The Middle East is a symbolic place. One thing means another thing, and nothing is quite as it seems. The recent fighting in Gaza can be explained on its face, but it too could be symbolic of a much wider struggle.

 

Why did Israel decide to respond, as she did, at this particular time? Let's look for the simple answer first. Since Hamas took over the Gaza strip in mid-June, over 800 rockets and over 900 mortar bombs have been fired at Israeli towns like Sderot. A number of injuries have occurred, but these rockets were a bit primitive in design, had a limited range of 3 to 10 kilometers, and have been referred to as "homemade."

 

However, in the last several days, some 15 heavy rockets known as Katyushas were fired from Gaza against Israel's southern port city of Ashkelon. This rocket, which was used by Hezbollah during the 2006 Lebanon War, has a range of 22 kilometers, and would expose 250,000 Israeli civilians to the threat of attack from Hamas.

 

We could argue back and forth as to what kind of provocation is enough to force a country like Israel to act in self defense. But there is no question that Hamas' decision to escalate the situation by upgrading its weaponry to Katyushas instead of Qassams, and by targeting Ashkelon instead of Sderot, was done intentionally, and with the specific intent of broadening the conflict. There is also no question that Hamas knew, in advance, that there would be civilian casualties on both sides of the conflict.

 

And so the question arises: Why would Hamas want to escalate the conflict and what does this say about Gaza's role in the wider conflict between the West and the Muslim world? To a certain extent, the struggle in Gaza is indicative of much broader trends. Hamas has concluded, rightly or wrongly, that a persistent and ever increasing attack on Israel is in their best interest. How else can we explain these attacks in the wake of the Israeli pullout from Gaza? Hamas would like to derail the peace process any way it can, even at the expense of its own citizenry? Why?

 

There are strong voices, in parts of the Arab world, which cry out that the struggle against Israel, and the parallel struggle against the West, are the only ways for Islam to resurrect itself, and to assume once again the power and prestige it once enjoyed. And Gaza is becoming a symbol of that struggle.

 

It does not take a brain surgeon to fathom the causes of resentment in parts of the Arab world:

• It is the resentment that comes from a loss of power and prestige.
• It is the resentment that comes from extreme poverty with little hope for a better day.
• It is the resentment that comes from being unable to compete, in a world that seems to be passing you by.
• It is the resentment that comes from political and religious oppression, and an inability to speak out.
• It is the resentment that comes from the perceived hypocrisy of free societies supporting repressive regimes.
• It is the resentment that comes from having the "infidel" occupy your lands.
• It is the resentment that comes from having an unwelcome quest in your midst.
• It is the resentment that comes from seeing your cultural identity disintegrate before your eyes.
• It is the resentment that comes from searching for the soul of Islam, and not knowing which path to follow.
• It is the resentment that comes from shouting out your deeply held beliefs, to a world that is not inclined to hear.
• It is the resentment that comes from loving God, and not knowing if He really cares.

And Gaza is becoming the embodiment of Arab resistance, and of the collective decision to lash out in response. The problem is that in the long run, the policies pursued by Hamas, and by other extremists, will not work for them, or for their people. Israel is strong and will use her strength to defend her people. And so too will the West at large, as it defends itself against violent Jihad. Violence will not bring justice, but will only perpetuate itself, at the expense of the people on the street.

 

If Hamas seeks justice, which remains an open question, then it will declare a truce, and find a way to partner with Israel to create a state, and to create good paying jobs, for the sake of the people. If Hamas seeks the destruction of Israel as its ultimate purpose, then Israel will have no choice but to meet the challenge with even more destruction. No civilized society would do any less for its citizenry.

 

If Hamas chooses to cultivate its pursuit of death, then it will be up to the people to tell them, "No." And as Gaza goes, so too will go a good measure of the Middle East. And in the final analysis, it will be up to the good and simple man on the street to once again utter the word, "No." But it remains for Israel, and for the West, to make the case as to why he should take the risk.

Every once in a while we hear of an "honor killing" carried out by a family member against one of their own. A recent article about an Iranian father who stoned his daughter to death, for bringing "dishonor" to him and to his family, is a case in point. The girl may, or may not, have consorted with a man without the father's approval, but he took it upon himself to restore his "honor" in the cruelest way possible, by taking the life of his own flesh and blood.

