Vision of Hope Blog tagged 'vision of hope'

Gandhi, King and Mandela

Nissim Dahan

Some of the strongmen of the Middle East are no longer in the picture, but who, and what, will come to replace them?

Yesterday's parliamentary elections in Egypt is a case in point. Certainly, there was a sense of hope written on the faces of Egyptians who voted, as perhaps a first step in reclaiming their country. But who did they vote for? Undoubtedly, the Muslim Brotherhood will garner a strong position in the new government. But does that necessarily mean an end to democracy even before it starts?

It came as a surprise to some to find out that in recent months, the Muslim Brotherhood has advocated strongly on behalf of foreign investment in Egypt, and on behalf of job creation. Even though there are fears in the air that women's rights are in danger, and that a return to religious fundamentalism is in the offing, still, the Brotherhood, at least for now, doesn't seem to dwell on such things, but focuses its rhetoric on jobs. Is this just a ploy to win elections, or is it the real deal?

There is no doubt that ordinary people on the streets of Cairo, and throughout the region, yearn for many of the same things that are sought after the world over, like freedom, dignity and economic security. It would seem to make sense, therefore, that these causes should be at the heart of any successful political campaign, even campaigns conducted by those with leanings toward religious fundamentalism. In other words, to the extent that the people on the street are deeply committed to such things as freedom, democracy and jobs, then to that extent, any political party, regardless of its ideological inclinations, will have no choice but to speak about, and deliver on, the causes which are most important to the people, in order to win elections, and most importantly, to win hearts and minds.

That, at least, is the hope for the revolution that some call the Arab Awakening.

Of course, there are no guarantees, especially when you're talking about political revolutions. In fact, most times things go badly, before getting any better. But there are things, three things in particular, that may help to move a revolution in the right direction, in a direction that is in line with the aspirations of the people.

The first thing that can help bring success to a revolution is to embrace a vision, a vision of hope, that calls for change which is positive, realistic and attainable. For example, if it is freedom and jobs you want, then advocate on behalf of these, because they are within the realm of possibility. And in fact, personal freedom and job creation go hand in hand. Any regime which strives for economic growth and job creation in this globalized world of ours, will have no choice but to allow some measure of freedom, as a way of instilling a sense of trust among prospective investors. These freedoms may be limited somewhat, as in the case of China, but greater openness is indispensable to economic growth.

The second factor that helps to bring success to a revolution is to bring life to a vision of hope using the right tactics, and this involves a strategy of non-violence. You don't want to demonize certain individuals, or certain groups, because this will cause such groups to retreat into their own corners, in preparation for civil war. You want to be inclusive of all people, and advocate on behalf of a vision which is welcoming to all, and which inspires everyone to come together in common purpose. And you want your voice to be heard throughout the land, while shying away from violence, even in the face of violent attacks by the opposition, which for the most part has been the case in places like Egypt and Tunisia. Syria is another matter, but the violence there by the government is so overwhelming, that some violent resistance is inevitable.

The third, and perhaps paramount aspect of a successful revolution is to pick leaders in the mold of visionaries like Gandhi, King and Mandela, who inspired their people, and who used non-violence to give substance to the aspirations of the people. They were not motivated by revenge. Gandhi could have turned the people against the British, but he didn't. King had reason to turn against his country, but he didn't. And Mandela could have launched a campaign to turn against the whites, and confiscate their property, but he didn't. Instead, these leaders chose a different path: to advocate on behalf a vision of hope, to give substance to their vision using non-violent means, to be all-inclusive in their approach, and to deliver on promises made so as to give hope for a better future.

The Arab Awakening is at a crossroads. We can become entrenched ideologically, and consolidate political power by demonizing one another. Or we can choose instead to embrace a vision of hope, and deliver on that promise with real change, change that capture hearts and minds, and that gives life to the aspirations of the people. The choice is ours and everything we love and hold dear hangs in the balance.

Are Turkey and Israel Kissing Cousins Again?

Nissim Dahan

Relations between Turkey and Israel have been strained to the breaking point, ever since nine Turkish activists on the Mavi Marmara tried to run Israel's naval blockade of Gaza, and were killed by Israeli naval commandos in May of last year. In the years preceding this incident, relations between the two countries were relatively good, including strategic cooperation, tourism, economic cooperation, and the like. But since the Mavi Marmara affair, any attempt at rapprochement by Israel was met with; "apologize first," by Prime Minister Erdogan.

In light of this recent and contentious history, rumors that Turkey may be willing to help mediate the prisoner exchange by which IDF soldier Gilad Shalit, now being held by Hamas militants, would be released, seemed too good to be true. Why, in the face of such strong positions taken by Turkey, would Prime Minister Erdogan even consider helping Israel secure the release of her soldier, Gilad Shalit?

The answer may well be the "Arab Spring," or more specifically the "Syrian Spring." The turmoil in the Arab world is plain to see, and is most vividly brought home by the relentless killing of demonstrators in both Libya and Syria. Particularly in Syria, the killing spree by the government seems to know no bounds, and is affecting Turkey directly by the swell of refugees crossing over the border.

There is little doubt that Turkish attitudes have changed, as the current harsh realities of the Arab street are factored in. And in fact, as Turkey searches for some measure of stability in the region, is it a wonder that she may look to Israeli in that regard? The ups and downs of Israeli/Turkish relations may well pale by comparison, as compared to the existential threats posed by the "Syrian Spring," with its widespread and far reaching implications for the region as a whole. In short, a strategic partnership with Israel may be a bitter pill to swallow, but may also be the right medicine at the right time.

Rumors have it that we will soon see: the appointment of new ambassadors to Tel Aviv and Ankara, a renewal of a strategic partnership between the two countries, an Israeli apology for last year's flotilla fiasco, and official confirmation of the Turkish mediation efforts in the Shalit affair. Much of the progress in this regard has been fostered and encouraged by President Obama and his administration, which is trying to bridge the divide between Washington and Ankara, and which sees a rapprochement between Israel and Turkey as indispensable in this regard.

If it is true that the "Syrian Spring" has played a significant role in bringing Turkey and Israel closer together, then this has widespread implications for the region as a whole. There is no doubt that the history of the Middle East is replete with enmity between Israel and much of the Arab world. Rightly or wrongly, and I believe wrongly, Israel and the U.S. have been blamed for much that has gone wrong in that troubled region.

However, the "Arab Spring" may have ushered in a new day, a turning point of sorts. Whereas in the past, Israel and the U.S. have served as convenient scapegoats, as a way of diverting attention away from the inadequacy of corrupt and oppressive leadership, today, in light of new realities on the Arab street, Israel and the U.S. may better serve as friends in need, as partners who may be of help in averting existential threats, and helping to usher in a new age in the Middle East, based on a Vision of Hope for the region, a vision of Peace, Prosperity and Freedom.

It would be quite ironic indeed if all this came to pass, but no less ironic than some of the other craziness that takes place on a daily basis in this mysterious place we call the Middle East.

A Day at the Beach

Nissim Dahan

A friend of mine brought to my attention a recent article by Ethan Bronner in The New York Times, Where Politics Are Complex, Simple Joys at the Beach. The article describes a group of Israeli women who engage in civil disobedience by sneaking into Israel groups of Palestinian women to enjoy a day at the beach. The Israeli women, who call themselves We Will Not Obey, are willing to break the law to send the message that in their opinion, the occupation, with its attendent legislation, is unjust and should be brought to an end. The Palestinian women are willing to take the heat from their husbands, friends, and families, to enjoy a day at the beach, and to taste a small measure of freedom.

While the beach scene may seem idyllic on its face, not everything goes smoothly on such occasions. A Palestinian woman, who has five of her brothers in Israeli prisons, and whose other brother was killed when he entered a settler religious academy armed with a knife, said, "This is all ours," when she first entered Tel Aviv. The Israeli women reminded her, however, that his was their home. Another Palestinian woman admitted that her husband's family did not approve of her visits, "How can you be with the Jews, they ask me, are you a collaborator?"

So perhaps the deep seated divide between these two people is still there, only to be temporarily papered over by an occasional act of defiance, an occasional visit to the beach. But something about this story struck me as significant. Perhaps it was the fact that women, and not men, were taking the initiative to defy the law, but in a gentle, and non-violent manner. Women, on the whole, seem to have a keen sense of right and wrong, and are not naturally inclined to obsess over ideological differences. Women have better things to do with their time. They tend to build bridges, not walls.

Our daughter gave birth to her fourth child this week. At a moment's notice, my wife and she sprang into action, making the necessary arrangements to bring this child into the world, and to care for her as best they could. For the most part, the men sat back, watched, and marveled at it all. Who are women, I often ask myself. 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, a vision of Peace, Prosperity and Freedom.

