Cairo- Three years after the arrest of human rights activists Saaed Eddine Ibrahim and the shut down of his center, the Ibn Khaldoun Center for Development reopened its doors Monday in a festive event.

Local Egyptian supporters and human rights activists as well as Arab and foreign experts and dignitaries crowded the center located in a crowded Cairo suburb of Muqatam. The center and its founder have become a symbol for Egyptian and Arab civil society movement.

“I hold no ill feeling towards anyone,” Ibrahim, aided by a cane, said as he announced the reopening of the center by chairing the first of three panel discussions on the role of civil society in enhancing peace. The second panel tackled the recently announced UN report on human development while the afternoon session dealt with the role of civil society in fostering democracy in the Arab world. In addition to Egyptian speakers, the panelists included speakers from Palestine, Jordan, Iraq, the European Union and the US.

In the evening a reception was held at the center in which opposition leaders, Egyptian newspaper editors and ambassadors from the US, the European Union, Japan, Canada and Greece were among the attendees. A statement of support from the UN Secretary General was delivered by a local UN official.

Barabara Ibrahim expressed her gratitude for those in attendance. ‘Shortly after Saad’s arrest I came to his center and it was in shambles, files were on the floor and windows were broken. I never dreamed that we will be back in this center with this huge crowd of Egyptian, Arab and international supporters,” she said. Ibrahim said that she and her husband would like to turn over the running of the Ibn Khaldoun Center to the new generation of young Egyptians who have shown tremendous belief in issues of human rights and the need to build a strong civil society in Egypt.

Saadedin Ibrahim and his staff were arrested by Egyptian authorities on charges of accepting foreign funding without getting prior permission from the government. After much litigation the Egyptian Court of Cessation cleared Saadedin and his staff of any wrong doing in a precedent-setting ruling. The ruling described the relationship between the Ibn Khaldoun center and the foreign funders as a commercial contract in which the center and its director were expected to carry out a set of activities in return for financial remuneration. The case had resulted in a wide spread fears among Egyptian human rights activists. The US government adopted the case of the dual US-Egyptian activists threatening to cut off US financial aid to Egypt if Saad was not released. Local jurists, however, insist that his release was purely a result of the decision of an independent Egyptian higher court which found no reason for the arrest of the human rights activists and the closure of his center.

The Palestinian leadership showed political creativity when they introduced the Arabic term hudna when speaking about the ceasefire agreement that was being worked out with the Islamic and radical Palestinian guerilla movements. By using a term used more than once by the Prophet Muhammad, the Palestinian Authority succeeded in providing the Islamic movements with an ideological ladder to climb down from.

But while the cessation of anti Israeli violence is the declared goal of this hudna, the real goal should be the successful integration of these hard-line groups into a pragmatic political process in which they can participate in the decision making apparatus with the responsibilities that this entails.

It has been known for some time that groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad were split almost down the middle between pragmatists and hardliners. With the pragmatists understanding the balance of forces and therefore trying their best to maximum their gains within its possibilities, while radicals only hoping to obtain recognition and legitimacy by being recognized within the process. In baseball terms the pragmatists are hoping to get on base while the radicals are playing for the grand slam home run using a two inch bat, and being excited just to be in the game.

The real meaning of this current hudna must be in the domestication of the Islamic movements through allowing them to participate in the political process. For years, the Islamists have refused to join the PLO or the Oslo Process while at the same time keeping their eye for some political role without defining what it is. Now they are offered to join a new political body, called by some the Unified Leadership.

Palestinian community pressure, coupled with American, Egyptian and Saudi pressure have finally forced the Islamists to come up with political answers to supplement their military struggle. Without the current dialogue, the Islamists were able to keep their answers vague about their political goals while saying they are against the Israelis and their occupation of Palestine. During this period the entire spectrum of Islamic opinion was expressed. From the hardliner who spoke about a violent struggle until all of historic Palestine is liberated (without much discussion of where the Israeli Jewish population would go) to more moderate Islamists who said that their military resistance will continue until the end of the 1967 occupation and that after that their struggle would be political.

The real meaning of this hudna therefore is the capitulation of both these positions. Egyptian participants worked hard to wake up the hardliners to the political reality in general and especially after September 11 and the end of the Saddam Baath regime in particular.

