Most of us know, deep in our gut, that terrorism-the use of force against innocent civilians for the sake of political advantage-is wrong.  But proving that is often more difficult than it first seems. The following hypothetical conversation is a case in point.

 

Soldier: I can't believe you guys; strapping on suicide bombs and blowing up innocent civilians. Have you no shame, no sense of decency?

 

Terrorist: I can't believe you guys; strapping on your seatbelts and firing missiles at this or that target, when you know full well that innocent people will be killed. Have you no shame, no sense of decency?

 

Soldier: There's a big difference here. We do not intend to kill innocent civilians. You do. The innocent people we kill are collateral damage.

 

Terrorist: "Collateral damage?" Isn't that a fancy cover-up for doing exactly what we do? We intend to kill innocent civilians. You don't intend it, but know full well that innocent civilians will die in your operation. So what's the big difference here? Pretending you don't intend something that you know will happen anyway?

 

Soldier: Look, we're wearing uniforms. We're properly equipped. We comply with military conventions. And we do what it takes to defend our country.

 

Terrorist: Well, we don't wear uniforms, because we'd rather not get shot before carrying out our missions. We are not properly equipped because we don't have the means. We defy military conventions because we don't have much of a military. And we fight, using what we have, on behalf of a cause we deeply believe in. We make do with what we have. Once again, all I see is moral equivalency between you and us.

 

Soldier: You're so full of it. All you can do is to hide in the shadows, like a rat, spreading fear wherever you go, and using violence to force people to your way of thinking.

 

Terrorist: And when you fire your missiles, and your bombs, and your guns, aren't you also placing fear in the hearts of  people, and forcing them to swallow your policies against their will? What's the big difference here?

 

Soldier: Yes, but you're so loony, you believe that killing innocent people will make you a martyr, and will get you into heaven, surrounded by 72 virgins no less. How stupid is that?

 

Terrorist: And when you kill and die, your people will celebrate you as a military hero, even if innocent civilians died in the process. How stupid is that?

 

Soldier: I fight for my country because I believe in what she stands for.

 

Terrorist: Do you believe that your country makes mistakes, mistakes which cost innocent lives?

 

Soldier: Well, everyone makes mistakes.

 

Terrorist: So you will fight and kill for your country even if you know she makes mistakes?

 

Soldier: I will defend my country no matter what.

 

Terrorist: So I fight for the cause I believe in, no matter what, even if I'm not always right in what I believe, and even if I have to do some unsightly things, like killing civilians.

 

Soldier: But your cause sucks. At least I'm fighting for something noble, like freedom and democracy, and on behalf of a nation that upholds the rule of law.

 

Terrorist: I don't see any freedom and democracy in the places you occupy. And where is the rule of law when you so easily suspend the rule of law, when you have to fight people like me.

 

Soldier: At least I know what I'm fighting for. What the hell are you fighting for?

 

Terrorist: I fight for God's law, and His law is the real "rule of law." His authority exceeds the authority of your secular nation. And I place my life in His hands, and in His service.

 

Soldier: So you don't see much difference in the tactics we use?

 

Terrorist: Not really. We basically go around doing the same things. We just justify ourselves in different ways.

 

Soldier: And as to motivation; I'm fighting for my country, and you're fighting for God.

 

Terrorist: Well, I don't have a country as yet, since you stole it, so I fight for God instead.

 

Soldier: So there's no big difference between terrorism and military action? Is that it?

 

Terrorist: No difference that amount to any real moral significance.

 

Soldier: Well then, I guess we'll have to let the people decide.

 

Terrorist: The people? What do you mean?

 

Soldier: We have our agenda, and you have yours. It will be up to the people on the street to decide what they prefer?

 

Terrorist: We are at one with the people. We represent the people. There is not even one ray of sunshine between us and the people.

 

Soldier: That's funny. But when some of your people dare to voice their disagreement with you, you usually end up killing them as well.

 

Terrorist: People who turn against us, are with the enemy, and deserve to be treated like the enemy.

 

Soldier: Well then, maybe there is a difference between us after all. Citizens, who disagree with what we do, or with the government we defend, have a right to disagree, and have a right to vote the government out, and there's nothing much we can do about it. So maybe it will be up to the people to decide. If they don't like our government's policies, they will vote it out of office. But if they don't like you, they may very well find another way to put you out of commission.