There are many instances, around the world, of a disconnect between the policies of government and the aspirations of the people. The majority of Israelis and Palestinians want peace, but their leaders seem disinclined to make the effort. In the Arab world, the man on the street wants a decent job and the personal freedom to live his life as he sees fit. And yet, the powers that be remain committed to a model that is repressive and out of step with the will of the people. In the United States, Republicans and Democrats, who are debating a solution to debt crisis, are willing to play a game of chicken with the full faith and credit of the country, which could wreak economic havoc in the U.S. and around the world.

Leaders, on all sides of the fence, get caught up in ideological traps, traps which imprison their thinking, traps which make it difficult to find common ground, and traps which make compromise a dirty word. At a time when global problems require global solutions, narrow-minded ideological positions keep us cooped up in our own little worlds. And it's going to take more than a Day at the Beach for us to enjoy the light of day.

One of the Israeli women mentioned Rosa Parks, "...I admire her, because she had the courage to break a law that was not right." Yes, but that was not enough. What was needed was a vision, a big vision of hope. Dr. King was a man possessed of such a vision, a vision of civil rights and equal treatment under the law. Ordinarily, Rosa Parks' refusal to give up her seat on the bus, would have been a non-event. But Dr. King was no ordinary man. He was a man possessed of a vision, a big vision of hope. He saw in Rosa Parks an opportunity to give substance to his vision, and soon enough, the reality on the ground grew to fill up the space created by the vision. Such is the dynamic of change in the world, and such is the prescription for change in the Middle East.

So let us enjoy our Day at the Beach. Let us continue to push the envelope, just a tad, and without violence, to get our voices heard. But let us, as well, find the courage and the wisdom to give purpose to our passions. Let us embrace a Vision of Hope, a vision of Peace, Prosperity and Freedom, and let us give substance to that vision by changing peoples' lives for the better, with new realities that speak louder than words, and which help to break the walls of ideological divides.

Happy Birthday America

Nissim Dahan

Granted, I may be somewhat biased in this regard, but to my mind at least, the United States of America is the greatest country on earth, and probably the greatest country that ever was, and unfortunately, every once in a while, it comes time to prove it. This is such a time.

The problems which sit stubbornly at America's doorstep are numerous and overwhelming: a huge debt burden that threatens future generations, a slow economy that is slow to rebound, high unemployment, two wars being fought with limited success, environmental threats which have been put on the back burner, and the list goes on and on. A multitude of problems is taking its toll on the American spirit and putting at risk the American Dream.

As the world watches with dismay at the trials and tribulations of the American enterprise, still somehow, in the minds of many, America continues to be the last best hope for mankind. There is no country on earth that is more able, or more inclined, to help turn things around for the better in this troubled world, as she has done so many times before.

America has had her fair share of criticism of late, and some of it, at least, is justified. However, as yet, no one has been able to suggest a better form of government, and no other country on earth holds a better promise for the destiny of man.

Many of the problems we face as a nation are problems we share with other nations as well. A world that is quickly becoming smaller economically and environmentally spares no country from the looming threats which are bound to affect us all. We are all in this together. And therefore, if America is able to reset herself, and to make good on the promise of her founding, then the world as a whole will be the better for it.

America must find the courage and the wisdom to look herself in the mirror, and to remake herself in a new light. Cosmetics will not be enough. She has always been pretty to look at, but it is the beauty from within that she has to bring out. Yes, she will focus on solutions to her problems. But those solutions, in this increasingly global world of ours, should take into account the welfare and best interests of other nations and other people, so that a partnership is created the world over, by which the success of one nation inures to the benefit of other nations, and vice versa.

The new world order, and the fix for what ails America, will involve financial engineering, by which all nations stand to gain from the success of individual nations. It can't just be about living the good life. It must also be about living a life that brings good to the world.

Take the Middle East as an example. In the current scenario, America finds herself fighting two wars, at vast expense, and sees the Middle East as a threat to the American way of life, with the oil supply in jeopardy, and extremism on the loose. But what if America could somehow partner with the Arab states, by which American knowhow could be partnered with Arab capital and business sense, in an effort to revitalize the entire region with good paying jobs, including green jobs, and including millions of American jobs as well. What we're looking for here are win/win situations which help everyone move beyond adversity and toward a Vision of Hope.

People the world over sense that things are coming to a head, to an ultimate conclusion of sorts. Human destiny is playing itself out even as we speak. The choices we face are stark. Things will either go well, or they will go very badly indeed. You don't have to be a prophet to realize that when you're talking about the world's oil supply, at a time of increasing competition for scarce resources, you're talking about the potential for World War III.

We owe it to ourselves and to future generations, to avoid the calamity of war. We are called upon, in our time, to remake ourselves in a new light, a light that shines as a beacon of hope, a light that points to the possibility of peace, prosperity and freedom for all, and a light that secures the destiny of man as far as the eye can see. So, happy birthday America. May you find the courage and the wisdom to live up to the potential that is your birthright.

A New Model for the Middle East

Nissim Dahan

The Mubarak model is out. The extremists, however, are ready, willing and able to put their model in place. It is important, therefore, for those who seek freedom to put a new model on the table, one that inspires a sense of hope, one that competes effectively for hearts and minds, and one that points to the possibility of peace, prosperity and freedom, on the Arab street, in the Muslim world, and in the world as a whole.

And what will this new model look like? It will look like a Green Industrial Zone between Israel and Gaza, which creates some 200,000 jobs, and which will bear witness to the miracle of Jews, Christians and Muslims working together, side by side, for the sake of a brighter future.

And why will a Green Industrial Zone make any difference now, when so many other such projects have been tried before? Because the Arab Spring is a game changer. Because the man on the street has found his courage, and is crying out for two things: a job, and the personal freedom to live his life as he sees fit. Because the Arab leadership is running out of time, and running out of options. Because at this particular point in time, when so much is at stake, there is a hint of an alignment between the self-interest of some of the key players in the region, and the best interests of the region as a whole. Because the leaders may actually need one another for a change, to stave off some very common existential threats; namely the threat of a nuclear Iran, and the threat of the man on the street. And because these common threats could be used to forge a security/economic alliance between the Arab States, Israel, Europe and the U.S. to provide security, and to revitalize the entire region with good paying jobs.

And who would be willing to build a Green Industrial Zone between Israel and Gaza? Wealthy and powerful people, who would never have said yes before, may be willing to give it a shot this time around. People like Stef Wertheimer, a multi-billionaire in Israel, who sold his business, Iscar, to Warren Buffet, and who enjoys building Industrial Zones where Jews and Arabs work together. People like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, who have partnered together in philanthropy, and who may see this project as giving needed direction to U.S. foreign policy, and creating American jobs in the process. People like the Saudis, who have the cash, thank God, and who may see job creation as a way of restoring Arab pride, and bringing about positive change in a gradual and moderate manner, instead of dealing with revolution at their doorstep. People like Hamas, who may still hate Israel's guts, but who may partner with her, nonetheless, in order to create the jobs that the people are demanding. And even Israel, which needs something like this to break the paralysis of the peace process, and which would prefer an industrial zone on her border, as opposed to launching sites for missiles.

And why a Green Industrial Zone in particular? Because a project of this sort would provide the answer to the three greatest questions of our time: How do we grow our economies? How do we protect the environment? And how do we weaken the hold of extremist thinking? And the answers are simple enough: We grow our economies by investing in one another to create good paying jobs. We protect the environment by using business to address the environmental issues endemic to the region, such as water shortages and the like. And we weaken the hold of extremist thinking b giving the man on the street a place at the table, a stake in his future. In the final analysis, the ideological extremists will not be able to capture the public's imagination, once people begin to imagine a better life for themselves.

And why will one, single, solitary project of this sort make any difference to the collective future of mankind? Because at a time when the whole world is looking for answers, and looking for ways to revitalize itself, this particular project will put together all the pieces of a solution to our most intractable problems, will package those pieces in the most attractive way possible, and will allow us to sell the man on the street on a Vision of Hope for the future. As such, a single, solitary project will capture the world's imagination, and will attract additional investment dollars, for other such projects, and what begins as a single, solitary, project could well blossom into a movement for change.

Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a bus, in Montgomery, Alabama. Normally a non-event. But Marin Luther King was no ordinary man. He was a man with a vision, a big vision of hope for America, a vision of equal rights and justice under the law. He saw in Rosa Parks a way to breathe life into his vision. And soon enough, the reality on the ground grew to fill up the space created by the vision, a vision of hope. Such is the dynamic of change in the world, and such is the prescription for change in the Middle East.