For the Islamists moderate, they needed less convincing. They were asked the simple question of why continue in this violent cycle if you can reach roughly the same goals using more political means. If you are for a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders, then the very minimum that you need to do is to give the Road Map and President Bush’s vision a chance. If that vision fails, then you can go back and use military means to accomplish this political goal.

This might seem like a simplistic and highly optimistic understanding of the hudna agreement. After all, it has a finite period of time and has many conditions and strings attached to it. One is not certain that rogue elements within the Islamic movements will not derail it. Neither can we guarantee that the Israelis will commit to their promise to avoid political figures. Israel’s expansive interpretation of a ‘ticking bomb’ could render their promise worthless.

What is even more important is the success of the US and its quartet partners to push the Road Map without hesitation. Peace negotiations (hopefully conducted in secret) should not stop until white smoke can be seen. Then the majorities of Palestinians and Israelis can be formally asked to back an agreed upon package deal that provides Palestinians with their dream of independence and democracy in a viable contiguous state alongside a safe and secure state of Israel.

Such political success may well turn this short-term hudna into a long-term peace deal. Much is still needed to get there, but the ideological and psychological importance of this ceasefire goes much further than the terms enshrined in it.

The struggle in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resembles two sluggers in a never-ending duel. Both parties exhausted and unable to finish off the other, yet both refusing to give up the fight nor accept a draw.

The witnesses to this terrible fight have so far refused to get too involved. Other than words of advice between rounds and general blueprints of how to end this fight, no one has agreed to get deeply involved.

Clearly what is needed is an neutral and powerful outside force to separate the fighters and help settle this fight on fair and permanent basis.

A strong case can and should be made for a direct, and if need be a military international involvement in this conflict. The world has been involved in one or another in the making of the present day struggle in the Holy Land. Since the beginning of the 20th century, the world community has been involved whether it was in Britain’s Balfour Declaration promising Palestine to Zionist Jews, or the various (sometimes contradictory) promises to both Arabs and Jews, before during and after the two world wars to the late 1940s UN General Assembly’s partition plan endorsing the creation of the state of Israel. The world community has also been involved in the Middle East struggle through financially and military supporting the conflicting parties. When President Bush criticized Israel for its assassination attempt against Abdel Azziz Rantisi, few noted that the attempt (and the attacks after) was made by US made Apache Helicopters.

The idea of international monitors is part of the Road Map of Peace that was presented by the US and the other partners of the Quartet and has been officially endorsed by the Palestinian and Israeli governments. The carnage to Palestinians and Israelis during the past week show a need to speed up the implementation of this monitoring clause and giving it teeth.

International monitoring whether it be led by NATO or the US needs to start once a cease fire agreement is reached between both parties. Such a cease fire needs to contain three basic conditions:

Like any ceasefire it must be immediate and bilateral. Both Palestinians and Israelis must declare publicly and clearly to stop all acts of violence and acts that provoke the other side. This includes assassination attempts against Palestinians which Israel considers its preemptive acts. So far the Israelis have refused to commit upon themselves a cessation of anti Palestinian violence. Israelis also refuse to stop expropriating Palestinian lands, expanding settlements, house demolitions, deportations using human shields and assassinations.

Radical Palestinian groups also have to stop their attacks whether voluntarily or involuntarily. Israel, however, should not be the party to force them to do that. This should be left to the Palestinian Authority and if it fails to an international force.

Secondly it must be understood that such a ceasefire is not a substitute for a long term political solution. Political talks must commence immediately at an accelerated pace (preferably in secret) so as to produce a permanent agreement that can replace this temporary arrangement.

Thirdly the international neutral group monitoring the ceasefire agreement must be ready to act as a referee and if needed an enforcer. It must publicly declare whichever side has violated agreed upon clauses in the agreement. If needed they should militarily interfere and stop either side from

The Bush Administration’s success in getting both parties to sign on the Road Map needs to be quickly utilized by work on a ceasefire agreement that will include an enforcement element. Critics will undoubtedly point to Beirut and Somali as reasons for the US armed forces to stay away. It is true that any involvment of US forces represents a risk of some sorts. But as the most powerful country which has an interest in the success of this peace process, the US can’t afford not to get involved. Staying away is a much bigger risk not only to Palestinians and Israelis and even Americans, but to world peace. The time is ripe for courageous US action.