 

Terrorist: We are ready to die for our cause. We will not allow ourselves to be intimidated by you, or by anyone else, for that matter, even the people on the street.

 

Soldier: Well maybe there's nothing much we can do about you, though we'll keep on trying. But I can assure you, my friend: if you or I begin to walk out of step with the will of the people, they will make their will known to us, and there will be nothing that either one of us could do to stop that. The will of the people will not be deterred. It will be up to them to decide our fate. It will be up to them, once and for all, to decide what they want for themselves, for their children, and for the countless generations of children yet to come.

Even the title sounds a bit out there. What, the Middle East, the world's largest producer of oil, becoming a center for green technology, and renewable energy? Sounds crazy, doesn't it? And yet, the sheer incongruity of it all may just be enough to make it work. In a world of increasing uncertainty, sometimes it is the unexpected that is to be expected.

 

Look at the world, and what do you see? A lot of good things, that's for sure. Beauty surrounds us wherever we choose to look. But increasingly we are also facing a gathering perfect storm in the form of three types of threats: the Extremism, the Environment, and the Economy. We'll call these the 3-E's for short. Since these three threats are inter-related, and inextricably linked, like spaghetti and tomato sauce, it makes sense that a solution can be found which solves all three in one shot.

 

How are the 3-E's related to one another? In all sorts of ways: Extremist ideologies prevent people from coming together to tackle environmental and economic problems. The degradation of the environment can spur extremist thinking and economic woes. A declining or unjust economy can become fertile ground for extremist thinking and can push people to further degrade the environment. And the list of inter-connections between the 3-E's goes on and on.

 

Since the threats we face are closely connected, it makes sense that a solution can be found which addresses all three in one shot. What would such a solution look like? Well, at least part of the solution could be to revitalize the stagnant economies of the Middle East, and to neutralize some of the ideological extremism that is found there, by investing to create good paying jobs, jobs which are geared toward the protection of the environment. In short, invest in the Middle East to create jobs which protect the environment.

 

Conditions on the ground seem to be ripe for such a solution: Rising oil prices have made it possible for green technology and renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind power, and geothermal, to become competitive and even profitable. There is also, as we speak, a gathering consensus with respect to the threats we face, as a species, from Global Warming. It is becoming increasingly possible, for example, that by the year 2050, if we do nothing, the sea level may rise some 20 feet, thus flooding 60% of humanity. Or at least, the risk of such an outcome may be great enough to warrant decisive action now, even if we're not completely sure. At the same time, the threat from ideological extremism has been perceived, experienced, and acknowledged, worldwide, and the world seems poised to adopt solutions which will curb such threats.

 

So how do we put together all of the pieces of a possible solution? Let's start by focusing on what resources and motivations we have available to us as we speak. Oil producing countries, like Saudi Arabia, have untold billions to invest, but as yet have not invested their funds to create thriving economies, and are themselves beset by the threat posed by ideological extremists. Israel is on the cusp of cutting edge green technology, and is enjoying a thriving economy, but has not as yet come to enjoy the security that can only come from peace. America and other Western nations have plenty of public and private investment dollars, as well as business and technological expertise, but they feel insecure in a world threatened by extremist ideology, environmental harm, and economic uncertainty. The West may also be overwhelmed by the amount of investment that is will take to switch over to green, especially as it faces current economic realities on the ground.

 

So how do we make it all work? How do we move the immoveable? We start by convincing the world at large that change is in the air. And we do it not just by talking, but by creating facts on the ground which speak louder than words. We build a project, a special project that resonates with hope, a project for all to see, and for all to follow.

 

Start with a single solitary project in the West Bank, a very unique place in the Middle East, a place that resonates with symbolism. Use Israeli technology, Arab and Israeli management, Palestinian workers, and Saudi financing, to build a factory that produces a green energy product which is technologically significant in some innovative way. Promote the project around the world to attract more such funding, for more such projects, for more such jobs, for more such environmental protection, for more such neutralizing of extremism, using funds from the West, and from the Arab world as well. Pretty soon, if everything goes as it should-stranger things have happened-your project won't just be a project anymore, but rather a movement for change. Your project will say to the world that a Vision of Hope could be made real if people simply choose to make it so, one project at a time.