The Means to an End

Nissim Dahan

Every once in a while we come to believe that the ends justify the means. But most of the time we scramble to find the means to a given end. And if we don't find the right means, then the end we seek will not be found, no matter how justified it is.

There is no question in my mind that much of what is happening on the Arab street can be explained as the fervent wish of some very well-intentioned people to shake off the oppressive yoke of the past, and to open the door to a brighter future. The people on the street have found the courage to embrace such noble aspirations as freedom and democracy. And to that end, they have put life and limb on the line, in an effort to dismantle established and entrenched regimes, in favor of new leadership which will be more responsive to the needs and aspirations of the people.

And yet, as justified as these ends are, the means to these ends do matter, because the wrong means could very well spell a dead end to even the most justifiable ends. A revolution, almost by necessity, brings with it a period of instability and even chaos. After all, you can't very well bring change without disrupting the status quo. After a while, a certain measure of battle fatigue is bound to set in, and the revolutionary fervor of the man on the street can easily be overtaken by the political ambitions of political factions which are averse to freedom, which are authoritarian in nature, but which promise to restore some semblance of stability to the nation.

The revolution of 1979 in Iran is a case in point. The Shah of Iran lost favor in the eyes of the people, due in part to his repression of dissidents, even as he ushered in an era of gradual reform. His removal from power brought Shapour Bakhtiar into power, for only 36 days, supposedly with a public mandate to usher in democratic reforms. A period of instability ensued, only to bring to the fore another revolution, by which Ayatollah Khomeini took hold of power, and put in place a regime that was far more authoritarian than anything that preceded it.

It would be a travesty of justice for the people of the Middle East to have shed their blood, and to have invested their hope, only to be overtaken by the insidious agendas of ideological extremists. One way to avoid this, in my opinion, is for people to focus on goals which are realistic, which can be achieved more easily, which are not overly threatening to the powers that be, and which can help to bring about reform that coincides with the aspirations of the people. In short, the aims of the revolutions may have to take current realities into account. Even if a dictator is toppled, there are still those left behind whose agendas and ambitions must be taken into consideration.

I would focus on growing the economy, instituting economic reforms, and guaranteeing personal freedoms, as realistic means to achieving the greater ends of freedom and democracy. Economic growth and job creation may not resonate as dramatically as freedom and democracy. However, it could well be argued that business can be used to create a neutral pathway to freedom and democracy. A good paying job can go a long way to ease the burden of a hard life. But in addition, the same conditions which are needed to grow an economy are the same ones which will allow a viable democracy to take root and to flourish.

Once people across the Middle East are making money together, their lives will gain a good measure of dignity, and gradually, each person will become more humanized in the eyes of the other. Along with the empowerment that comes from personal economic well being, comes a natural inclination to demand and receive greater personal freedoms, and eventually, with the requisite institutions in place, will come a transition to democratic rule, not just in form, but in substance as well.

The economic path to democracy may seem, at first glance, to be a more circuitous path. However, in the long run, it may be the best way to get to where we're going, while minimizing the risk of getting lost along the way. Business is ideologically neutral. Business is something that most people have come to understand. And business is less threatening to the powers that be, who may decide to support the effort, as a way of effectuating positive change, in a more gradual and moderate fashion, while side-stepping the prospect of chaos at their doorstep.

Extremism Knows No Bounds

Nissim Dahan

It seems, at times, that there are no limits to extremism. I guess that's why they call it "extremism."

The recent murder of Vittorio Arrigoni, age 36, comes to mind, although there are numerous examples to be found in all the nooks and crannies of the Middle East. Vittorio was an Italian activist and journalist, who chose to live in Gaza since 2008, and who championed the rights of Palestinians for the last several years. He was abducted quite recently by a radical Islamic group inspired by al Qaeda, and was used as a bargaining chip to pressure Hamas, the ruling political faction in Gaza, to release some political prisoners, including a Sheikh whom they consider their leader.

The group threatened to kill Vittorio if their demands were not met, and a short deadline of 30 hours was put in place. Perhaps the victim tried to convince his captors that he too was fighting for justice for Palestinians. But in the end, the group decided to mete out its own brand of justice. In an unfortunate turn of events, the group's demands were not met, and Vittorio was strangled to death, even before the deadline had elapsed.

Up until several days ago, I would have thought that Hamas was pretty extreme, calling for such tidbits as the destruction of the State of Israel, and death to the Jews. But now, however, it seems that this Salafist group may be even more extreme than Hamas, murdering an advocate for the Palestinian cause, even as Hamas watched in disbelief, and was rendered powerless to stop it from happening. Is it possible that this extremist group, which has become a thorn in Hamas' side, could be a wake-up call to Hamas, that maybe there is a better way to move forward? Perhaps, but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

Such is the nature of extremism. There is no stopping it once it takes hold. One act of terror begets another, as the cold-hearted calculus of our cause takes us to a place where there is no mercy, where almost anything goes, and where almost any heartless act of violence is deemed justifiable in the name of a greater purpose.

Aristotle taught us, a long time ago, that the truth is rarely to be found in the extremes. Rather, truth is usually to be found somewhere in the middle. In short, truth is not an extremist position. For example, if you were to ask Aristotle to define courage, he would probably say that it is somewhere in the middle between being foolhardy on the one hand, and being a coward on the other. It is somewhere in the middle, somewhere that Aristotle called The Golden Mean.

As we search for new paths in the Middle East, paths that are more likely to take us to a better place, we should never lose sight of the fact that there are people out there who will tell us "No!" at every turn. These are people who are very committed to their cause, and for whom failure is not an option. Many of them have convinced themselves that God is on their side, and they have no qualms about killing in His name, even though it is precisely His creatures they are killing.

We should keep the extremist agenda in mind as we venture forth to realize a Vision of Hope, a vision of Peace, Prosperity and Freedom. An opportunity exists, this time around, to make something happen along these lines. But the extremists will leave no stone unturned in their efforts to derail us. Therefore, we will have no choice but to commit ourselves as strongly to our cause as they are to theirs. We will embrace moderation as tightly as they embrace extremism. We will dare to see the world in shades of gray, as they see only black and white. We will accommodate ourselves to our sense of self-doubt, as they convince themselves of the certainly of their cause.

To triumph over extremism, we will chart for ourselves a course that is likely to take us to a new Middle East, and we will not deviate from our journey, even as fear and intimidation are thrust upon us. We realize that much of what preceded us has led us astray, and we know too that there are those among us who would wish to confound our sense of right and wrong, but we will be true to ourselves as we venture forth to what promises to be a promised land.

Yes or No to Peace?

Nissim Dahan

Peace between Israel and Palestine is becoming even more important now than ever before. There are, however, forces at work which are pushing the peace process forward, and others which are holding it back.

Both Netanyahu and Abbas are coming under considerable pressure to show some measure of progress on the peace front. Abbas has expressed his intent to seek UN recognition of a Palestinian state, based on the 1967 borders, in September 2011. Presumably, if such recognition were to be given, then a Palestinian state would come into being without resolving such contentious issues as the status of Jerusalem, and the "right of return" of the refugees. If Israel refuses to recognize Palestine, or refuses to cooperate in implementing the U.N. mandate, then Israel could find itself further isolated in the international community, with the resulting calls for Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS). And yet, without Israel's cooperation, it is hard to see how a Palestinian state could emerge and become viable.

Abbas, and the Palestinian Authority for that matter, are also under a great deal of pressure to move forward on peace. Fattah, the political faction in the West Bank, and Hamas, which controls Gaza, find themselves vying for power on an existential level. Much of the economic and institutional gains that have been achieved by Fayyad in the West Bank could be undermined by a Hamas takeover of the West Bank. Such a takeover is seen by much of the West Bank leadership as a dead end for their aspirations to build a free and prosperous Palestine. The dismal conditions in Gaza do not bode well for a Palestine run by Hamas. It is reasonable, therefore, to assume that Abbas sees a peace deal with Israel as something which would give Fattah some measure of credibility in the eyes of his people, and as a way of consolidating political opposition to Hamas. On the other hand, Hamas could easily portray the search for peace as a sign of weakness on the part of Fattah. Alternatively, reconciliation between Fattah and Hamas, which remains unlikely, could lead to a sharing of power, and a more united approach in finalizing a deal with Israel.

The current unrest on the Arab street increases the pressure on Netanyahu and Abbas to negotiate a peace agreement. No one really knows who in the Middle East will end up assuming the reigns of powers. However, it is more likely than not, at least in some of the Arab countries, that the new leaders will be more responsive to the aspirations of the people. For example, for 30 years Israel could count on Mubarak of Egypt to keep the peace, even a cold peace at that. Now, however, with Mubarak out of the picture, the new leadership will probably take the will of the people more seriously. And if the people demand justice for Palestinians, then Egypt, and other Arab states, will reflect that attitude in their dealings with Israel, and with the West. A peace deal would therefore make relations much easier between Israel and her newly-constituted neighbors, and also between the Middle East and the West.

