

Therefore, to summarize my points:

1) You cannot have a valid diplomatic role if you are supplying weaponry to one side, period. I mean, duh, how difficult is that to understand? Step aside and let real genuine neutral diplomats take over your "role."

2) We need genuine diplomats who understand cultural and historical contexts and who understand the actual diplomatic process and are not just “advocates with agendas for one side.”

3) All enduring organizations that are based on armed resistance are not separate from the populace and cannot be extracted from the populace.

4) There is no example of diplomacy where negotiation “waits” until “after” violence has “completely stopped,” particularly if the aggrieved side experiences continual pressure and provocation.

5) Do not say you are for “democracy” and “free elections” and then declare the winners “terrorists.” Hamas was elected into office, deal with it, not whine and try to kill them off while calling yourselves "pillars of democracy."

The diplomatic ignorance and willful collusion of the Americans in injustice in many forums around the world has been a source of excruciating embarrassment for me for decades now. We don’t have diplomats; we have empty suits with big egos who fly around like celebrities. It’s embarrassing.

Cultural diplomacy, ordinary debate case study

Here is another important concept in cultural diplomacy and-in fact-an essential part of any genuine dialogue or debate, whether there is a cultural difference or simply a political or lifestyle difference.

I thought of presenting this topic today as a result of listening to a caller to a morning talk show. The caller was able to get through I guess around five sentences of his opinion, but in the way of most people, was still developing his position when he was interrupted by the kind of bristling talk show host. The caller had triggered a quick change from a rather mellow tone to this bristling reaction by the talk host because the caller stated that he felt the USA is in need of a revolution. Now, the caller never got a chance to state what exactly he means by “revolution” (one of the most overworked terms of the past forty years) because the talk show host assumed he meant violent revolution. So the talk show host gave what I’m sure he felt was a really responsible “reply,” focusing on God (this is a conservative show) and the necessity to avoid violent revolution. Well…. Here’s the problem with that response.

First of all, as I said, “revolution” is one of the most overworked words of the past forty years, and it means at least a hundred different things-a hundred different types of “revolution”-depending on who you are speaking to and about what subject! You need to give a person who uses that word at least a few sentences to sketch (even in rapid fire “talk show” formats) what type of revolution he or she means. Just because they reference the American Revolution and the Civil War does not mean that they are indicated violent government overthrow. But it was those references that caused to talk show to immediately assume that the caller was alluding to a military revolution, but there was absolutely no reason to believe that was what he meant. So the most important rule in any dialogue is not to stop listening when a “code word” or concept is used and, instead, at least ask for a few sentences from the other person to clarify what they mean.

It’s hard to get into someone’s head, so this is how I recommend you obtain the most accurate information about your conversationalist’s position. Ask him or her, “How exactly would you envision this working if ideally your suggestion would take place in the best of circumstances?” Imagine the wide variety of possible replies to the “revolution” scenario. The guy might respond, “Well, I think that states that disagree with the federal government on such and such an issue should break away.” Then you’d have to ask what he means by “break away,” since that might simply mean a state constitutional amendment regarding a specific topic, hardly a call to marching armies! If you respect the person and give them time to at least sketch out in a sentence or two what they mean and how they’d like to see it happen, you actually find out information and perspective that is far beyond what your knee jerk reaction and assumptions dictate, and thus, then, hijack your attention and the fittingness of your response. I believe that at least ninety percent of conversations, debates, public diplomacy and presentations of views are hijacked by inattention and erroneous assumptions once a “code word” is spoken and thus defensive and hostile mechanisms are triggered.

The second reason this is a problem is that suppose the worst is true, that your debating combatant does have a radical view, but you take off on a tangent without allowing him or her to express the full view, they can, legitimately, discount your response. Just as you stopped listening to him or her at a code word, once they realize you are only responding to the code word and not what they are actually saying, they shut you off in return since your response is not relevant to their belief. Thus there is no point to having had the conversation at all. Both liberals and conservatives need to listen to me and heed my advice on this regard. You don’t “mitigate” or “argue” against what you feel are “radical” views if you do not get into specifics and if you jump to conclusions and shut them off, you miss a “conversion” possibility and simply harden their views (whatever they may be since you didn’t actually stop to find out the specifics).

How would this work? Suppose this guy was advocating what you think is a horrible scenario, which is that he thinks that some group should run amok in the USA advocating armed revolution, and suppose you uncover this via respectful and prolonged questioning. Hmm, so what would you do then? If anything you should think that dialogue is even more important, since a lot is at stake if this guy is feeling that armed revolution is either desirable or sadly inevitable (notice that this is another nuance that you must explore: does he or she want what he or she describes, or do they think it is inevitable? There’s a world of difference in stance and thus in reasonable reply). Here’s how I would handle such a conversation. I would ask him or her how they would deal with a number of scenarios and let them talk and think it through. For example, I would ask, “Suppose in your ideal world you called for revolution but only one state agreed? Would you consider that a success, in that all who agree with you and your views could move to that state and live in the legality (whatever issues) that you called for revolution regarding?”

See, here I’ve painted a scenario. I’ve said, “OK, let’s assume that the revolution you advocate works, but not as much as you hoped for, because only one state agrees and achieves revolution in the area that you are concerned about. What would you do next? Would that be enough for you?” When you allow the person to describe specifics of what they want (with the help of intelligent coaching by you), you accomplish a lot of good things. 1) You actually understand what he or she is saying and what their position actually is, 2) You can target your concerns and objections with accuracy, thus productively prolonging the fruitfulness of the dialogue and 3) Both of you have to openly evaluate possible merits to his or her position, and possible problems with his or her position. You may find out that he or she is onto something valid, buried underneath their invalid methods of achieving it! Likewise, while you may not achieve results on the spot, the person will leave with some serious thinking to do, perhaps something like, “Hmm, I never thought of that. Suppose my revolution was successful, but only for one state. What would that mean? Would I actually move my family to that state? Maybe that’s not quite the solution I thought it was.”