 

How would you convince America and the West? You would say that the writing is on the wall with regard to Global Warming. You either change, or you're all going down. And the economy is not in such great shape either. You need to create some good paying jobs, both here and abroad. But even if you go green, and even if you fix the economy, those things by themselves won't be enough, not if you continue to have ideological extremists on your back. So the answer for America is to go for the complete package: Create good paying jobs here and the Middle East, jobs which will protect the environment, jobs which will help to neutralize ideological hate, and jobs which help to cure your economic woes.

 

How would you convince Israel? Israel is a coastline country, and if the sea level rises 20 feet, by 2050 no less, what will become of your country? It's time to make something happen with regard to Global Warming and with regard to peace. Skirting around the issues with empty talk will not do. Use your technological prowess and your economic drive to help revitalize the stagnant economies of the Middle East. Help to design and build projects in the West Bank, and throughout the Middle East, which protect the environment, and which help quell the ideological fervor of extremist thinking. Your ultimate security rests in brokering a peace, a peace based on fulfilling mutual needs and creating mutual economic interdependence.

 

How would you convince Saudi Arabia and other nations of the Middle East? The current model that has been put in place will not hold. We all know that. Sooner or later, the oil will run out. And even before then, the West will be forced to find new sources of energy given the pressure of climate change. Global Warming weighs heavily on us all. Why not dare to dream the impossible, and to make the impossible come true? Why not create a new model, a model based on a Vision of Hope. Have the foresight and the courage to diversify your investments by becoming a big player in going green. Get in on the ground floor of the world wide demand for renewable energy. Convert oil profits into green profits, by creating jobs which protect the environment. Use good paying jobs to revitalize your economy, and to neutralize the hold of extremist thinking. Inspire a sense of hope in your people, and restore a sense of pride in the Arab world.

 

Is any of this possible? You're asking me? In all honesty, no one can know for sure. But my sense is that there is no alternative. We either confront the threats we face head on, or we're going down. It's that simple, and everything we know and love hangs in the balance.  Confronting all these three threats-the Extremists, the Environment, and the Economy-in one shot, makes a lot of sense, because: each threat is related to the other two, a solution for one can be part of a solution for all three, and a solution for one will not work unless it is tied to a solution for all three.

 

We find ourselves in a fix of immense proportions, a fix we've created for ourselves. We're in a real pickle, so to speak. If we are to survive, and that is quickly becoming an open question, we will have to aspire to the wisdom of God, as we put together all of the pieces of a possible solution, not unlike how He has put together all of the pieces of His creation. Only then could it truly be said of us that we were created in "the image of God," which is perhaps what He is waiting to see in us.

 

If you are at all interested, or if you have a rich Saudi uncle, please let us know.

There is as we speak, a growing awareness about Global Warming, and a growing controversy about the dangers it poses, and the possible solutions which could address those dangers. Some believe that Global Warming is the end of life as we know it, and others dismiss it as environmental quackery. To my mind, however, there is enough scientific evidence of the threat of Global Warming, such that the risk of not doing anything about it, is far greater than the risk of doing something, and later finding out that is wasn't really necessary to do so. In other words, the risk posed by Global Warming is so great, that it is worth doing something about it, even if we're not exactly sure that the problem really exists.

 

I don't want to bother you with all the scientific data. Al Gore and his colleagues can certainly do a better job of that. That being said, I watched a show on TV a couple of days ago on the National Geographic channel. The scientists there pointed out that the polar ice caps used to be the size of the U.S. until recently, and are now about 2/3 of the size they once were. If they continue to melt at present rates, they could disappear by the year 2050, which is right around the corner, and the sea level could rise by as much as 20 feet, which would flood approximately 60% of humanity.

 

Global Warming is not just an environmental issue. It is an issue with ideological dimensions. It is a problem that brings into sharp focus what is important in life, and what we, as a species, will choose as our collective destiny. Yes, we are now charged with the onerous task of choosing our own destiny.

 

Some 150 years ago, relatively a bleep in the history of man, we decided, as part and parcel of the Industrial Revolution, to run our economies on fossil fuels. Could that decision have been a wrong turn taken by man as he made his way through the annals of history; a mistaken direction? And is it time now to retrace our steps and to find the right path once again? And is it just possible that Global Warming will force us, once and for all, to decide what is important in life, and to organize ourselves around principles which make more sense, which will bring more justice, and which will sustain us on this good earth?