And of course, much of the West's obsession with the Middle East is about the oil. The free flow of oil is indispensable to Western economies. Therefore, to the extent that a peace deal between Israel and Palestine fulfills the aspirations of the man on the street, and takes away the convenient tool that extremists use to inflame passions, and improves relations between Arab States and the West, then to that extent, the free flow of oil will be assured, and the West can take comfort in being able to run its economic engines.

As if these considerations weren't enough, there is one more reason to push the peace process forward at this particular time. It could well be argued that under the right circumstances, Israel could end up playing a major role in revitalizing the Middle East with good paying jobs. The people on the street want two things in particular: decent jobs and the freedom to live their lives as they wish. To a great extent, these two noble aspirations are what Israel is all about. As an example, of the three judges who recently convicted President Katzav of rape, two are women, and the chief judge is an Israeli Arab. Where else in the Middle East would such a thing be possible?

Many choose to see Israel as the problem in the Middle East. But in reality, Israel is the solution for the Middle East. Israel has precisely what the Middle East needs. A peace deal between Israel and Palestine will help to neutralize at least some of the hate, and will open the door to allow Israel to partner with her neighbors to revitalize the region consistent with the will of the people.

Therefore, we call upon Netanyahu and Abbas to rise to the occasion and to leave no stone unturned in their quest for peace. No doubt there is a long history of failure in this regard. And no doubt there will be bitter pills to swallow on both sides of this conflict. However, the circumstances on the ground, even as we speak, all point to the possibility of a new beginning, a chance for peaceful co-existence, and the prospects for a new Middle East, where peace, prosperity and freedom reign supreme, and a Vision of Hope is finally allowed to take hold.

Half Measures with No Clear Vision in Sight

Nissim Dahan

Where is the vision? Where are we heading? And how do we get there?

For some reason, when it comes to the Middle East, people the world over seem to content themselves with half measures and short-sighted thinking. We feel good about doing something, anything for that matter, even if it has little bearing on the problem at hand, or no chance of bringing about a long term solution.

Take, as an example, the current military campaign in Libya, which is being undertaken by France, England and the U.S. We are targeting military installations, pursuant to authorization from the U.N. Security Council and the Arab League, ostensibly to stop Gadhafi from killing his own people. Sounds good, right? But as they say, the devil is in the details. Why aren't we attacking other dictators who are similarly killing their own people? How will a strictly air campaign prevent Gadhafi from killing his people? Isn't regime change our ultimate goal? How will an air campaign bring about regime change? And if Gadhafi steps down, who will take his place, and to what end?

And the Libya affair is not an isolated example of lack of vision and lack of direction. With our blood and treasure heavily invested in Afghanistan and Iraq, we still don't have even a hint of peace and stability in those nations. With a sanction regime imposed on Iran, we still see Iran pursuing its nuclear weapon ambitions with impunity, as well as its ambitions to remake the Middle East as it sees fit. And with the mounting pressure being exerted on the whole of the Middle East by the man on the street, we still don't have a sense that the change that is coming will be in keeping with the aspirations of the people, and with the best interests of the region as a whole.

So what is missing in the puzzle we call the Middle East? What is missing is a vision, and a reasonable way of giving substance to the vision. And without a vision, and a solid plan of action, the best made plans of mice and men will drift aimlessly in the winds of change.

What is needed is a vision, a Vision of Hope, a vision of Peace, Prosperity and Freedom. It doesn't have to be that vision in particular, although such a vision would address most of what people aspire to, but it should be a vision which brings together all the pieces of a possible solution to our most intractable problems, which packages those pieces in the most attractive way possible, and which allows us to sell that vision to the man on the street. A vision of that sort, a vision which captures hearts and minds, would buy us time to make the necessary changes to give substance to the vision. When the man on the street, who fumes with anger even as we speak, comes to believe that he is being offered a place at the table, a stake in his future, then he may settle down, at least for a while, comforted in the belief that his dreams for the future may one day become real.

And who do we need most of all, to give substance to a Vision of Hope, a vision of Peace, Prosperity and Freedom? Well we have plenty of politicians out there, talking up a storm. And we have academics galore, arguing this and that, back and forth, and back again. And of course, we have our diplomats, ever so careful in the words they choose, going about here and there, making their presence known. But if we really want to get something done, if we choose to move from words to deeds, then we will have no choice but to get the business community in on the game, so as to create good paying jobs; jobs which grow our economies, jobs which protect our environment, and jobs which help to weaken the hold of extremist thinking.

Instead of half measures and short-sighted thinking, we owe it to ourselves, and to future generations, to put in place a new model for the Middle East, by inspiring the world's top business leaders, Billionaires for Peace, to push the peace process forward from behind the scenes, and to revitalize the entire region with good paying jobs, moderate candidates, and requisite institutions, for the sake of global peace, prosperity and freedom.

There is a real opportunity now to make something happen in the Middle East, something that could change the world for the better, and something that will breathe life into the people there and beyond. But nothing good will happen, if all we look for is the quick fix. What is needed is a vision which puts it all together, and the willingness to do what it takes to make real what is now only a dream.

Please join us, with your comments.

Doing Justice to the Martyrs

Nissim Dahan

It's one thing to bring about a revolution; it's quite another to bring about revolutionary change.

There are people dying, even as we speak, on the streets of the Middle East. Mohammed Bouazizi of Tunisia set himself on fire, and in one fell swoop, set the entire region ablaze. But to what end?

Like Martin Luther King, the man on the street has a dream. And his dream is not all that difficult to fathom. He wants the dignity of a decent job, and the freedom to live his life as he wishes. Are these aspirations in the cards for him, or will his dream be left in the dust, in the flurry of competing agendas?

One can only imagine what must be happening now behind closed doors, in the halls of political power; what promises are being made; what deals are being cut. When the dust settles, will the voices of the dead be heard?

Several possibilities come to mind. The old guard may find a way to reassert its grip on power, only in a new guise. Alternatively, the ideological extremists, who believe what they want to believe, could use the ballot box to gain control, only to impose a new regime of oppressive rule. Iran, after all, enjoyed a few months of democratic rule, after the fall of the Shah, only to usher in the Ayatollahs, who had a different idea in mind. One man, one vote, one time. Or so the motto goes. And finally, although there are no guarantees, it may actually be possible, this time around, to institute revolutionary change, the change that gives life to the aspirations of the people, and that does justice to the legacy of the dead.

What can be done to give substance to the hopes of the people? Three things. First, we should recognize the opportunity that exists for meaningful change. Second, we should embrace a vision which allows us to take advantage of that opportunity. And third, we should find a mechanism that allows us to give substance to the vision. In this way, we can finally make real what is now only a dream.

The opportunity that exists for real change in the Middle East comes from the fact that many of the key players are beginning to worry about the same kinds of things, and may actually need one another for a change, to stave off these very common existential threats. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." For example, many Arab leaders worry about two things in particular: the threat from a nuclear Iran, and the threat from the man on the street. These common threats could point to common interests, what I call a mosaic of mutual self-interest, which could in turn be used to create a strategic/economic alliance between the Arab states, Israel, the U.S., and Europe. The alliance will focus primarily on two things: providing security for the region and creating good paying jobs; jobs which grow our economies, jobs which protect the environment, and jobs which weaken the hold of extremist thinking.

What sort of a vision will be required to take advantage of the opportunity that exists for real change? It should be a Vision of Hope for the Middle East, a vision of Peace, Prosperity and Freedom. It will be a vision which puts together all the pieces of a possible solution to our most intractable problems-the Economy, the Environment and Extremism-which packages those pieces in the most attractive way possible, and which allows us to sell that package to the man on the street. It will be a vision which inspires a sense of hope, and which delivers on that promise by giving everyone in the region a place at the table, a stake in his or her future. And it will be a vision which is complete, in that it addresses all the needs and aspirations of the people, from every point of view possible.

And what mechanism can best give substance to a Vision of Hope? Certainly, political leaders will be needed, who recognize the needs and aspirations of the people, and who know how to translate those intangibles into hard realities. But in addition, and perhaps even more importantly, business leaders will be needed as well, Billionaires for Peace, who will work behind the scenes to push the peace process forward, and to revitalize the entire region with good paying jobs, moderate candidates and requisite institutions. These visionaries will put in place a new model for the Middle East, a model that inspires a sense of hope, and that delivers on that promise.

More than any other group, it is perhaps the business community which is best positioned, most qualified, and most inclined to turn the Middle East around, and to do justice to the memory of the dead, by giving life to the aspirations of the living.