The escalation of violence in the Middle East has been so predictable it is sad. No Palestinian or Israeli needed to lose their lives. More lives on both sides could be saved if Israel simply agrees on a bilateral ceasefire instead of its persistent attempts to force the Palestinians to cease-fire while it retains the right to attack and assassinate Palestinians at will. Over the years an Israeli pattern of assassinating Palestinian leaders as they are preparing to agree on a unilateral ceasefire has consistently derailed such an attempt for quiet.

President Bush’s public rebuke against the Israelis for their assassination attempt on Tuesday marks a turning point in the US approach regarding solving the Mideast conflict. It marks the first time that the US has agreed to a repeated Palestinian request to act as an arbitrator and publicly point the fingers at whomever violates commitments made in the US sponsored Road map to peace.

The helicopter attack against a Hamas political leader (which missed him but killed a woman and a child) has been nearly a regular occurrence in the Palestinian areas during the past two years. Israelis killed more than ten Palestinians including children and women before and after the suicide attack in Jerusalem.

An argument has been raging for some time as to which party in the Middle East conflict is more interested in peace and quiet. Israel claims that it wants peace and stability, that it made what it calls a generous offer for peace and that all they got in return was Palestinian suicide attacks.

Palestinians insist that they want peace and that the illegal Israeli occupation and exclusive Jewish settlement activity in Palestinian lands as well as the assassinations of their leaders is the problem. As to the generous offer, they state that returning occupied lands is not charity but an internationally mandated right and that just like the US insisted on all of Kuwaiti territory be returned to its owners, so Palestinians demand that all of the occupied West Bank and Gaza be returned within a peace agreement.

The assassination against the Palestinian pediatrician, Abdel Azziz Rantisi, provides vivid proof to Palestinian of the questionable Israeli commitment to the peace process. While the new Palestinian prime minister with help from the Egyptian head of intelligence and a snowballing Palestinian public opinion was about to result in a dramatic ceasefire agreement with the Islamic militants, the Israelis attacked. With this attack, the ceasefire attempts have been ruined and the cycle of violence has been escalated.

A headline in the independent Israeli daily Haaretz reported June 10th, the same morning that the attack took place that Hamas was prepared to renew the talks on stopping attacks against Israelis. The following day and in the same paper, Israeli columnists Zvi Barel added: “This was not an operation that required hard-to-get, up-to-the-minute, intelligence information or a one-time opportunity. Rantisi’s home address is not a secret, he appears in TV studios and on the street – anyone who wanted an opportunity could have seen Rantisi and Sheikh Ahmed Yassin on the main street in Gaza City on Monday having a long conversation.”

This is not the first time that the timing of an Israeli assassination raises suspicions among Palestinians. A review of the Israeli attacks in the past two years reflects a clear pattern. On the eve of what seems to be willingness among Palestinian radicals to agree on a cease-fire, the Israelis hit one of their leaders knowing very well that this will cause acts of revenge leaving peace talks in shambles with the world believing Palestinians are the guilty party.

In December 2001, six days after the Palestinian Authority unilaterally observed a cease-fire, Israel assassinated a senior leader of Arafat’s Fateh movement Raed Karmi from Tulkarem thus putting the Palestinian leader in an impossible position as he tried unsuccessfully to stop his own militants from taking revenge.

In July 22nd 2002 four hours after the Islamic spiritual leader Sheik Ahmad Yassin declared on Arab TV stations that the Hamas movement was considering a unilateral cessation of attacks inside Israel, a one ton bomb was fired from an F-16 fighter on a residential Gaza neighborhood killing a senior Hamas leader (Salah Shehadeh) as well as more than a dozen children and women. The Israeli press reported that US ambassador Martin Indyk had briefed Sharon a day earlier of the approaching Palestinian ceasefire agreement. Again the cycle of violence was intensified.