Whenever people flip out and overreact over code words, it’s worse than if they never had the conversation at all. More damage is done by having repeated hardened calloused encounters between the usual “misunderstanding combatants.” Every time someone says, for example, “I believe the Palestinians should have a homeland” and the other person replies, “I do not,” both have damaged the entire dialogue and the progress of their own causes. When you distill an entire thorny social, moral, cultural, diplomatic and governmental woe to “Homeland? Yes or no,” you pour more verbal and mental concrete on fallacious “opposing” positions. I mean, think about it, one person may be envisioning one type of homeland structure while the other one is imagining something completely different. You never get the chance to find out, work with the legitimate positions, discover common ground, and unfold many nuances of options rather than a theoretical “pro” or “con.”

So long as the person you are dialoguing with has humane good will, you can and should listen to the fullness of his or her position, even if it is diametrically opposed to your own views. Thus, while I believe that those of good will on either side of the abortion position should dialogue, I would not have recommended that either of them try to dialogue with Pol Pot. Ninety nine plus percent of humanity is not despot maniacs, and the vast majority of them are just trying to get by in life as best as possible. If a person is not a despot maniac, than you should take care to actually question them and listen to them about their full beliefs; you might learn something and actually change your own mind.

To summarize: 1) Discipline your thinking and analysis to ignore code words and not derail your assessment of a person’s position just because he or she uses a code word, 2) Ask the person to describe specific implementations of the fulfillment of their views, 3) If they are inarticulate, be kind and help them to articulate what they are saying, since erudition and glibness are not indicators of value of idea, and lack of those qualities of presentation do not diminish the potential value of an idea, 4) Always recall that unless the person is a despot maniac, he or she is just trying to get through life as best as they can and thus they share something with you.

I hope that you have found this helpful.

Cultural diplomacy: points to remember

The event in Mumbai is a good opportunity to restate some of what I have already discussed, and put it in an easy reference list. Here I want to focus with you on how to understand and deal with terrorism. Here are the points you must always keep in mind, and then flesh out your policy, strategy and tactics based on this understanding.

1) You cannot ever "kill all of the terrorists."

It is tempting to think that they are a certain number of people who can be hunted down and killed, but they are a process, not a generation. Erroneous strategy results if one imagines that there is some fixed number of terrorists who can be killed. Here is a mental exercise to help from falling into that mind trap. Imagine if you are in charge of domestic war against gangs. Can you kill every youth who is in a gang, and think that the phenomenon of gangs then disappears? Of course not. Gangs are a substitute structure for something, reasonable or totally unreasonable, that is lacking in the lives of potential members. Terrorism is likewise a continuing process that draws new generations, not a specific number of people. So it is essential that you do not confuse a policy of vigorously going after "all" terrorists with the delusion that if you kill enough of them that terrorists and terrorism as a concept goes away.

2) Terrorists tend to be morally very conservative.

This is true not only of Islamic extremists, but many of the other problems with terrorism, such as "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland. One must always bear this in mind because it is essential to both understanding terrorists and, if one ever gets to the fortunate point of direct dialogue, negotiating with them. This is because you must understand that moral conservatism is an incentive for peace in negotiating with terrorists. For example, I commented before that I wish that Pope John Paul II had gone further in excommunicating not only IRA members, but those of the flock who supported them. It is important that diplomatic and religious leaders maintain their own moral high ground in dealing with terrorists. Not only do they respect that, but yielding on certain morality issues is a genuine bargaining chip in negotiations. I mean, what is more important, having peace in some region of the Middle East, or insisting that we are only free if we have XXX rated video stores on every corner? Terrorists do not understand or accept the "lowest common denominator" of morality. That "translated" means that terrorists, in general, do not understand why westerners want morals to be invisible or at the level of the lowest practitioner in an area. Western society has this weird view that all of society should be receptive to immoral business and activities in advance of their actually being in an area. Community morals are very important to terrorists.

By the way, this is true even among terrorists who belong to cults who seem to have practices that many view as morally questionable. It is not important that you, as a diplomat, or a combatant of terrorism, judge if the terrorist is truly "morally conservative" or not. What is important is that you understand that he or she fervently believes that they are morally conservative.

As a corollary to this lesson, it is incorrect to say that terrorists only want to "impose their morals on others." Sometimes that is true, but often it is actually the terrorists who want to preserve what had been traditional community standards of morality, which westerners seek to erode for money/business and also a libertine view of "progressive" society. You cannot negotiate with terrorists, in general, if you do not have as background an understanding of this difference.

3) Terrorists recruit from among the poor, the desperate and the disenfranchised.

While their leaders may have access to personal fortunes, it is the poor and the desperate, often as children, who listen to their message and enlist. One useful analogy is to think of terrorists as community organizers and activists, who then go to "the dark side." Terrorists tend to take the problems of poverty and being disenfranchised from the majority very seriously. It is while they remedy these problems, for example setting up their own schools and welfare programs, that continuing more militant youthful terrorists join their ranks. One cannot effectively combat terrorism while there is rank and mind boggling poverty among large groups of disenfranchised people. Many terrorists start out as children in the worst nameless and faceless poverty that few in the west where even the poorest has a social security card can understand. Generations of Palestinians have demonstrated this, and we are now seeing generations of poor children who become terrorists in Asia, such as Pakistan, India and other countries. The continent of Africa has many examples of this too, fueling tribal conflict and horrible recruitment of child soldiers. One cannot effectively combat terrorism without at the same time and with equal, not less, vigor combat poverty in the home grown terrorist nations.