 

If it is indeed true, as is quickly becoming apparent, that Global Warming, if left unchecked, will bring us storms and floods on the scale of those described in the story of  Noah, then we have no choice but to rethink our priorities, to use our God-given Common Sense, and to reorganize ourselves ideologically, economically, and environmentally, in a more sensible and sustainable manner.

 

Strange as it may seem, Global Warming, the ultimate threat to our existence as a species, can also be the impetus for the kind of change that can better assure our long term survival.  If we take the threat seriously, we will conform our behavior to the dictates of Common Sense, as opposed to the lure of greed, and reorganize ourselves consistent with a Vision of Hope, thus averting the abyss, and building a new future for ourselves, one based on justice and sustainability.

 

Common Sense suggests that in a world of limited resources, that the need for a sustainable environment trumps short-sighted economic policies which leave vast economic disparities, ideological extremisms, and environmental wastelands, in their wake. Common sense suggests that we in the industrialized world owe it to future generations to move toward green technology and renewable energy, and that we do so by creating good paying jobs around the world, which are aimed at producing green products which will protect and sustain the environment.

 

Such jobs will help to mitigate economic disparities, will help to neutralize ideological extremism, will help to clean up and sustain the earth, and will inspire people with a sense of hope by showing them a way out of the clutches of extreme poverty. Investment in green technology jobs by the Western world, and even by the Arab world, will have the added benefit of conferring to the investor countries, and their people, a sense of spiritual awakening, and restoring in them a sense of purpose and hope.

 

All this may seem like just talk, but talk which is persuasive can lead to action. As an example of where we need to go; the Japanese car company, Honda, just came up with a car, "Clarity," which runs on a hydrogen fuel cell, with zero carbon emissions, just water vapor. And as you may know, Japan is investing heavily in developing industrial zones in the West Bank. Let me ask you this: Why can't a plant to build this car be built in the West Bank? Why can't Palestinian, Israeli, and Japanese business people collaborate, for a change, to make this happen? Why can't Palestinian workers be hired and trained to produce a product that can help to protect the earth? Why can't Saudi financing be used to finance the project as a way of converting oil profits to green profits, and as a way of neutralizing extremism?

 

Why? Why? Why? If it makes sense, and if it is now time to make sense of our lives,  then why don't we at least just give it a try?

 

 

John McCain has a daunting task ahead of him. He believes deeply in securing a victory in Iraq, at a time when the American people's support for the war is at an all time low. He believes deeply that Islamic extremism is the transcendent issue of our time, at a time when Americans are preoccupied with economic woes. He believes deeply in cleaning up the environment, at a time when Americans are facing the prospect of $5 a gallon gas.

 

One of the hurdles that John McCain will have to overcome is that of credibility. The Iraq War was sold to the American people on dubious grounds, some of which have since been proven to be untrue.

 

 It now seems likely that Saddam Hussein was not sitting on stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, even though he had previously used such weapons against Iran and against the Kurds. It now seems likely that Saddam Hussein was not in cahoots with Al Qaeda, even though Al Qaeda has since penetrated the conflict. And while the Bush administration has touted the idea of spreading freedom and democracy throughout Iraq, as a model for the whole Middle East, such an outcome, considering present realities on the ground, is far from being realized.

 

Despite these setbacks, one thing that John McCain has going for him is the intuitive wisdom of the American people. Americans are not stupid. Between the lines, Americans have come to the realization that the Iraq War, despite all that has been said, is mostly about oil. There are plenty of hot spots around the world where America could choose to fight, and to spread democracy, but she chooses, not coincidentally, to fight in the Middle East, where so much of her oil comes from. It is not the case that the U.S. was after Iraq's oil. It is more about wanting to secure that region to assure an uninterrupted supply of oil, because for now, at least, oil is the lifeline of the engine that drives the American, and Western, economies.

 

And now, with $5 a gallon gas in the offing, Americans can easily see that what happens in the Middle East directly affects their pocketbooks, and their way of life. And with 9/11, Americans could also see that the threat of ideological extremism is real, and that there are people out there plotting the demise of America in particular, and of the West in general; people who are emboldened by ideological conviction, and who are not particularly deterred by the prospect of death.