The Head of State vs. The Man on the Street

Nissim Dahan

Mohammed Bouazizi was an educated young man, from Sidi Abu Zeid, a small town in Tunisia, who entered the job market that had no jobs. To support his mother and sister, he undertook, without a license, to sell vegetables on the street. When the authorities confiscated his vegetable cart, insulted him, and refused to hear his grievances, he proceeded to set himself on fire, and in due course, to set the entire Middle East ablaze.

What does Mohammed's act of self-immolation mean? It means that a young man, such as Mohammed, needs to find a way to earn a living, and needs as well the freedom that makes his life worth living. It means that the model that has been put in place in the Middle East, with its corruption, and its oppression, and its denial of human rights and basic freedoms, is out of step with the aspirations of the people. It means that in the hyper-connectivity of today's world, one man's rage is another man's call to arms. And it also means as well that there is an opportunity now to build a new Middle East from the ashes of the old.

But how do we go about building a new Middle East? We begin by looking at two key players in particular: the head of state, and the man on the street. To a great extent, the future of the Middle East depends on the interplay between these two. What does the man on the street want? As was the case with Mohammed Bouazizi, the man on the street wants a job, and the freedom to live his life. And what does the head of state want? He wants, above all, security from within, and without. He wants to know that his rule will not be undermined by dissent from within, or by aggression from without. The head of state, therefore, has no choice but to do what he can to grow the economy, as a way of creating the jobs which will placate the citizenry, and as a way of obtaining the resources to fend off aggression from other countries and other groups.

If we look at what motivates the head of state, on the one hand, and the man on the street, on the other, we can see hints of the grand bargain that could be struck, and the prospects that are now out there for a new Middle East. The man on the street wants freedom and jobs. The head of state wants internal and external security, and a growing economy that fulfills the needs and aspirations of the people. Both of these players, therefore, should be able to agree that economic growth and job creation are at the heart of what needs to be done. And both may also agree to close the deal as follows: We will work together to grow the economy and to bestow freedom to the people, in exchange for the people agreeing to respect the rule of law, and to maintain an orderly transition to freedom and democracy.

In the past, other mechanisms were put in place to maintain some semblance of stability on the street. Those measures will no longer work. The old model is out. Something new must take its place. The new model will be about freedom and jobs. Those are the causes for which Mohammed Bouazizi died. They are also the causes on which a grand bargain can be struck in the Middle East between the head of state and the man on the street. In the midst of the American Revolution, Patrick Henry famously said, "Give me liberty, or give me death." In this new revolution, the one we see unfolding before our eyes, the new formulation might go something like this, "Give me freedom, and give me a job, and I will agree to your rule, for as long as you stay true to the dream we can both share."

Work for Change, But Change that Works

Nissim Dahan

Clearly, the model that has been put in place in the Middle East is on its way out. But what comes next?

People on the streets of Egypt, and throughout the Middle East for that matter, are rejecting the status quo even as we speak. What we have come to expect in the region are regimes which usually have a strongman at their center. The opposition is kept in check using a whole host of constraints on personal freedoms and human rights. The powers that be enrich themselves, in a corrupt way, at the expense of the people, who are desperate to make a living. The foreign aid that comes in is diverted away from the people at every turn. The military is courted by the government, as the guarantor of security, in the face of the rage that swells up in the hearts of the people. When necessary, and it is always necessary, diversionary tactics are used to divert attention away from the corruption and incompetence of government. And yet again; a new generation of young graduates enter a job market where there are no jobs.

There is no question that a model of this sort is out of step with the needs and aspirations of the people. They yearn for freedom and they need jobs. So too is this model out of step with the need to compete in a global economy. And the opportunities that exist for people to connect on line make it even more difficult for such a model to persist. A change is called for. But will it be a change for the better? Or will it be change for the sake of change, which ushers in an even greater measure of oppression, and an even bleaker vision for the future?

Let there be no doubt that the extremists, wherever they may be, and whatever religion they happen to subscribe to, are ready, willing and able to assume the reigns of power. In the past, this is precisely what happened. The Ayatollahs hijacked Iran's revolution and sidelined the aspirations of the people in the process. Hezbollah is doing as it wishes with Lebanon, leaving the will of the people in the dust. Hamas has gobbled up Gaza and is undermining the possibility of a free, independent and prosperous Palestine. And the Muslim Brotherhood, which gave inspiration to al Qaeda, and to Hamas, is poised to seize the moment, to take control, and to remake Egypt in its own image.

If the people on the street ultimately end up choosing extremism, there may be no real way to stop that from happening. However, we owe it to the people on the street, to ourselves, and to the future of the Middle East, to at least put an

alternative on the table. We need to put a different model in place; one that inspires in people a sense of hope, one that competes effectively for hearts and minds, and one that is more likely to achieve some measure of Peace, Prosperity and Freedom for the Middle East. The old model is on its way out. The extremist model should be kicked out even before it takes hold. And a new model, a Vision of Hope, should be given the chance to take root in the minds of the people who remain open to the possibility of a brighter day.

What will the new model look like? It will have at its core an ideological framework based on common sense, an Ideology of Common Sense. It will have a consortium of top business leaders revitalizing the Middle East with good paying jobs; jobs which grow our economies, jobs which protect the environment, and jobs which weaken the hold of extremist thinking. It will use ideology and investment to sell people on a Vision of Hope, a vision of Peace, Prosperity and Freedom. It will sustain the hope with public and private diplomacy. And finally, it will embolden us to fight against extremism, but it will also give the fight on the ground a good measure of credibility by positioning the fight within a Vision of Hope. We are not fighting a war against terror. We are fighting a war to realize a Vision of Hope. There's a big difference.

The model I'm talking about will take several generations to construct. A good thing is hard to build after all. But in the meantime, we should put the vision out there, so that when elections come around, the people on the street will at least have a choice. And if I were them, here is how I would vote: No to the outdated model of the past. No to the dead end model of the extremists. Yes to a Vision of Hope, a vision of Peace, Prosperity and Freedom.

Where Will The Rage Take Us?

Nissim Dahan

Things are heating up in the Middle East. People throughout the region are fed up, and rightfully so. They've had it with the oppressive regimes, the corruption, the lack of economic opportunities, and the denial of human rights. And yet, as the anger continues to mount, and as the possibility of change begins to loom large, we must step back and ask ourselves: Where will the rage take us?

Several possibilities come to mind. The regimes could intensify their response, with violence, and the people on the streets might back down. We've seen this scenario play out time and time again. Alternatively, the government could back down, only to be replaced by new political leaders who resort to the oppressive agendas of the past, in the name of restoring a sense of order. And finally, ideological extremists could sense a power vacuum in the making, and could seize the opportunity to bring about regime change. Such an outcome could easily bring back the oppression, but this time in the guise or religious fanaticism. All these various outcomes would be bad, because they do not adequately address the needs and aspirations of the people.

If we want our rage to count, we have no choice but to focus like a laser beam on what it is we want; and to figure out how we're going to get there. Suppose, for example, we agree on a Vision of Hope for the Middle East, a vision of Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom. These three things, Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom, depend on one another, like the three legs of a three-legged table, each leg supporting the other two, and all three supporting a Vision of Hope:

Peace supports Prosperity and Freedom because you must stop the violence to grow the economy, and to institute democratic reforms.

Prosperity supports Peace and Freedom because people need to believe that their sacrifices on behalf of peace and democracy will eventually lead to a better economic future.

Freedom supports Peace and Prosperity because people will elect leaders who have the political mandates to make the painful concessions for peace, and to institute economic reforms.

Now here's the tricky part. How could we go about realizing a vision of Peace, Prosperity and Freedom? The trick is to find a mechanism that seems non-threatening on its face, but which is calculated to bring about positive change. That way, it may be possible to effectuate change, without having the existing regimes over-react, and without bringing to the fore new oppressors in the making, such as the ideological extremists. My best guess is that business is the key. Business is ideologically neutral. Business can create a neutral pathway to peace. Business creates its own ideological imperative. Once people are making money together, they are much less likely to go at each other's throats. Business can create good paying jobs and the prosperity that results. And finally, once people begin to make a decent living, and once they come to enjoy more peaceful relations with their neighbors, then eventually, the personal freedoms of the individual come to be respected and even protected by the powers that be. Human rights and personal freedoms go hand-in-hand with economic development.

It is difficult to say with certainty that an approach of this sort will work. But it is definitely worth trying, if for no other reason than all the failed attempts that came before. Take China as an example. China is still a dictatorship, there is no doubt. And human rights continue to remain an illusive dream. However, as a strong and vibrant middle class begins to take root, and as people's standard of living begins to improve, there is every reason to believe that the rights and freedoms of the individual will grow in stature, and that the government will eventually have no choice but to accommodate this new reality.