I could offer more suggestions, but I remember from my corporate presentation days that three points are the ideal number for maximum memory and effectiveness of implementation. I hope that you have found this helpful.

Go back to church, synagogue and mosque

Abandon the "New Age" and the occult, like "astrology." Seriously. It is doing all of you more harm than you can ever realize. Far from being "enlightened" and affirmative, it is a depressive set of handcuffs that deny the goodness of God that strives to operate within each person to achieve the greatest goodness, denying that goodness and surrendering one's self to the depressive view of a churning cruel world of "fate."

A spokesperson for such a community who lost two members in Mumbai, killed by terrorists, one a child, said in response to a question from the press regarding what she thought of the terrorists that the terrorists were like "95% of the rest of the world's population."

Friends, that is how cultists view everyone else. Is 95% of the world "just like the terrorists?" You know, the great unwashed unenlighted who only have their eyes, as she put it "on the ground."

I don't think so and neither does the real One God.

My thoughts about Mumbia, India situation

No one has official word about who is behind the terrorist attacks, so to give advice I have to make some assumptions. I'll assume that they represent Islamic believers on the extreme end of the faith scale.

India has put itself into quite a pickle with their deliberate ignoring of their own Christians being tortured, killed, raped, publicly paraded naked, and driven out of their homes into the jungle and camps, where they are homeless and sick. Why does this have an impact on the terrorist attacks? Disdain. One cannot negotiate with Islamic extremists if you are demonstrated unbelievers, who persecute other believers. While many assume that Islamic terrorists only consider fellow Muslims to be believers, when negotiating, one still wants to avoid their contempt and disdain that has resulted from showing that you are a persecutor of believers, especially in such an immodest way. The USA learned that to their extreme discomfort in what they did to some Iraqi prisoners, making them be naked and depraved in prison. Remember also that Islam is a belief based on total equality, where there is no class system, unlike the most repressive class system what was ever created, which still exists in India.

So while I am not saying that the terrorists made their action for any reason other than their own cause, I am giving India some cultural diplomacy advice that they have ignored, including in their dealings with me, at their peril. I find it interesting that there are reports of a Jewish prayer center being occupied with hostages of a rabbi, his wife and others. If true, I think the odds of the hostages surviving are best if they are perceived as believers rather than political representatives. You see what I mean? But this is all guesswork at this point, is it not?

My point is that the "land of Gandhi" has no credibility as far as being perceived by those who have devout and even fanatic motivation by their serving God, whether their actions bring credit to God or not in fact. There is no Muslim who would not be horrified at what treatment the Indian government has ignored (and even the police encouraged), when priests and nuns were stripped, sexually assaulted, tortured, murdered, paraded and defamed. Muslim extremists would make note of the weakness and complicity of the police in attacking Christians. Notice that high ranking police were quickly killed in the assault. You are in a difficult position, in both battle and negotiation, if your opponent has total contempt for you. It creates an "anything goes" mentality in achieving one's objectives, one that is difficult to either thwart or negotiate with, especially as they will gladly achieve what they consider to be martyrdom.

Ten years ago I had a job where I had dozens of Indian green card holders working for me. I was fond of them and defended them against those who poked fun at their Hindu beliefs. Yet, my sense of fondness was drained away as I found that Indian occult beliefs (astrology) informed many of those who stalked and persecuted me. Indians, behind the scenes, stalked and persecuted me, making my life miserable, because of their imaginary beliefs in crazy reincarnation, and their ambition at trying to manipulate the future, rather than trusting in God and having any sort of humility.

One must remember that the way you treat your own people opens the door for how extremists will treat you. That is called "escalation." Even if there is no common ground between people your country persecutes, Christians, in this example, and the presumed Islamic terrorists in Mumbai, they watch TV, they read the papers, they do their research, and they observe whenever a country, especially its police, loses the moral high ground due to their own disgraceful behavior. This is why the terrorists will usually fight to the death, since they are confident they have the moral high ground. It is never helpful in fighting terrorism or negotiating if a country inflates the terrorists perception that indeed, they are fighting immoral and corrupt institutions.

That said, it is never right to take innocent life. But again, we look around the world and see those areas where life is perceived as being "cheap." The tone is first set by the home culture, not by the intruder.

Cultural diplomacy: Case study, Libya

I'm impressed. Read this article.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Gadhafis-Son.html

snip

This week's events -- including an unprecedented phone call between Bush and Moammar Gadhafi -- capped a halting, five-year rapprochement between the two countries that began in 2003 when the Libyan leader renounced terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. The process gained traction in August when the U.S. and Libya agreed on the compensation deal.

The younger Gadhafi, who also met with human rights and environmental groups, said his main message was: ''We are good people, and nice. We'll make business. We'll invest, and we have friends here in the states and we have a new chapter in the relations.''

He said Libya's new sovereign wealth fund, a government-owned investment fund with almost $100 billion, ''wants to invest here in America'' despite the current financial crisis.

I'm not going to write a long tutorial on cultural diplomacy, and instead point this topic out to my readers to do whatever behind the scenes background reading that you like about Libya-USA relationships. However, I want to make some points that genuine diplomats should always keep in mind that they can learn from this success.

1) If both sides have a genuine desire to resolve differences, even the most impossible situation can be resolved, often with a success that never could have been anticipated.

If you think that there is incredible misery weighing down the Israel-Palestinian problem, with decades of horror on both sides that damage diplomatic good intentions, let me assure you, especially you younger readers, that the situation between Libya and the USA seemed just as doomed to never overcoming the past. With time and determination on both sides, incredibly we have reached this unforeseen good outcome.