Last August and on the first day of implementing the Gaza and Bethlehem First security plan Israelis once again sabotaged the deal. The agreement between Palestinian security officials with the Israeli Defense minister and leader of the Labor Party Binyamin Ben Eliazer became worthless when a special Israeli army unit assassinated Muhammad Saadat a secular Palestinian militant in Ramallah again causing a Palestinian act of revenge and the cycle of violence just got out of hand

What is evident in all these incidents is that Israelis refuse to commit upon themselves a cessation of anti Palestinian violence. Israelis also refuse to stop expropriating Palestinian lands, expanding settlements, house demolitions, deportations using human shields and assassinations. Many Israelis have criticized these acts which the international community considers crimes of war according to international humanitarian law.

Radical Palestinian groups also have little incentive for a prolonged period of quiet. As long as they are carrying out anti Israeli attacks their popularity among frustrated Palestinians continues to rise. If there is quiet and the beginning of negotiations then they will be in a corner, they will either be seen as spoilers of a historic peace agreement or they will have to make political compromises which will make them no different than mainstream Palestinian groups.

By insisting on Palestinian unilateral quiet, Israelis seem to accomplish both their military as well as their political objectives. They can continue to have a free hand in taking revenge on every Palestinian they consider has used violence against them. If Palestinian responds the Israelis can blame Palestinians for the continuation of the violence and they declare that they are free from paying the political price, which they know they have to pay as part of the Road Map. President Bush needs to continue to speak out against either party that breaks its commitments and acts in such a manner that causes the derailment of a peace process they have publicly declared they support

Ramallah — The scene at the Qalandia check point between Jerusalem and Ramallah was surreal. Hollywood superstar Richard Gere riding in a white Ford van attempting to cross an Israeli check. On the other side of the checkpoint a huge host of television and still cameras.

As the van slowly moved away from the Israeli checkpoint closer to Ramallah a few photographers come closer to the van and take a peak inside. They see a man with gray hair and suddenly the sea of cameras pounces on the van taking photos from different angles. Gere tried to avoid the media onslought explaining that his visit is aimed at learning about the conflict and that he didn’t want to talk to senior political figures or to the media. The cameras kept clicking as the photographers insisted on shouting the name Abu Sukar. It seems that Gere’s gray hair was mistaken for the oldest Palestinian prisoner Ahmad Abu Sukar who was being released as part of an Israeli peace gesture on the eve of the Bush, Sharon, Abbas summit in Aqaba, Jordan.

Richard Gere decided to visit Ramallah despite the fact that it was under curfew that was imposed by the Israelis. His decision, against private Israeli security guards, won him praise among Palestinians. Ziad Abu Amer the Palestinian Minister of Culture told the visiting actor that his visit during curfew encourages Palestinians. ‘Your visit gives us hope that the dark days of occupation will be over soon.’

The Ramallah visit was organized by the Institute of Modern Media at Al Quds University. Gere toured different parts of Ramallah including the destroyed headquarters of PLO leader Yaser Arafat. He met at the home of Palestinian legislature Hanan Ashrawi where the discussion centered on the possibility of using artistic celebrities to advance peace. An October international event for peace to be held in Jerusalem was envisioned in the discussions with Ashrawi.

Gere also met with Palestinian filmmakers, artists and NGO activists. George Khleifi a leading filmmaker and the deputy director of the Institute for Modern Media shared with the Hollywood star the possibility of exchanging ideas and training between Palestinian filmmakers with their American counterparts.

In the meeting with the NGOs, Gere, who is a convert to Budhism and a supporter of the struggle of the Tibet had to gently correct Palestinian human rights activists Mustafa Barghouti who said that the Israeli occupation of Palestine is the longest in history. “I believe the occupation of Tibet has been going on longer.”

Gere, had decided to visit Palestine as part of his attempt to better understand the Middle East conflict. The Peacemakers Community a US-based international NGO aimed at promoting peace and understanding between peoples invited him.