 

How is it that people come to believe in such things? And the Muslim world is not the only place where such thinking abounds. You could be riding a subway or a bus in a modern American city, and you make the mistake of looking at a young man in the wrong way. He pulls out a gun and shoots you in the head for "disrespecting" him, simply by looking at him in a way that, in his mind, demeaned his sense of "honor."

 

A lot of times you see this kind of thinking among the poor and among the uneducated, but not always. If you are poor and uneducated, and if the weight of a hard life weighs heavily down upon you, then you man find yourself grasping at straws trying to reclaim a sense of honor and a sense of dignity. When you have nothing in your life that gives you dignity, or respect, you may end up looking for it in the strangest places: by stoning your daughter, or by shooting a fellow traveler for looking at you the wrong way.

 

What can I say? We have come to believe in a lot of stupid things. Why? Because many of us have no other reference point, and because sometimes it's just easier to accept what we are told is right, instead of thinking it out for ourselves. But if we think things out before acting out, we may think twice about acting out in the wrong way, and against our own best interest.

 

Common sense would suggest that there is no honor in killing. Honor is not bestowed on us as a matter of right, but is earned by each of us with the good things we do for one another. We are not entitled to honor. We earn it as we go. Common sense would also suggest that we were put on this good earth to live; not to kill, and not to die, before our time.

 

But poverty and ignorance do play a part, as many of you rightly point out. They make it more possible for stupid thinking to grab hold. If a father, for example, has a decent job, and a decent education, and is able to provide adequately for his family, then chances are good that he will find his sense of honor in the good things he has, and does, without resorting to the perverse notion of "honor killing," as a source of honor. If his daughter goes astray, he will find the strength, within himself, to set her straight with love and understanding, because his life gives him the self-respect he needs to respect others. But if that same father is left poor, and ignorant, he will find it difficult to respect others, even his own family, when he has no respect for himself.

 

People the world over will have to begin rethinking some of their deeply held beliefs, so that a semblance of order  has a chance to emerge. We will need a new framework for rational thought based on universal notions of common sense-the collective wisdom borne of shared experience. We will also need to invest in one another, as many of you so rightly point out, so that the moderating influence of education and prosperity could begin to neutralize the influence of extremist thinking. Ideology plus Investment equals Hope, and with hope, all things are possible, even the kindness that we owe it to ourselves, to show one another.

Most of you probably know what a Hamsa is. Right? For those who don't; it is a good luck symbol, in the shape of a hand, which has been around as part of Arab and Jewish cultures for centuries. Most Hamsas feature an "eye" to protect from the "evil eye." And in recent times, a great many feature a "dove" to symbolize peace.

 

What would you say is the evil that we need protection from in this day and age? For what it's worth, today's evil is the evil of ideological extremism. And I'm not just talking about extremist religious fundamentalism. I'm talking about all kinds of ideological extremes, including the belief that we should keep our economies running on fossil fuels, even at the expense of cooking ourselves to death.

 

As some of you know, I am a strong believer in Selling a Vision of Hope, as the antidote to some of the insanity we see swirling around us. As you look at the five fingers of the hand of the Hamsa, think of the five aspects of Selling a Vision of Hope:

 

1. The thumb is for Ideology: Instead of believing what you want to believe, start believing in what makes sense. Use an Ideology of Common Sense to speak to one another with Common Sense and with a sense of personal dignity.

 

2. The index finger is for Investment: 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." Invest in projects which inspire a sense of hope, which create jobs, and which protect the environment."

 

3. The middle finger is for Hope: 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.

 

4. The ring finger is for Public Diplomacy: Once you sell a Vision of Hope, you sustain the Hope by launching a series of Public Diplomacy Programs which are specifically designed to prop a Vision of Hope 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.

 

5. The pinky is for the willingness to Fight: When necessary, and it will be necessary, fight, and fight hard, against the forces of extremism, wherever they may be found, but position the fight within a Vision of Hope. Raise 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 the hell they're fighting for. For example, we are not fighting a "war against terror." We are fighting a war to realize a Vision of Hope. There's a big difference.

 

That's pretty much it. Now let me ask you this: If you want to give some substance to Selling a Vision of Hope, what kind of project would you recommend? I need your advice. What kind of project would say to the world that a Vision of Hope could be made real if people choose to make it so?