So never "write off" the possibility of genuine cultural diplomacy brokering a shining break through in even the worse of situations.

2) Regardless of provocations, while it is allowable to make forceful responses to situations, never attempt to corner the other party so that they have no dignity.

As rough as the conflict was between Libya and the USA a healthy respect for each other was maintained throughout. This was, in part, because the main conflict between Libya and the USA took place years before a kind of personally demeaning "taunting" has become part of both the official governmental and political discourse and the public "talk radio" and other circuits. Again, contrast that with the Israel-Palestinian conflict, where both sides have used language seeking to mock and strip the dignity of their "opponent." Thus no genuine diplomacy results.

3) Set timetables for actions and stick to them, but let the process of normalization run a natural course of time.

Genuine diplomacy recognizes that two things take place. One is the negotiation and completion of specific actions. The other is allowing all parties to adjust (even to the point of the next generation coming of age and participating) at a pace that is natural to human nature and as a response to new perspective gained from each specific action step.

Once again, compare this to the Israel-Palestinian problem. It has become a ridiculous knot that cannot be untied because people refuse to set timetables for actions and stick to them, and allow normalization to, like a river "flow alongside." The Israelis in particular do not understand that one changes mindset on both sides alongside the honorable carrying out of specific diplomatic tasks and agreements. You can think of it like this, it is like the Israelis say, "Well, we will like and understand you only if you sign these agreements." If the Libya-USA relationship had followed the terrible example in the Middle East, we would not be reading the sincere words of mutual relationship and amiability on both sides that we see in this news article today.

Here is another analogy. If you are offered a job in a company, what if you said before you accepted the job "Well, before I agree, I want a guarantee that every company employee will like me when they meet me, and they will never do anything wrong against me." How likely is that? (Even Jesus certainly did not have that happen, hmm?) If one ties what one thinks of the other party and, further, refuses all natural forms of relationship building to develop until one or the other agreement is signed, that is damming up the natural development of genuine relationship, just as the employee who won't sign on without unreasonable conditions being met first. Thus Israel will not follow UN mandates because they envision first receiving some sort of emotional guarantee of the future, and as a result, they dam up that exact flow of goodwill (or at least fearsome respect) that they desire to have from the Palestinians and the Islamic countries that support them.

The Libya-USA relationship progress demonstrates that hard decisions and agreements on specific actions must be made and carried out, while then, alongside, the natural development of mutual understanding and progress in respect, and even liking, are allowed to develop without conditions.

Congratulations to all who have been involved in reaching the success of the Libya-USA relationship and one that I hope will only improve and benefit both sides (and not just for the investment money, ha). I hope that our future Secretary of State will follow these suggestions ;-)

Cultural Diplomacy tutorial Part 3

Cultural Diplomacy tutorial Part 3

The case study in this tutorial is the example of how Jewish and Christian politicians and diplomats achieve the best dialogue, whether secular or faith based topics, with Islamic politicians and diplomats. My remarks include all the sects of Islam, specifically Shiite and Sunni, and also both the vast majority of Islam that is mainstream, and the minority of Islam that is extremist or terroristic.

My first point is that it is not necessary to be a believer of any faith, per se, in order to have a successful dialogue with Muslim countries. There is a long history of cordial and productive relationships between certain Muslim countries and countries that have either no declared faith, such as China or Russia during the time it was within the USSR, or countries with eastern faiths, such as India and Japan. These tend to be mutually beneficial cultural and economic (trade) relationships. Also, in the past, certain Muslim countries have sought “big brother” protection and alliance, such as has historically existed with the former USSR, as a counterbalance to countries who have been supported by the USA. There is less of a need for that now, but it is still a realistic and understandable underlying motivation, and I’d do the same thing if I were them. This, for those of you who are young to Middle East politics, is the reason that Russia belongs to what is called the “Quartet” of countries that try to assist in discussions for peace in the Middle East. One cannot bring both parties to the table if one party arrives with a superpower on its side while the other sits with a less developed country status and no ability to power share. So to summarize this point, Muslims do not look down on “non believer” countries and in fact have a proven history that extends itself every year with more and more relationships with countries of various faiths or no declared faith at all. A secondary point is that since Muslims lack having a country in the “superpower” category of countries, a survival instinct that is quite realistic and I would do it myself is to maintain a close “big brother or big sister” relationship with a superpower that is friendly and sympathetic to their situations. Do not view that as a negative, as that is a very reasonable and balanced thing to do.

My second point is to explain how diplomacy among Muslim countries and those that profess belief in the one monotheistic God (Christianity and Judaism) should provide a common basis of foundational comprehension, even in secular topics, but in the past the opposite has occurred. Let me first start with an analogy. If one has to negotiate a problem with, let’s say, how your neighbor is using his back yard, is it easier to negotiate with your neighbor if he is a stranger in the sense he is not related to you by blood or marriage, or if your neighbor is a relative of yours? It depends on the circumstances, but I think you see what I mean. The most bitter conflicts in domestic matters can be among relatives, each of whom “expects more and better” from the other because the other is a relative. So having a shared history, family or foundational belief is not a guarantee of better outcome and far from it, it can be much worse if one side feels bitterly betrayed on a personal level. This is important to understand even though I know that modern “secularists” might be all quivering with indignation if they read my words, arguing that one’s faith should have “nothing to do” with secular diplomacy. Well, duh. If you do not understand your partner or combatant’s faith stance in diplomacy, and they have a strong overriding faith, denying your own faith to yourself hardly equips you to better understand them! That would be like saying to your cousin, with whom you are quarreling over land that your shared grandfather left to you both, that you no longer believe that your grandfather ever existed, and hence he should not have any influence on the argument! How stupid would that be? Your cousin would think that you are crazy and likely evil, if you benefited by inheriting land through your grandfather’s will and legacy, and then denied his very existence while quarreling with another of his descendants over that land! So to summarize my second point, even if you represent a secular personal or governmental point of view, you must understand that your Islamic partner perceives a relationship with you and your country based on God, whether you believe in God or not. In fact, it is personally offensive to a Muslim, even if he or she does not show it, if you are the beneficiary of a shared faith history but you deny it. Again, I’m not saying that faith has to enter into a secular dialogue. But I am teaching you how to understand the point of view of the Muslims with whom you dialogue, if you represent a personage or country that seems to deny the “family” relationship of believing the same God. This is the crux of the problem with extremists and why they feel such a burning contempt for the West. But it is also a missed opportunity among mainstream diplomacy where Westerners seem more concerned with denying their own faith history than with being who they are authentically. Muslims respect authentic belief in God, and thus they respect the person who is not ashamed or in denial of that, even if it has nothing to do with the subject being negotiated or discussed.