 

And yet, even though most Americans perceive what John McCain perceives: the need to secure their oil supply, the need to switch over to green energy, and the need to deal effectively with extremism, still, this realization, in an of itself, is not exactly the best way to move the electorate to your way of thinking. More is needed to close the deal. When you're asking people to put blood and treasure on the line, you better have something more to say than, "We're fighting a war on terror," or even worse, "We're fighting a war to keep oil prices in line."

 

So in effect, there is currently a disconnect between our real reasons for being in Iraq, and the pronouncements being made by our leaders. And the reason for this disconnect is that saying the truth may not be palatable to the American mind, or so it is assumed, even though Americans know full well that a lot of our preoccupation with the Middle East is about oil, and the need to secure our access to it, at a reasonable price; because in a very real sense, our way of life depends on the availability of oil.

 

John McCain often takes pride in his reputation for "talking straight" to the American people. It's time to do just that, and to level with the electorate, but to do it in a way that inspires a sense of hope in things to come. John McCain could say, for example, that while he remains committed to weaning us from our dependence on foreign oil, by promoting green technology and domestic energy production, that until this is achieved, we need to secure our oil supply in the Middle East, because a failure to do so will threaten our way of life. It is straight talk to say that we need oil to live as we do, and that we have no choice but to protect our interests in that regard.

 

John McCain could also point out that the ideological extremists have their agendas in full working order, and that it becomes incumbent on us, therefore, to oppose them with all our strength, and with all our might. The writing is on the wall, so to speak, that they are fully committed to our demise. Someone has to win, and someone has to lose. If the ideological extremists win, it will be at the expense of giving up our way of life, the life we have fought so very hard for, so many times before.

 

But how would you convey such a message to Americans who are war weary, and who are fed up with the past several years? The answer for John McCain is not unlike the answer for Barack Obama: you have no choice but to sell America on a Vision of Hope.

 

He could say something along these lines: "The global threats we face: from ideological extremism, from the destruction of the environment, and from the repercussions of extreme poverty, are best handled by selling each other on a Vision of Hope. We will not allow the extremists to set the agenda for our future as a nation. We have better ideas than they have, and more resources to put on the table. We will beat them at their own game and marginalize them in the eyes of their own people. We will use a new ideological framework, an Ideology of Common Sense, to speak to one another with common sense and with a sense of personal dignity. We will invest in one another to create good paying jobs which inspire a sense of hope, which protect the environment, and which neutralize extremist thinking. We will use Ideology and Investment to sell people the world over on a Vision of Hope. We will sustain the hope with a serious commitment to Public Diplomacy. And when necessary, and it will be necessary my friends, we will fight, and fight hard, against the forces of extremism, but we will also position the fight within a Vision of Hope. We will raise the fight on the ground to a higher moral plain by giving the fight a moral clarity of purpose. We are not fighting a "war against terror." We are fighting a war to realize a Vision of Hope. There's a big difference."

 

Just as Selling a Vision of Hope could give substance to Barack Obama's call for hope and change, by moving him a little bit to the right, so too could it give substance to John McCain's call to stay the course, by moving him a little bit to the left. The American people, for their part, continue to remain somewhere in the middle, somewhere between extremes, somewhere where truth resides, and common sense holds sway.

 

Given the choice, most voters would rather forget about the Middle East. With so many pressing problems here at home, it is hard to keep worrying about that precarious place. But the Middle East is not easily forgotten. In the first place, our oil supply, which continues to fuel our economy until we find feasible alternatives, requires a measure of stability in the region. And in the second place, John McCain has stated repeatedly that the threat of Islamic extremism is the transcendent issue of our time. So how should Senator Obama speak about the Middle East, so as to inspire Americans with a sense of hope in that regard, and so as to meet the challenges he will face from Republicans on this important issue?

 

Americans are responding enthusiastically to Senator Obama's call for hope and change. Along these same lines, there is no reason why a message of hope and change cannot include the Middle East as well. In fact, Senator Obama would be well advised to give substance to his message of hope and change by selling Americans, and people around the world, on a Vision of Hope for the Middle East. In a very real sense, if people can become inspired with hope when it comes to the precarious Middle East, then they could definitely become inspired about a whole host of other issues, which are a lot less contentious. So let the Middle East be the test for the possibility of hope.

 

Keeping all this in mind, how would you go about inspiring people with a Vision of Hope for the Middle East?