 

Here's one idea. See what you think. We get a consortium of Arab and Israeli businesspeople to build a factory on the West Bank. They get funding from Saudi Arabia, believe it or not. They hire and train local Palestinian workers to produce a product which is especially suited to protect the environment. For example, they could produce a long lasting battery to power cars. You pull into a gas station and switch out your battery, instead of filling up on gas. The research for this product comes from a leading university in Israel, or elsewhere, which specializes in green technology. The project is successful, and attracts more money, for more projects, for more jobs, and for more eco-friendly products.

 

Why would the Saudis fund such a project, you may well ask, especially since it promotes green technology? Here are a few possible reasons: The Saudis could use some good PR for a change. They would be using oil profits to protect the earth, and to stabilize the region with good paying jobs. What a concept! They would diversify their investments, and made good money, by getting in on the ground floor of technology that the entire world wants. Good jobs would help neutralize some of the ideological rhetoric, as in the case of China, and India. As people begin to make a living, and begin to imagine a better life, the allure of extremism will diminish. Business has a way of creating its own ideological imperative. Eventually, this effort could pave the way for substantive peace, not just BS, which would bless the House of Saud with a good measure of peace of mind. Everybody wins, even the earth, except maybe the extremists.

 

So what do you think? Any chance of making something happen along these lines? Are we overlooking anything? Are we on to something, or just spinning our wheels? A penny for you thoughts.

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto filled me with sadness, and reminded me of the sense of hopelessness that permeates much of the world.

 

I am not a student of Pakistan's history. And I have been made to understand, of late, that in the past, Mrs. Bhutto represented a mixed bag with respect to the aspirations of her people. Yes, there are persistent charges of corruption, and accusations that she supported the Taliban. But I can't believe that her legacy will be defined only by her negatives.

 

There are several things to consider when we seek to judge her. She was a woman who defied the odds and was twice elected to lead a country that was not predisposed to elect her. Yes, she was driven out on charges of corruption, but, and this should not be underestimated, she chose to come back home. She was not naïve. She knew she faced a grave threat to her personal safety, a point that was driven home when she just arrived. And yet she chose to come back to compete in the political arena. Could blind ambition, alone, explain that? I think not. There must have been some noble aspiration on her part that compelled her to take the risk. Perhaps she learned from past mistakes and wanted to set things right? We can only guess.

 

In addition, how do we explain the immense popular support she enjoyed among her people? Are people totally blind? If she was so corrupt, and so indifferent to their aspirations, how then would they continue to support her so enthusiastically? They must have seen in her some hope for their country, and decided collectively to forgive her at least some of her past sins, for the sake of the hope she inspired in them. Aren't people entitled to decide accordingly? Isn't that the essence of democratic rule?

 

Was she a saint? Probably not. But then again, we've all been complicit in creating a world where saintliness doesn't cut it. The weak are crushed by the strong. And even goodness itself has to find a way to maneuver in the midst of evil.

 

The world is filled with moral vagaries. If a political system is corrupt, are you morally right, as a leader, to play the game, if doing so will give you the political power to do some good? Can we afford the luxury of a clean conscience, at the expense of not delving into the dirt; for fear that our hands may become dirty as well? How do we orchestrate the interplay between good and evil and still be able to look ourselves in the mirror every day?

 

Whatever else may be said of her, Benazir Bhutto was one hell of a fighter. She may or may not have had dirt on her hands; a clouded past, and a mixed bag of intentions, but she came back, sleeves rolled up, ready to fight. And at the very least, she said the right things, the things that inspired a sense of hope in her people. For that, she should be remembered well, even as we hold her accountable for past sins.

 

There are lessons here, but it is difficult to muddle through them, much as the truth is hard to decipher in the midst of all the nonsense which surrounds it. A political system which is corrupt will produce corrupt leaders. But leaders who wish to do good may have to play the game if they wish to make a difference. It is not enough to know that your hands are clean. It is sometimes necessary to get them dirty for the sake of the greater good. And in the final analysis, it may well be up to women of courage to save the world. Men may have become too full of themselves. It may well be up to women to use their God-given common sense to dispel some of the myths which hold us all back, and to really protect their babies by making the world safe once and for all.