My third point is related to the second, which is to address why, if Muslims respect belief in God, do they use the term of insult “crusader?” For those of you young to this topic, the term crusader comes from the “Middle Ages,” or early medieval times, roughly seven hundred to a thousand years ago, when armies from Christian nations attempted to “reclaim” the Holy Land, which had been seized by armies of Islam. Islam had been spreading through conquest throughout the Middle East, Africa and even Europe. Yet the Christian defenders and combatants were not called crusaders unless they were specifically sent to wrest the Holy Land from what were called the Mohammadans. Crusaders were organized and sent by Christian leaders and sponsored by whichever Pope occupied the Seat of Peter in Rome at that time. Crusaders wore the cross of Jesus Christ on their armor, and invoked his name in their activities. And there, you see, is the problem. Muslims perceived the Christians to be fighting in the name of Jesus Christ and not of God, the God they share with Christians. Muslims do not deny Jesus Christ at all, and in fact, the Qur’an has much honor and praise for him, recognizing Jesus as an authentic prophet from God given special miraculous capabilities directly from the Holy Spirit of God. But rather than seeing crusaders attempt to regain the Holy Land on behalf of the shared God who created both Muslims and Christians, Muslims perceived that Christians had “broken away” from God, in their eyes. This is why “crusader” is used as an insult, both then and today. A “crusader” is someone who seems to elevate Jesus Christ alone and who denies God.

I hope this helps people to understand, then, the strange paradox of extremist Muslims who consider the West to be “Godless” yet insult them with a term that seems to invoke God, which is “crusader.” The term crusader has endured because of that very perception, which has some foundation in truth. The term “Muslim” to a Muslim means someone who believes in the one God. This is why the Qur’an declares the Israelite patriarchs and prophets, such as Abraham and Jacob, to “be Muslims.” They are not doing a retroactive conversion. The term Muslim means a believer in the one monotheistic God, the God who self identified from Adam, throughout Israelite history, and to and including Jesus Christ. Muslims “keep their eye,” however, only on God. They revere the prophets and forefathers, but they would never fight in “the name” of any of them. Thus the Muslims during the time of the Crusades viewed the Christian crusader combatants of fighting in the name of Jesus Christ, but not in the name of God. Muslims were genuinely fighting in the name of God, believing that they were forcing the heathen, the pagan and also the Abrahamic faiths that had gone “astray” back to putting their attention and worship toward God and only God. That is why they swept through the Middle East, through much of northern Africa, and into southern Europe, until they were finally stopped by the Christian nations of Europe and the line held. But the term “crusader” was used with contempt not toward the defenders of the invaded countries, but because that was the term that those who came to liberate the Holy Land in the name of Jesus Christ adopted for themselves. So when a modern extremist Muslim uses the term “crusader” as an insult that is code language for accusing a Christian of being a nominal Christian who does not really believe in God.

Because during the Crusades to be Christian meant to be Catholic, since the Reformation was still several hundred years off in the future, Muslims maintained a suspicion of Catholics long after it was necessary. But in recent years through enhanced dialogue and more ecumenical education, Muslims have come to realize that Catholics do genuinely believe in the one God, despite what the actions of the historic crusaders seemed to indicate. And this is also why there are examples of countries, such as Syria and until recently Iraq, where the Christian Orthodox and Catholic faiths have peacefully co-existed within predominately Muslim countries all along. The Qur’an states that there should be peaceful co-existence. But the history of the Crusaders gave Muslims the perception that Christians go beyond “defending” their country from forced conversion by Muslims, and would, in fact, mount attacks to wrest back the Holy Land from the Muslims, who are descendants of the original occupants, while the Europeans were not. So where pockets of Orthodox and Catholics held on and continued to reside in the land of their ancestors, they were able to do so, though often under very harsh circumstances (such as in Egypt), since there is a continuity of these Christians in that land. But “crusader” has a connotation of an “invading outsider meddler.” Thus extremists will apply the code word “crusader” to even highly irreligious cultural mores that invade from the West, such as lewd entertainment, in the ultimate irony. Extremist Muslims use the term crusader as insult of even the behavior that true Christians disapprove of in agreement with them, which is the degraded cultural and societal behaviors that they deplore, since they perceive it as a degrading cultural invasion rather than a genuinely God fearing invasion. So to summarize, if one is to negotiate with Muslims, one must understand that when the term “crusader” is invoked, it is not a back handed compliment admiring someone’s adversarial faith (kind of a “Muslim versus Christian” slogan) but is instead, basically, code word for accusing the “crusader” of being an invading cultural anti-God and God denying force. Extremist Muslims are not “admiring” the faith of people they call “crusaders.” They are evoking the belief that “crusaders” abandoned worship of the one God and thus bring with them degraded cultural values and beliefs.