 

Selling a Vision of Hope has five parts to it, like the five fingers of your hand:

 

The thumb is for Ideology:  The world, which is increasingly becoming globalized economically and technologically, is ready for a new ideological framework-an Ideology of Common Sense-based on universal principles of common sense;  by which we speak to one another with common sense and with a sense of personal dignity. Instead of believing what we want to believe, it is time to start believing in what makes sense. In a more perfect world, common sense will inspire our thinking and inform our speech. How do wed begin to come together?  In our fractured world, common sense is the common denominator.

 

The index finger if for Investment: We should invest in one another to create good paying jobs which inspire a sense of hope, which protect the environment, and which help to neutralize ideological extremism. If the West is good at anything it is making and investing money. Why not use this strength as part of our strategic arsenal to promote the peace and to defeat extremism? We can use public and private funds to create an International Fund for Economic Development in the Middle East, under the banner, "We stand ready to invest in you, if you are ready to invest in yourselves." Good paying jobs there could create good paying jobs here at home, by opening up new markets for our goods and services. And with green technology jobs, we could help convert oil profits into green profits, and begin to clean up the environment as well.

 

The middle finger is for Hope: We could use an Ideology of Common Sense along with some well placed Investment Dollars to sell a Vision of Hope-a vision of Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom-on the Arab street, in the Muslim world, and in the world as a whole. Einstein came up with E=mc2. Thankfully, the formula for world peace is a lot simpler: Ideology plus Investment equals Hope, and with hope, all things are possible, even the impossible dream of peace.

 

The ring finger is for Public Diplomacy: Once you sell a Vision of Hope, it becomes important to sustain the vision, by launching a series of Public Diplomacy Programs which are specifically designed to prop the vision up and to carry it forward, such as: a Media Campaign, a program to Empower Women, a Student Exchange, a Cultural Exchange, an expanded version of the Peace Corps, and a series of International Conferences on economics, religion, and education.

 

Take, for example, the program to Empower Women. Empower women in the Middle East, in ways that they deem appropriate, and you will have changed the face of the Middle East. Who are women? They are the givers of life and the caretakers of life, and as such are uniquely qualified to reconstitute their societies consistent with a Vision of Hope.

 

The pinky is for the willingness to Fight: If we already have to fight against ideological extremism, and we do, then we should fight, and fight hard, but we should position the fight within a Vision of Hope. We should elevate the fight on the ground to a higher moral plain, by giving the fight a moral clarity of purpose. People will fight harder once they know what they're fighting for. We're not fighting a war against terror. We're fighting a war to realize a Vision of Hope. There's a big difference.

 

 

By speaking this way, Senator Obama will neutralize any attempt to cast him as soft on terror, while at the same time inspiring a sense of hope for the Middle East. In effect, he will empower our nation to face the ideological extremists head on. Selling a Vision of Hope is a way of beating the extremists at their own game, of doing what they do only better, of co-opting their strategy and thereby marginalizing them in the eyes of their own people.

 

If the extremists are ideological about violent Jihad, we will be ideological about Common Sense. If they invest peanuts in charitable handouts, we will invest some serious dollars in jobs. If they sell a vision of hope for 72 virgins, or martyrdom, or paradise, or a caliphate, or what have you, we will sell a Vision of Hope for Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom.

 

At every turn, we will cut them off at the pass, and beat them at their own game. We will marginalize them in the eyes of their own people. They will become pariahs in the midst and will come to know the loneliness of being out of step with the will of the people. The will of the people will not be deterred. In the final analysis, the ideological extremists will not be able to capture the public's imagination, once people begin to imagine the possibility of a better life for themselves.

 

Ask yourself this: Where will peace ultimately come from? When all is said and done, peace will come from the heart and the mind of the man on the street. We can win his mind by speaking to him with Common Sense and with a sense of personal dignity. We can win his heart by investing in him-by giving him a place at the table, a stake in his future. And we can win the peace by selling him on a Vision of Hope. Give the man on the street a sense of hope and you will have turned the corner on world peace. Nothing less will suffice, and nothing more is needed.

 

As Barack Obama is suggesting, start with a vision, a big Vision of Hope. Give it some substance on the ground. And soon enough, the reality on the ground will fill up the space created by the vision. Such is the dynamic for change in the world, and such is the prescription for change in the Middle East. This may well be the time, before time runs out, to dream the impossible, and to make the impossible come true.

 

For more information, please visit our website at www.sellingavisionofhope.org