Since economic development is at the heart of what needs to be done in the Middle East, I believe that it would be good to put together a group of top business leaders who will work behind the scenes to promote the peace, and to revitalize the entire region with good paying jobs: jobs which grow our economies, jobs which protect the environment, and jobs which help to weaken the hold of extremist thinking, wherever such thinking is to be found. Eventually, if the stars align just right, and granted it's a big "if," I see the possibility of using a mosaic of mutual self-interest in the Middle East, to create a strategic/economic alliance between the Arab states, Israel, and the U.S., which would usher in the peace, and revitalize the region. It may seem a bit far fetched, given all the turmoil that is brewing even as we speak. But it is precisely the turmoil which may one day give birth to the dream.

Please join us at http://www.sellingavisionofhope.org/

Billionaires for Peace: A Hypothetical Example of How It Could Work

Nissim Dahan

Some of my friends and I have recently begun work on a project we call Billionaires for Peace; an effort to inspire top business leaders with a Vision of Hope for the Middle East, to have them work behind the scenes to push the peace process forward between Israel and Palestine, and to encourage them to revitalize the entire Middle East with good paying jobs; jobs which grow our economies, jobs which protect the environment, and jobs which help to weaken the hold of extremist thinking, wherever such thinking is to be found. At first, we weren't quite sure if anyone would listen. But gradually we are coming to the conclusion that this idea is marketable, even within circles of political and business leaders who actually have the wealth and power to make something happen along these lines.

As people consider the idea of Billionaires for Peace, it is only natural to be somewhat skeptical, and to wonder if it could really work. After all, those among us who are fortunate enough to possess great wealth are often very busy, and are inclined to pursue business and humanitarian efforts in their own private and individualistic ways. Why would they agree to join forces in common purpose with others of their stature? And why would they even consider undertaking such a monumental effort as Middle East peace, including a revitalization of the entire region?

Let's look at several seemingly unrelated facts and see if they could point to something more than meets the eye. Several years ago, Warren Buffett purchased an Israeli company, Iscar Metalworking Company, from Stef Wertheimer, making Mr. Wertheimer one of the wealthiest businessmen in Israel. One of Mr. Wertheimer's passions and specialties is to build industrial zones in Israel and beyond, where Jews and Arabs can work together, and he advocates passionately on behalf of a Marshall Plan for the Middle East. Warren Buffett is good friends with Bill Gates, and they have combined their resources, as part of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, to promote health care in Africa and education in America. In addition, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates have also launched a worldwide campaign to persuade some very wealthy people to agree to donate most of their wealth during their lifetimes, which bespeaks a desire, and even a need, among the wealthy, to leave behind a legacy that is worthy of their efforts, and that they can be proud of. Warren Buffett has stated publicly that he is impressed with some of the many achievements of Israel, and it is also the case that Bill Gate's Microsoft division in Israel has been responsible for some very important innovations for Microsoft. At the same time, businessmen like Munib al Masri, a Palestinian multi-billionaire who employs some 60,000 workers, are very interested in developing the West Bank economically, building the requisite institutions, and creating a Palestinian State, a state which is peaceful, prosperous, and free, and which is not overwhelmed by extremism of one sort or another. In addition, the Saudi leadership, as evidenced by King Abdullah's recent pronouncements, is very concerned about the prospect of a nuclear Iran.

Now, how do these seemingly unrelated facts add up? Let's see if we can put these pieces together, at least theoretically for now, in a way that gives credence to the idea of Billionaires for Peace. Suppose, for example, that Warren Buffett and Bill Gates can be persuaded to put Middle East peace under their umbrella of good works. After all, both of them have had positive dealings with Israel, and may be inclined to partner with her in this regard. In addition, Middle East peace could help the U.S. as well. The U.S. has spent over one trillion dollars in the region, and has suffered the deaths of thousands of her brave soldiers, and still, there is little progress in sight in the Middle East, and little hope for peace and stability in that troubled region. As patriotic Americans, and as philanthropists who have chosen to make a profound difference in the world, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates may be moved to help, and may choose to partner with Stef Wertheimer to build an industrial zone in the West Bank, which would create hundreds of thousands of jobs. Saudi investment may also come into play, as the Gulf States undertake to bring some semblance of peace and stability to the region, at least in part to protect their own vital interests.

Eventually, although this may be a stretch, even Hamas in Gaza may come to believe that it is in its best interest to join in on job creation, as prosperity begins to take hold in the West Bank, and as the people of Gaza begin demanding their fair share. As such, Hamas may feel the pressure to moderate its views, and to accept the three conditions of the Quartet, namely: to recognize Israel, to accept previous agreements with Israel, and to renounce violence. Once this is accomplished, another industrial zone could be developed between Israel and Gaza, which would also create some 250,000 jobs. In fact, Stef Wertheimer had developed the plans for such a project in Rafah, and scrapped those plans just as the second Intifada broke out in the year 2000. The idea of Hamas moderating its views and embracing an industrial zone may seem absurd at first blush, but we should keep in mind that George Mitchell, the Middle East Envoy, was able to negotiate something along these lines with the IRA, a group that used to be no less fanatic than Hamas, as part of the peace deal in Northern Ireland. And in fact, George Mitchell had also used the promise of economic development, including investments of 1.5 billion dollars, to promote the peace talks in Ireland. As Middle East Envoy, he has come to conclusion that economic development could play a major role in the search for Middle East peace as well.

Granted, a lot of this remains wishful thinking at best, but the stars may be aligning in just the right way, so that business and political leaders of diverse backgrounds may be willing to come together in such a fashion. There are hints, today, of an alignment between the self-interest of some of the key players in the Middle East, and the best interests of the region as a whole. There is the potential, at least hypothetically, to identify a mosaic of mutual self-interest in the Middle East, and to use that reality to build a strategic/economic alliance between the Arab States, Israel, and the U.S. Many of the key players in the region actually need one another for a change. In the example cited above, we can envision Americans, Israelis, Saudis, and Palestinians coming together in common purpose to join in on a regional effort to promote peace and stability. They may ultimately decide to join forces in this fashion, not because they necessarily love one another, but because doing so may be the only way to stave off some very common existential threats. In short, they need one another.

Billionaires for Peace is not about launching one particular project or another. It is about inspiring a select few visionaries with a Vision of Hope for the Middle East, and harnessing the energy and synergy which result to launch a movement for change in the region, and beyond. It is about creating a nexus between the peace community and the business community, because when it comes to Middle East peace, the diplomats will need all the help they can get. In the new global economy, business, at least to some extent, will be the new language of diplomacy. The ingredients that will be required to make it happen are not so difficult to determine: a vision which inspires a sense of hope, a few doors opened here and there, a good measure of extreme salesmanship, and the willingness of a select few to take on the seemingly impossible challenge of peace. Exactly how things will play out is almost impossible to predict. But given where we seem to be heading, it is at least worth a try, and may end up being one of the only ways to actually move forward.

As you can well imagine, we will need all the help we can get to make something happen along these lines. If you would like to help, as an equal partner, please let us know.

Are the Stars in Proper Alignment for a New Middle East?

Nissim Dahan

Say what you will, the Middle East is a mysterious place. The person who says he knows what will happen there is either foolish of naïve. And yet, there are signs afoot which may point in a new direction, one that is more hopeful, and which hints of a better day and a brighter future.

Whatever else it was, 9/11 was a wake up call of sorts. The horrific events of that day said to the world that there are pent up resentments in various parts of the world, which are festering, which may explode at any time, and which, if taken to their ultimate extents, could threaten Western civilization at its core. 9/11 said to the world that certain basic assumptions about the Middle East may have to be looked at once again, and that certain models that have been put in place, with regard to the sharing of power, may have to be revisited.

Is it smart, for example, for the West to support corrupt regimes which oppress their own people? Is it smart for Arab regimes to pay off the extremists, in a bid to sustain the calm, at the price of teaching hate to a young, frustrated, and impressionable generation? Is it smart to live off of oil profits, without growing an economy and enabling people to earn a decent living? In these and other ways, 9/11 brought into sharp focus the flawed assumptions which underlie much of the Middle East, and much of Western thinking about that precarious place.

Partially in response to 9/11, Western and Middle East governments are beginning to see things from a new vantage point, one that keeps changing as circumstances dictate. The American reaction was initially to launch two wars, in Afghanistan and Iraq. But gradually the focus may be shifting somewhat in the direction of winning hearts and minds, not just military battles. Western insecurities about the free flow of oil, and about the viability and health of the environment, may result in a move toward energy independence and renewable sources of energy. Saudi Arabia, which sees a threat to its source of revenue, and which senses that the deal cut with the extremists, circa 1979, is beginning to threaten her own hold on power, may be more open to growing and diversifying her economy, and using oil profits to generate green profits, and using good paying jobs to neutralize the hold of extremist thinking.