None of what I am teaching here, by the way, is justifying or excusing extremist Islamic beliefs. As I’ve blogged before one of the greatest errors among devout Islamic believers is that they believe they have a mandate from God to do what the Bible calls “smiting,” but, in fact, they do not have that mandate. However, one cannot productively dialogue with either moderates or extremists if one does not understand the origins of their point of view, and accurately decode their terminology and language of concepts.

So my fourth point is that either consciously or unconsciously, Muslims have higher expectations from Jewish and Christian individuals or countries because they have perfect understanding that all three faiths originate from belief in the same God. Muslims therefore, consciously or unconsciously, “expect” better behavior and comprehension of the complexity of issues from Jews and Christians. This is also why they have been bitterly disappointed when they do not perceive this common foundation of relationship. It is, like I used in my analogy, as if both cousins inherited land from a grandfather, but one denies that the grandfather even existed. Even if the reality of the grandfather is not pertinent to the topic under discussion, it is very disconcerting to the believer to be in dialogue with the non believer. Thus, as certain Israeli leaders have become more secular and less religious, rather than this being viewed as a reassuring development, to the Muslim it is very disconcerting. They view that as a development that increases the distance between the parties in dialogue, not narrows it. Muslims wonder how Israelis can understand their point of view if they no longer seem to believe in the same God, from which the Muslim point of view springs. So secular “logic” that advocates becoming more secular and faith neutral in negotiating is an advantage and a plus in negotiating is totally wrong. Modernists seem to think that separation of church and state, plus increased reliance on secular beliefs and reasoning is helpful to genuine diplomacy, but the opposite is true. Western countries and pro Israel organizations have completely erred in this regard. Trust me, a Muslim diplomat better understands an extreme Orthodox Jew than they understand a Jew who has become secular, because to a Muslim, a secular or a non-believer is unpredictable. Muslims understand people who are motivated by belief in the same God, but who may have vigorous disagreement about what share of God’s creation to allocate and claim. Muslims, especially extremists, do not understand former believers who seem to be motivated by degraded Western values rather than God.

Here are some examples of this. A Muslim can well understand combating with a Jew or a Christian over whose church, mosque or synagogue should occupy a given sacred space. That is easy to understand, even if the solution sure is difficult to reach, if even possible, for at least each side understands full well the other side’s motivation. Each side believes in their faith, in, ultimately, the same God, but is robustly combating for the upper hand in a sacred arena. This type of diplomacy opportunity may be difficult to resolve, if one and only one site is being fought over, but it’s not hard to identify and explore the options and have a fruitful dialogue, should everyone be motivated to pursue a solution. However, Muslims are totally baffled and enraged by actions that they believe originate from a denial of their diplomatic combatant’s own God. An example of this is the Israeli government’s policy of destroying the housing of the families of those they identify as terrorists. This is such a secular and cold determination of policy that Muslims cannot fathom it, and thus have an increased contempt, rather than an increased compliance. Likewise the hindering of basic needs for the Palestinians, such as being enfranchised in the economy, or as happened recently the ability to repair a burst sewage treatment pond that actually killed people, is just seen as evidence of a God denying secularism. The problem is that a Muslim is at a loss as to how to negotiate. I certainly sympathize, since it is a challenge to negotiate with someone who is fully absorbed with exercising secular power, regardless of their positive or negative underlying motivation. This is why Muslims may turn to more extreme advocates, rather than lesser, since they perceive the exercise of secular power as being a “pushing” without knowing where the pushing is going to end up, as if one is blindfolded and forced to walk backwards. When a Muslim argues with an Orthodox Jew, however, they both understand each other’s agenda and purpose, and are not obscured by wondering where the random reactions of secular decisions and exertions of power will take them.

So to summarize, Muslims are Muslims because they believe in the one God, and thus they have less understanding of “cultural Jews” and “cultural Christians” and their motivations. Just as westerners worry about “how far will Islamic extremists go?” in truth Muslims worry and wonder “how far will western secular extremists go?” Muslims, especially the clergy, feel that westerners, including the Israelis, have no self restraint and thus are totally unpredictable in what they will do, and that is very worrisome. And please, I am not at all diminishing the genuine self restraint that Israel and its people have repeatedly demonstrated as they have tolerated continual terrorist attacks. What I mean is that the overall agenda and the specific tactics of westerners and the Israelis seem, to Muslims, to be “open ended” and anything might happen, including totally illogical and counterproductive movements and decisions. We all know that random behavior is the most challenging to deal with in all aspects of life. Muslims feel that secular believers have removed their own norms and commonality of expectations and thus “anything goes” as far as the westerners and Israelis are concerned. This has been one of the fundamental root causes of the lack of progress in the resolution of the problems in the Middle East. Muslims have had to negotiate with many unpredictable partners.