 

We have allowed the sad state of affairs in today's world to cloud our thinking, and to taint the purity of innocence. It is hard to see things clearly, and to imagine the possibility that our leaders can be true to their most noble aspirations. We live in a cynical world, where the very possibility of goodness is held hostage by the reality of evil. And yet we have no choice but to hope that things can get better, and that it is our destiny to make it so.

 

What we see in the life and death of Benazir Bhutto is the playing out of many aspects of the human condition. We look at her, not quite sure of what conclusions to draw, and not at all confident in any judgments we choose to make. And yet we see in her a life that came and went, a life that made a difference, and a life that was cut short before realizing its full potential. What that potential would have been we will never know.

I suppose that a speeding train could make a u-turn if you add a track that makes a gradual turn, and guides the train gently back in the opposite direction. And in fact, the faster the train is going, the more gradual the turn will have to be, so that the u-turn will not cause the train to derail. Offhand I can't give you the exact mathematical computations, but I know of some sixth graders who probably could. Brainy little tykes. 

 

Why are we talking about trains and u-turns? Think of the Middle East as a train of sorts, a train with a lot of momentum to its motion. Certain unnamed passengers, some in first class, and some in coach, would like to make a u-turn, but there is always the danger that a course change which is undertaken too abruptly could bring the train to a calamitous halt. And yet, a great many passengers sense that a continuation of the present course could only spell trouble as well.

 

There are all sorts of quiet understandings in the Middle East: "Here's some money to build a madrasa, and yes, go ahead and teach what you want to teach," or "Here's some money to build a mosque, and yes, go ahead and preach what you want to preach," or "Here's some money to build a TV station, and yes, go ahead and broadcast what you want to broadcast."

 

In parts of the Middle East, and parts of the Muslim and Western worlds as well, ideological extremists are using Madrasas, Mosques, and the Media, as a propaganda machine to disseminate hate. And the funding for such activities is being provided by leaders of the Arab world, probably in a bid to hold on to power, and to placate extremist elements. Some of the leaders, however, are beginning to question whether disseminating hate is in their best interest. Such leaders may consider making a u-turn if it could be done without derailing the train.

 

There are hints in the air that change is in the offing. For example, a wealthy individual in Dubai has just initiated a 10 billion dollar foundation to promote secular education in the Middle East. Japan has just initiated an industrial zone in the West Bank. Such ventures attest to the idea, which is beginning to sink in, that Hope works better than Hate. You think? 

 

The problem with disseminating hate is that hate is a hard thing to control. If you teach an Arab man on the street, for example, to hate the West because of its corruption, and he notices that his own government has extensive dealings with the West, then the hate could easily be diverted inwardly against his own government. Why are you dealing with the enemy, he may well ask? Similarly, if you teach young Muslim children to detest the excessive materialism of the West, and they notice signs of excessive materialism within the borders of their own country, then the hate you intended for others, could easily be re-focused internally, and disrupt the social order. Hate is hard to control. You never know where it will point to next. And many leaders in the Middle East see the hate of the young generation pointing toward them.

 

And so, wealthy and powerful leaders of the Middle East may well conclude that disseminating hate is dangerous, destructive, and rife with unintended consequences. They may opt to dump an Ideology of Hate in favor of an Ideology of Hope. Such an outcome, as far fetched as it may seem at first blush, may be rendered more likely if the transition could be made peacefully, and gradually, without derailing the train.

 

What could be done to ease the transition from hate to hope? In the first place, the more concerted and unified the effort, the better. Instead of just one Arab country acting alone, and exposing itself to undue risk, it would be better for as many of the 22 Arab countries as possible to join in, so that the shift from hate to hope is seen as a broad based movement, stretching across the whole of the Middle East.

 

In addition, as we all know, saving face is important in the Middle East. Insults are taken very seriously there, and are not easily forgotten. You recall the Danish cartoons. Therefore, if the West undertakes to Sell a Vision of Hope, the "sales pitch" should respect the aspirations and sensibilities of the people there. We should sell a vision that allows people to be who they are, and to become who they want to become, even if they want to become different from us.

 

Selling a Vision of Hope should be structured and presented as a deal that inures to the mutual benefit of the West and the Middle East, and which has been negotiated fairly and at arms length. Only in this way will the train keep its balance, even as it charts a new course.