In Jerusalem, as the guest of the Palestinian National Theatre Gere explained his personal philosophy as trying to put together different parts of a puzzle. “Businesspersons, the media and celebrities all must be involved together in order to bring tangible results,” he told Palestinian artists. Bernie Glassman, the leader of the Peacemakers Community which invited Gere explained how the visit came about. “I had visited Palestine in April and was asked if I can help bring leading celebrities, and when I returned I received a call from Gere saying he felt bad about what was happening to the Iraqi people and he wanted to be involved. Glassman also explained his organization’s philosophy as working in circles trying to get people to better understand each other in this manner. Peacemakers Community has branches in many parts of the world and are planning to establish a Palestinian branch as well as a Middle East branch to be based in Amman, Jordan, Glassman said. He is planning to visit the region again in July which will include Palestine and Jordan.

Ramallah- The high level involvement of the United States government in the Middle East conflict presents a unique and rare opportunity for dramatically positive movement in the peace process. But for the Bush administration to succeed where others have faltered, a new direction is needed. The new direction must be based on a comprehensive approach, possibly reached in secret talks, and not the step-by-step time based process.

President Bush did well by presenting all parties with his ultimate vision of peace in the Middle East based on a viable Palestinian state alongside a secure state of Israel. To reach this goal negotiations must continue on focusing on the final prize rather than interim steps and phases.

Reaching a package deal and presenting it to the large public on both sides will weaken the power of radicals and give decision-making power back to the silent majorities on both sides.

The past two years have been dominated by headlines of the actions of extremists. They hijacked the peace process. Moderate Israeli and Palestinian leaders allowed them to take our two peoples along this violent ride. Jewish settlers and their right wing supporters (some in the army and government) have had a hay day building settlements, assassinating Palestinian leaders and attempting to crush the Palestinian national spirit.

Palestinian militants (at times with some help from the Palestinian Authority) have used violence and terror to try and force Israel to change its political positions.

Both have failed and left behind a trail of blood and suffering.

Radicals have always fed on partial issues. Taken in isolation, each side can make a strong case against compromise on any single issue whether it be the right of return of Palestinian refugees or the dismantling of settlements.

If you asked any Palestinian or Israeli on a single issue their position would be much different than if presented with an entire deal. Ask Palestinians if they support the right of refugee to return to their homes as stipulated by UN resolutions and more than 90% will agree on this right. But ask the same group if they are willing to compromise on this right in return for comprehensive solutions and the results will change dramatically. Similarly ask Israelis about the right of Jews to live in settlements built on Palestinian land and most would agree to that right. But turn the question around and ask them if a comprehensive peace can be reached without the settlements and most would support that.

To reach any package deal it is important to take a two-prong approach. Public negotiations are unlikely to work if they are not supported by an ironclad commitment to keep moving no matter what happens. Both sides must keep talking in a public demonstration of defiance to their radicals. Any sign of hesitation will be an invitation for carnage.

At the same time, back door negotiations must commence immediately. Away from the public eye, the real concerns of both peoples should be made and dealt with. To solve this century old conflict a fair compromise is needed. Leaders who genuinely want peace and a better future for their people a deal must work such out in total secrecy. This can be presented to the public as a package deal, which each side must approve or reject as a whole.

When the two sides are talking they must try and understand where the other side comes from. Israelis are mistaken if then think that the goal of an independent Palestinian state is the starting point for negotiations. Such a mini Palestinian state on or around the June 4th 1967 borders is the bare minimum compromise that Palestinians are willing to accept in order to have lasting peace.

Having said that one must also face the reality of the situation on the ground as well as the geopolitical balance of forces. Neither are in favor of Palestinians. But to ignore this strong Palestinian aspiration and to nickel and dime Palestinians on their state will not work. Tens of thousands have died, were wounded imprisoned, and became homeless and refugees in pursuit of this national goal. Forcing Palestinians to accept much less will not work.

When Palestinian view comprehensive negotiations with Israel, they start from where they were from time immemorial in historic Palestine and consider the state in the ’67 borders as a historic compromise on the way to negotiations. When Israelis view negotiations, they begin with their own state created on the ground by force in 48, they add to that East Jerusalem and all the new settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, and then they start negotiating Palestinians over what remains of the occupied territories.

The points of agreement reached in Taba in January 2001 and the vision of President Bush are a good place to start. Non-stop public negotiations with strong US involvement as well as behind the scenes talks can lead to lasting peace based on the creation of an independent viable Palestinian state alongside a safe and secure state of Israel.