My fifth point is that during times of uncertainty people adopt the old adage “any port in a storm.” That expression means that a boat that is in danger of sinking must dock at the first port it finds, even if that is really not an ideal place. Thus people will ally themselves with some very dubious beliefs and cohorts if they feel pressurized in chaotic conditions. All sides in the Middle East situation have done this. The Israelis hooked up with certain Evangelical and other outlying Christian groups who view Israel just as cannon fodder for conversion and the “imminent” “battle with the Anti-Christ.” I will say one thing; at least these nuts have made Catholics look good again. Muslims have come to learn to distinguish between Christians who are mainstream and are not presuming to dictate who is doing what to whom “according to the Bible” and those who are trying to use the conflict in the Middle East as some sort of stage for their Anti-Christ play. Israelis in their desperation for peace and normalcy have taken money and listened to the horrible advice of many Christian nut jobs. I can’t think of too many worse combinations that Jews who have lost their own faith and who take advice from Christians who are lost in a confrontational fantasy. This in fact harkens back to the crusader problem where some sort of new age crusaders have run around in Israel influencing secular leaning Jews toward thinking of the Muslims and themselves as participants in some end of times tableau. This is a sane diplomat’s worse nightmare, LOL. Muslims would find it much easier to negotiate with solid Orthodox or Conservative Jews who have the discipline and self contained restraint of mainstream beliefs. What is really sad is that when conservative Jews backlash, often they hit the Christians who are not the nut jobs, especially Catholics and Orthodox. So Jews bog down in arguing about whether Pope Pius XII was all he could have been in helping Jews in World War II, rather than wondering why so many Christians are running around Israel looking for the Anti-Christ and predicting how many Jews will die and how many will convert before “the end of times.” Muslims, on the other hand, have come to discern between whacky Christians and the mainstream Christians, notably the Catholic Church, and thus things are improving and options are opening up. So my advice to any diplomat who has to deal with issues regarding Israel is to be aware that for decades now certain Christian nut jobs have pulled strings behind the scenes among the Israeli government and populace, stirring up an “end of times” mentality that is contrary to diplomatic good faith efforts.

This is one reason why Iran has become so outspoken regarding their Shiite Twelver beliefs. The Iranian clergy and government are fully aware that certain secularists and Christians have influenced Israelis with their manufactured “end of times” narrative and expectations. As I’ve explained, Muslims of all sects have a justifiable suspicion that Christians have, in general, abandoned the one God. Remember, crusaders are, to them, secularized Christians who promote Jesus Christ and deny God. So it’s not like Iran decided to suddenly spout what westerners may deride as apocalyptic and “extremist Islam beliefs.” Rather, Iranians view themselves as “setting the record straight.” From the point of view of the clergy and the government of Iran, they perceive that Israel has become overrun with unpredictable crusaders and secularized Jews. Contrary to popular thought and as I discussed above “secular logic,” Iran is not reassured by less devout Jews. Greater devotion and mainstream faith is stabilizing on all sides, among Muslims, Jews and Christians alike. This is why the clergy of Iran, the President, and other government representatives constantly reiterate their faith context within documents of even only secular scope. They feel they must repeatedly refute and restore what they consider to be a mainstream context for what they think is often irrational secular or cultist influences. Western governments and the media erroneously portray Iran as like suddenly coming up with strange ideas while the opposite is true. They view themselves as speaking up, louder and louder, as they see a jumble of marginal cultist beliefs and secularization invade their own region of the world, specifically Israel. The last thing Iranian clergy wants are nominal Christians telling the Israelis that they “know” that the Anti-Christ is this or that and that the end of time is “coming” here or there on such and such a place. Mark my words, behind the scenes “end of time” nut job advocacy has set back peace in the Middle East. This became clear to the Iranians and others when they observed some of the muted but unmistakable behind the scenes apocalyptic dialogue that informed the invasion of Iraq by the USA. So to summarize this point, a diplomat who dialogues with Iran must realize that Iran is not trying to be extremist in their beliefs or out of the mainstream but, rather, Iranians feel they must speak up with what they view as the correct and less specific interpretations of end of time theology. Like the Catholic Church, Iranians in general believe that only God knows those times and that those events and their timing cannot and should not be manipulated by human beings. Thus it is an error for diplomats to view the faith based verbiage of the Iranian government to be provocative. In fact, the opposite is true, where Iranians feel that reiteration of their faith context is mainstream and helpful to stabilizing what has been an increasingly unstable and chaotic fragmentation in their part of the world.

The obvious example of any port in a storm is the attraction of extreme Hadassah teachings and militant Palestinian organizations, giving rise to what is called Islamic extremism. When people feel disenfranchised and continually pushed by what they consider to be unpredictable and randomly pushing forces, they join up with forces that they feel can push back. Some of it is so frustratingly predictable. For example, people have known for years that the legal Palestinian organizations, led by Arafat, were at best inexperienced and at worst corrupt regarding the financials of aid that was given to them by the rest of the world. But rather than send a lot of boring accountants and viewing that as a problem that needed to be solved, those who oppose the Palestinian agenda laughed in their hands at the hapless and corrupt looting and wasting of money. However, suddenly there is no laughter when the people, who are no fools, elect Hamas into power. Suddenly there is outrage and puzzlement, how could the Palestinians vote in even worse extremists! I found reading such reports in the newspapers to be too foolish to even put up with. Everyone knew full well that the Palestinian government was wasting and looting, as just about every immature government agency will do, and they just let it happen rather than donate and even insist on financial advisors. But every wise option was blocked by the view that it was “aiding terrorists” when one helps the Palestinians. That is what I mean by the feeling that secularized Jews have, to Muslims, an alarmingly unpredictable set of reactions and the international community, including the UN, has been naïve, to say the least. I would have sent a boatload of accountants to the Palestinian authority along with the financial aid and as a condition to it, and that’s a fact. I mean, it must have been twenty years ago that I heard on a NYC TV news station report chuckling about how Arafat has part ownership of a bowling alley in Manhattan. How stupid is this? Everyone was laughing up their sleeves at how the Palestinians mismanaged their aid money, and the people suffered, and then they are surprised when finally the Palestinians “threw the bums out” and elected Hamas? Then you heard squeals and howling of “outrage” all the way to the supposedly democracy advocating White House. The average Palestinian family has been looted every which way imaginable, and everyone has been “in on it,” including the USA and Israel. And then people wonder when they continue to despair and adopt “any port in a storm.”