The ambitions of some key players in the area may bring with them a realignment of alliances in the region. Iran perceives a power vacuum in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, and intends to fill that vacuum with her foreign policy and ideological objectives, buttressed by a nuclear capability. She uses her proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas, to test the waters for her ascendancy to power. In reaction, Sunni states like Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, may realign themselves with Israel no less; the one power in the Middle East, which, along with the United States, could be looked upon to keep Iran's power in check. If such a military alliance could emerge, and if it could be strengthened with an attempt to revitalize the stagnant economies of the Middle East, could this bode well for a new Middle East?

And the women of the region are being called upon to play their part in pointing to the possibility of hope. The brutal assault on women by the Taliban of Afghanistan brought into sharp focus the plight of women around the world, including the Middle East. The video footage of a woman being executed in a soccer stadium made an indelible impression on millions around the world. The assassination of Benezir Bhutto was more than a minor footnote in the annals of the stifling of women, and the countervailing courage of women. The ineffectiveness of Zippi Livni spoke to the triumphalism of men in contrast to the moderation of women. And yet, women of courage are not hesitating to speak out, even as they face the countless perils entailed in doing so.

What do these, and other such trends, tell us about the direction that the Middle East is likely to take? No one can know for sure. And certainly, human intention is only a small aspect of human destiny. And no one person is in a position to orchestrate the future of the Middle East. But even given all that, in the overall scheme of things, one could argue that there is at least a decent chance of better things to come.

It is not that things will get better just because of the good intentions of some well intentioned individuals, although everyone of goodwill has a part to play. It is rather that the nature of the problems at hand all point in a certain direction, such that the solutions to these problems will necessarily mean that a new day has dawned in the Middle East. For example, could the global economic downturn mean that the Middle East could be seen as a potential economic engine, as a new market for the goods and services of more developed economies? Could the threat to oil rich Arab regimes posed by ideological extremists mean an investment in growing Arab economies, and using good paying jobs to weaken the hold of extremist thinking? Could the threats to the environment mean an investment in green technology, and green jobs, in a bid to diversify strictly oil economies, and to wean the world from its dependence on fossil fuels? Could the threat of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of extremists be the impetus for new alliances in the Middle East, and even for peace, including an accommodation between Israelis and Palestinians?

No one really knows the answers to these and other such questions. But there is at least a strong possibility that the answers will require the realization of a Vision of Hope, by which, in partnership with the Middle East: we will use a new ideological framework to speak to one another with common sense and with a sense of personal dignity, we will begin to invest in one another to create jobs which grow our economies, protect our environment, and help to neutralize the hold of extremist thinking, we will use an Ideology of Common Sense along with some well placed Investment Dollars to sell one another on a Vision of Hope, a vision of Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom, we will sustain the hope by launching a series of public diplomacy programs, including empowering women, which will prop the vision up and carry it forward, and when necessary, and it will be necessary, we will fight against the forces of extremism, and fight hard, 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 of ideas, a war for hearts and minds, a war to realize a Vision of Hope. There's a big difference.

Will all this come to pass? I don't honestly know. But it seems that the solutions to our most intractable problems seem to coincide nicely with a more hopeful vision for the Middle East. Of course, things could get a lot worse before they get any better. But if the stars align themselves just right, and if enough people of goodwill are willing to breathe life into a new vision for the Middle East, then there is at least a good chance that the impossible will happen, and that the broken pieces of the Middle East will come together in a new and better way, one that inspires a sense of hope for generations to come.

What Does Mumbai Mean?

Nissim Dahan

I don't claim any particular expertise in Indian/Pakistani relations. However, given the horrific events of recent days, I think that certain conclusions can be drawn.

1. Terrorism will not go away any time soon: Given the strong probability that there will always be various groups around the world whose members perceive themselves to be the victims of injustice, and given that as few as 10 men, acting in tandem, and with scant resources, could wreak such havoc in a huge metropolitan city like Mumbai, the chances are good that terrorism is likely to persist, as a relatively inexpensive way of lashing out, making your grievances known, and effectuating change.

2. The recruitment and training of terrorists is not particularly difficult: From what I've read, the lone terrorist, who participated in and survived the attack, has a 4th grade education, and admits to having been trained in a training camp located somewhere in Pakistan. It is apparent, therefore, that recruiting prospective terrorists, and inculcating in them an ideological mindset which predisposes them to carry out suicide missions, is both feasible, and not particularly difficult. It is also obvious that there are, as we speak, organized training camps, operating with impunity, in places like Pakistan, and probably in a great many other places as well.

3. The governments of countries which host terrorist training facilities are unable or unwilling to clamp down on such activities: We must assume that if terrorist camps are operating in countries like Pakistan, then the government leaders must know about such activities, and are currently unable or unwilling to eradicate them. It is not difficult to fathom why. Clearly, such governments may lack the resources, or may lack the political will, since acting forcefully in this regard could well result in civil war, which may pose even more of a threat than the terrorism itself. It is also possible that corruption may be playing a part in the decision making process, whereby people are being paid off to remain silent and to do nothing to disturb the status quo. There are quiet understandings in place.

4. There is a limit to the outside pressure that can be brought to bear against a nuclear power: Even if India rightfully claims that the Pakistani leadership is not doing enough to curb the threat of terrorism, its hands may be tied when dealing with a nation that possesses some 60 nuclear weapons. A military reprisal from India against Pakistan, which will probably not occur, will not likely be strong enough to curb the terrorist threat, given the need to show restraint, in an effort to minimize the risk of a nuclear confrontation.

So given the realities on the ground, and the constraints they impose, what should the world do to contain the terrorist threat? My answer would be to Sell a Vision of Hope, by which we use a multi-faceted approach to undermine the enemy, by beating him at his own game, and by strengthening our resolve to meet the threats he poses:

1. Ideology: If the terrorist uses the divisive ideology of violent Jihad to win hearts and minds, we counter with the unifying Ideology of Common Sense, an ideology based on common sense principles, principles which have universal appeal, and which are therefore universally accepted as true. We will use a new ideological framework to speak to one another with common sense and with a sense of personal dignity. In a more perfect world, common sense, the collective wisdom born of shared experience, will inspire our thinking and inform our speech. In our fractured world, common sense is the common denominator.

2. Investment: If the terrorist uses charitable handouts to win hearts and minds, we counter by investing in jobs, green technology jobs which protect the environment, which grow our economies, and which help to neutralize the hold of extremist thinking.

3. Hope: If the terrorist wins hearts and minds by selling people on a vision of hope for martyrdom, or virgins, or paradise, or what have you, we counter by selling people on a Vision of Hope, a vision of Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom. People the world over need hope like air to breathe. Give the man on the street a sense of hope, and you will have turned the corner on world peace. Nothing more is needed and nothing less will suffice.

4. Public Diplomacy: If the terrorist wins hearts and minds by seeking to set us against one another, we counter by launching a series of Public Diplomacy Programs which are specifically designed to prop a Vision of Hope up and to carry it forward, including: a program to empower women, a media campaign, a student exchange, a cultural exchange, an expanded version of the Peace Corps, and a series of international conferences on education, religion and the environment. Take, for example, the program to empower women by financing female entrepreneurs, and promoting women's rights. 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.

5. Fight: If the terrorist wins hearts and minds by launching terror attacks against us, we counter by fighting back, and fighting hard, but we position the fight within a Vision of Hope. We raise the fight on the ground to a higher moral plain by giving the fight a moral clarity of purpose. We give the fight a good measure of credibility. People will fight harder once they know what they're fighting for. We're not fighting a "war against terror." We are fighting a war to realize a Vision of Hope. There's a big difference.

To defeat terrorism, or at least to contain it, we have to become at least as smart, and at least as committed, as the terrorists themselves. We owe it to ourselves to know our enemy, and to beat him at his own game. In effect, we have to co-opt his strategy, to do what he does, only better, and thereby marginalize him in the eyes of his own people. We have to put him in the uncomfortable and untenable position of holding his people back from a better life. Even the terrorist will not be able to withstand that kind of pressure. He will become a pariah in his own land, walking out of step with the will of the people. Ultimately, the will of the people will not be deterred.

The terrorist derives his power from his ability to inspire his followers, even as he intimidates his enemy. Our path to victory will be to inspire our own people, and even people around the world who may choose to partner with us, because unlike the terrorist, we have something better to sell. We can win the war of ideas by showing that our ideas make more sense, and that we are willing to back our words up with new realities on the ground, realities which speak louder than words, and which point toward the promise that comes with hope. In the final analysis, the ideological extremists will not be able to capture the public's imagination, once people begin to imagine a better life for themselves. It behooves the West to put that option on the table.