My sixth point is about the terminology “Zionist entity.” Westerners and the Israelis view the use of this term by Muslims as a slur, just like the term crusaders. Diplomats need to not be so simplistic and understand, just as I explained crusader, the nuance and origins of the term. Muslims use the term Zionist in order to avoid using the terms “Jewish” or “Israelite,” those two terms which they have no desire to insult. Muslims share the faith history preserved in the Jewish Bible of the ancient Israelites and confirm in their own Qur’an that Judaism is one of the God believing faiths. They, correctly, observe that the secular state of Israel has a government that is neither Jewish, as in being a theocracy or state religion, or Israelite, as in mandated and structured as the Kingdom of Israel of old. Thus the Muslims who use this term are taking care not to call Israel something that they feel it is not (which is, as I explained, a faith based structure as was in the past) but to characterize it as what they think it is, which is a created construct. Israel was created, as many countries in the world have been, as a result of the end of colonialism, armed conflict and UN or other governing mandate. This makes the state of Israel, in the eyes of many, to be the “Zionist entity.” It was the Zionist political movement, in reaction to the Holocaust during World War II that resulted in the creation of a state that then became populated by immigrant Jews. I’m not making a statement as to the justification of the state of Israel either way, so I’m not being critical or “taking sides.” I’m explaining the mindset and historical facts that any diplomat needs to appreciate. When someone refers to the “Zionist entity,” sure, they are not being complimentary. But one must understand the nature of the slur in order to successful comprehend diplomatic positions.

Iran serves as an excellent example in the Zionist entity discussion. Many westerners insist on thinking that Iranians hate Jews, and when they hear Iranians use the term “Zionist entity” they think that is a slur referencing that supposed hatred. But that is not true. There is a minority Jewish population in Iran and they have a parliamentary representative who occupies the seat reserved for Jews. Whenever that representative or others state that Iranians do not hate Jews, they are accused of being brainwashed, controlled, and oppressed or, not to be indelicate, to use American slang referring to servants “the house Jew.” I mean, if you want to believe that a country hates your faith or your culture, even if that is not true, I guess it’s a free world and you can think what you want. But any of your diplomatic endeavors will of necessity go awry due to this lack of misunderstanding. “Zionist entity” is a code word that is not just a slur regarding the belief that the state of Israel is a false and artificial construct, but it also a positive validation that the speaker is not using the term “Jewish” or “Israelite” as a slur. Diplomats need to understand precisely what the parties to negotiation are actually saying and what they actually believe.

My seventh point is that when stances are misunderstood, over simplified or painted as cartoons, rather than being clarifying, greater confusion results. To use the previous example, if one insists in believing that Iran “hates Jews,” one has swept off the table multiple diplomatic options that are valid but presume that Iran does not hate Jews. Thus simplistic and erroneous thought and speech eliminate valid diplomatic options rather than make the problem easier to solve.

My eighth point is that extremist speech tends to breed more extremist speech in response. Many people are outraged by what the President of Iran says about the Holocaust. But if you were experienced diplomats who understand human nature, you’d recognize that “pressing buttons” is a common reaction to being characterized in cartoon terms one’s self. If people are going to insist that one is a “Jew hater” when one is not, one loses motivation to defend the accuracy of what you do believe, and it is common to respond by shrugging and pressing some buttons in return. Genuine diplomats recognize that and put it in their proper context. As a diplomatic pointer that I may give to those who are outraged by comments such as questioning the Holocaust. It is diplomatically a sign of weakness and insecurity to obsess over and freak out about a statement that one knows is untrue. Every poker player knows that if your opponent stops the game to tell you that your mother wears combat books and is a linebacker on the Green Bay Packers, that you do not stop the game to get “proof” that your mother does not wear combat boots and that she is not a hefty linebacker for an American football team. And you do not obsess during the rest of the game with thinking that your opponent “really believes” that your hefty combat boot wearing mamma spends her Sundays playing on the gridiron. I try to think back to the last time I observed a genuine deft diplomat on the public stage and I must confess, I really cannot think of any recently. The Americans in particular seem so eager to get into tit-for-tat name calling while actually holding their “diplomatic” portfolios that it is just pathetic.

My ninth and final point, for this particular blogging, is that diplomats must avoid using bad or otherwise inexplicable behavior as “input” to unrelated situations being negotiated without fully understanding its context. Here I am referring to the relationships between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. Westerners observe outbreaks of horrible violence and merciless cruelty between these groups as somehow being informative of the character of the people and the faith in general. That sounds like a powerful argument that no one can refute, that surely there is something “wrong” with a faith where the believers of different sects can bomb each other’s shrines and mosques, torture civilians, murder children, and describe them as unbelievers. However, here is the danger of drawing a cultural conclusion from those events. If an observer had arrived on earth for the first time in the 1970’s and 1980’s and their only exposure to Christian Protestants and Catholics was to be Northern Ireland, what would they “learn” and conclude? They would see Protestants and Catholics do unspeakable things to each other. If they left earth at that point and told their colleagues what they saw, what valid conclusions could they have taken back with them based on witnessing what came to be called “The Troubles?” Likewise diplomats must take great care to not draw broad based conclusions when they witness terrible sectarian violence among Muslims. It is factual information that must be considered in context (and indeed was not considered by the Americans at ALL when they invaded Iraq, to the woe and detriment to all), where one knows that the potential for such a conflict exists, just as it did in fact exist between Protestants and Catholics in the power keg of Northern Ireland. Diplomats constantly “mine” for information and perspectives that are fully informed by the context and the factors that could precipitate those conditions, but they are very cautious about sweeping generalities of culture and character, which would in the large part be proven disastrously wrong.

Well, I hope that you, dear readers, have found my thoughts here to be helpful. I feel I must make some sort of joke about being a diplomat with an invisible and very low paying portfolio, ha.