We, who are often on the receiving end of terror, can certainly coordinate our efforts better, and embolden ourselves with a vision that gives purpose to our cause. But we may also have to resign ourselves to the possibility that even with a better vision, and even with a more comprehensive and effective approach, the lure of extremist thinking will be hard for some to resist. Terrorism is jut too convenient and enticing a weapon for us to be able to eliminate it totally.

Therefore, even though we could do a lot better in this regard, we may just have to accept a small measure of terror as an unfortunate aspect of modern life, not unlike how we have come to accept the unfortunate realities of crime on our streets, or accidents on our highways. Selling one another on a Vision of Hope will not cure all our ills, but will help contain them, and will inspire us to realize our potential as a species, and to meet the challenges which lie ahead with vigor and resolve.

In Search of New Frontiers

Nissim Dahan

America has always been a land of new frontiers. From the time that Columbus first set foot here, to the time that pioneers set out to settle the West, to the time that Americans set out for the moon, there has always been a sense here that there are new frontiers to explore. And yet, America now finds herself somewhat at a loss, and the promise of new frontiers is becoming illusory at best. Where do we go from here? The question lingers in the public mind.

America faces some grave threats in our time, and by implication, so does the world at large. The threats we face seem to fall into three general categories: the threats posed by Extremist ideologies, the threats to the Environment, and the threats to the Economy. I call these threats the 3-E's, for short.

Extremist thinking is not limited to groups like Al Qaeda, but exists wherever people put their personal beliefs above the needs of the people at large. It could well be argued, for example, that the meltdown in Wall Street was the result of personal greed trumping the needs of a healthy economy.

The threats to the Environment are beginning to loom large in the public mind. The Environment is quickly assuming the role of the ideological imperative. The decision, some 150 years ago, to run our economies on fossil fuels, may well have been the greatest mistake ever made, a mistake with dire consequences for the destiny of man.

The threats to our economy have been made quite clear in the last few days, with grave implications for the economic wellbeing of the entire world. The global economy, while it does hold the promise of great benefits for the world at large, also means that the downfall of one economy could trigger the downfall of others as well. What is clear is that the model embraced by Wall Street, and by other financial institutions, may need some fine tuning to say the least, if not a major overhaul.

Even to the cursory observer, the threats we face-Extremism, the Environment, and the Economy-are all inter-connected, and inter-related. They feed upon one another, and into one another. They are a package deal, of sorts. You literally can't solve one, without addressing the other two. And since they are so related to one another, it is possible that a solution can be found which solves all three in one shot.

The search for answers to the problems which we face may well mean a search for new frontiers, for new ways of thinking, and for new actions taken pursuant to new ideas. It is as if our problems are beginning to point to a new paradigm for organizing ourselves as we make our way into the 21st century. As John Gardner put it, we face "...a series of opportunities disguised as insoluble problems."

The cure for many of the ills which plague us may well be to usher in a Green Revolution, by which we use our technological and economic power to create jobs which are specifically designed to protect the Environment, which will help to curb the hold of extremist thinking, and which will help us to partner with nations around the world to grow our economies, but in a way that is sustainable for countless generations to come.

Think about it. If the threats we face are Environmental, Economic, and Extremist in nature, isn't the answer to grow our economies by producing green technology goods and services, and by using the jobs created in this regard to give everyone on earth a place at the table, a stake in his or her future, and by hoping that such an outcome will automatically help to neutralize extremist thinking?

It is as if the position that America finds herself cries out for a new frontier to be found and explored. However, this frontier is not about embarking on a journey to a distant land. This frontier is about looking at our current situation, and fashioning a solution which addresses all that is wrong with our world, and with our nation.

Many around the world still look to America as the last remaining super-power, and as the last best hope for mankind. By all means of measure, America has much to be proud of: the most successful democracy, the guarantor of freedom and personal liberties, the strongest economy, the most powerful military, the most renowned academic institutions, the leader in technological advancement and research, the leader of the free world, the cultural trend setter of the world, the country that others look up to and depend on. But looking at America's many accomplishments, the question still remains: To what end did America achieve her greatness, and to what purpose will she put her strength?

In the past, even in the darkest of times, America has risen to the occasion, and has cast her light on the right path, for all to see, and for all to follow. Like the Statue of Liberty in the New York harbor, America has often been a beacon of hope for countless millions around the world. But having been a light unto the nations in the past, many now fear that America may have lost her way. And it is precisely at this time, and under these dire circumstances, that America is once again called upon to assume the mantle of leadership in the world, and to show by example the best way forward. Failure to do so could not only undo the fabric of our nation, but could well mean the undoing of the destiny of man.

Don't Laugh: Can Saudi Arabia become the "Mecca" of Green?

Nissim Dahan

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.

The Hamsa and the Businessman

Nissim Dahan

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.

What's In It For Us?

Nissim Dahan

Sometimes, as I write about Selling a Vision of Hope, I think to myself, "How are you ever going to sell this stuff?" At a certain point, people are naturally going to wonder, "What's in it for us?"

In the past several blog entries, I've tried to show that Selling a Vision of Hope could be a useful framework not only for the Middle East, but for solving other problems as well, such as Global Warming, Globalization, and our Inner Cities. The basic idea is simple enough: think straight and believe in what makes sense, make common sense your ideology, use common sense and some well placed investment dollars to inspire people with a Vision of Hope, sustain the hope with programs which prop the vision up and carry it forward, and when necessary, fight, and fight hard, but position the fight within a Vision of Hope. That's it, in a nutshell.

Our development as a species has led to a lot of good things. Some of us are lucky enough to enjoy the full bounty of modern life: incredible technological innovations, state of the art healthcare, outstanding academic and cultural institutions, a cornucopia of material wealth, political systems which protect our personal freedoms, and so forth. The list of human achievements goes on and on.

But unfortunately, alongside each and every achievement, there still remain problems to be solved; big scary problems, some of which threaten our very existence. It is not a coincidence that man's technological advances have brought with them a whole host of seemingly insolvable problems. Each discovery seems to bring its flip side of disaster.

We're choosing to play God, and we may not be winning the game. We have plenty of smarts, but do we have the wisdom? We can create all the various pieces of modernity, but can we figure out how to put all the pieces together, and make them whole? God is a hard act to follow.

Sometimes it seems as if each innovation we come up with opens yet another compartment in Pandora's Box. We design and build beautiful cars for transportation, but end up with global warming. We build nuclear weapons for defense, but end up with nuclear proliferation. We enjoy tinkering with the genes a bit, but end up with the potential for human clones. We inspire ourselves with our deeply held religious beliefs, but end up with religious strife. We celebrate the material wealth at our disposal, but end up with an emptiness of spirit. We build towering cities that reach for the sky, but can't quite find a way to hide the desolation of our poorest slums. At every turn, man's reach for the stars comes up a tad short, and leaves yet another problem in its wake.

Selling a Vision of Hope will help us solve some of our big-ticket problems. It will inspire us to think straight, to reconfigure our priorities, and to invest accordingly. But just as important as restoring order in places like the Middle East, is the need to restore who we are as a nation. By investing in others, we will be investing in ourselves.

The United States is not only the greatest country on earth, but probably the greatest country that ever was. We have much to be thankful for: a vibrant democracy which protects our personal freedoms, a high standard of living, the hallmark of scientific research, outstanding academic and cultural institutions, abundant wealth and material resources, unparalleled military power, and the laundry list of our blessings goes on and on.

Yet, in our pursuit of progress, we have lost something as well. If we are honest with ourselves, we have lost our spirit as a people, a spirit which we must recapture, if there is to be hope for setting things straight in the years to come. Big problems require big solutions. For the sake of our children, and our children's children, and the countless generations of children yet to come, we have no choice but to rise to the challenge, as did our forebears, and to grow our hearts and minds to the task that lies ahead.

Along with America's wealth and power there remains a question to be answered: To what purpose will America put her wealth, and to what end will she use her power? The answer is simple enough-Sell a Vision of Hope. With hope, all things are possible. Yes we will solve some of the seemingly intractable problems which lay waiting at our doorstep. But even more so, we will restore, within ourselves, our sense of idealism, our can-do spirit, our sense of compassion, and our belief in who we are as a people, and who we can become if we merely choose to make it so.

We need to rekindle that sense of awakening. Like the rest of humanity, we need hope like air to breathe. We will bring back to life our rightful sense of destiny, a sense that has been lulled to sleep by the passage of time, and the fullness of our bellies.