Mohammad Yunus, for example, who won the Nobel Prize last year for Peace, is involved in microfinance for women, helping female entrepreneurs open up businesses. This is a vital effort. Empower women in ways that they deem appropriate, and you will have changed the face of the Middle East.

Your thinking is right on target, and so is the work that you do. I would like to work with people like yourself, and maybe we can make some projects happen, which tell the world that a Vision of Hope can be made real if people choose to make it so.

If you like, you are welcome to visit my website at http://www.sellingavisionofhope.org and you can register and e-mail me on the contact page, and post on the forum page. Maybe we could get a dialogue going, and work together to make the contacts who could actually make something happen along these lines. There are wealthy people out there who want to leave a legacy, and what better legacy is there than peace?

regards

Business speaks louder than “words.” Business has a way of creating its own ideological imperative. If we can make money together, and if we can speak to one another with common sense and with a sense of personal dignity, and if we can inspire each other with a sense of hope for the future, then together we can turn this thing around.

And then, even the extremists will have to buy in, because in the final analysis, the will of the people will not be deterred. The extremists will not be able to capture the public’s imagination once people begin to imagine a better life for themselves.

And Elinor, I am a big fan of God. But as you know, God helps those who help themselves. I think He will help us, but He is counting on us to do most of the work. If we are good, and if we prove that by doing good works, then He can point to us as proof that His creation is indeed good.

regards to all

How exactly will it all play out? I don’t really know. This is not a one man show. And I don’t have the ability to make it happen on my own. But I do see that things must go in this direction if we are to bring order to the world. That is the big experiment that we find ourselves in. That is probably the reason we were put on this good earth. Can we find a way to bring goodness to our lives, or do we continue to go down the path of death, destruction, and despair? The choice is ours. It always has been. And everything we know and love hangs in the balance.

I think you’re trying to say that sometimes, when we blame others, it is really we who are at fault. And it’s easy to blame others, but difficult to see what’s wrong with us.

I can agree with you on this. In fact, the first part of Selling a Vision of Hope is to come up with a new ideology, which I call An Ideology of Common Sense, which will allow us to talk with one another with common sense and with a sense of personal dignity.

Instead of talking at one another, we should be talking with one another. We should build bridges across the ideological divide. And to do that, we have to feel each other’s pain, not only our own.

So I can agree with your point of view. The question is: What do we do about it? My answer is like the 5 fingers of the Hamsa:

1. Speak to one another with common sense and with a sense of personal dignity.

2. Invest in one another with projects that resonate with hope, that create jobs, and that protect the environment.

3. Use ideology and investment to sell people on a Vision of Hope.

4. Sustain the hope with public diplomacy.

5. And when necessary fight, and fight hard, 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.

That’s my story. What can you understand from this story?

WHAT CAN U UNDERSTAND FROM THIS STORY?

Something about a deaf guy and a chicken.

WHAT CAN U UNDERSTAND FROM THIS STORY?

My best guess on implementation would go something like this:

1. We talk to one another about the idea.

2. Sooner or later we get the attention of people who have either the wealth or power to actually make something along these lines. A business man, for example, could decide to start an industrial zone, etc.

3. The project on the ground is used to generate widespread publicity and PR for the idea of Selling a Vision of Hope. A hotel, for example, is no longer just a hotel, but is a project that resonates with hope, and which says to the world that a Vision of Hope could be made real if people choose to make it so.

4. If the project works well, it attract more wealthy businessmen in search of a legacy worth leaving. More projects get funded. More jobs get created. More of the environment gets projetected. People begin to imagine the possibility of hope.

5. The grass roots movement on the ground gets the attention of the politicos, and gets translated into foreign policy. An International Fund for Economic Development in the Middle East gets launched. More pojects get funded. Western and Middle Eastern eocnomies begin to get intertwined.

6. As economic realities on the ground begin to improve, people begin to imagine the possibility of peace, if for nothing else, because they want the profits to keep rolling in.

7. Excess profits are invested in infrastructure: roads, schools, hospitals, sewage factilites, utilities, etc.

8. Only after people begin to buy into a Vision of Hope do we even think about sitting at the peace table and cutting a deal for Palestine, and then for the entire Middle East, and the Muslim world.

Elinor, I’m not saying it necessarily has to go this way. But this is one scenario, to give you an idea. As you can see, many different people, with many different specialities would have to be involved, but that’s the beauty of it, that it would force us to work together toward a common goal. So business people, economists, builders, politicians, media people, diplomats, etc. would all play a part, but we would be bringing our resources together under one vision, and we would share a common vision for the future. Right now everyone is pulling in a different direction, and most of us are too tired to pull in any direction whatsoever. But with the right vision, everyone would begin pulling in the same direction, because people the world over yearn to embrace the possiblity of hope. And with hope, all things are possible, even the impossible dream of peace.

Now as to your disagreement with Selling a Vision of Hope, that’s why I use the word “selling.” You see, you have to “sell” the vision, not just talk about it. And as you can see with your own resonse, it’s not an easy sell.

I used the Zarqawi example to show what happens when a leader is out of step with the will of his own people. I know it’s not an exact fit here. What I meant to suggest is that the West could use a vision of Hope to win hearts and minds, and then Hamas could be portrayed as holding their people back from a better life. They will be out of step with the will of the people, just as Zarqawi was, and the people would then take action to assert their will, forcefully if necessary, in an effort to hold on to the better life that is on the table.

You are right to suggest that strong arm tactics are very effective in keeping people down. I agree. But there are examples in history when people are so inspired, that they are willing to take the risk of bringing about change. The Civil Rights movement in the U.S. is one example. Ghandi’s move toward independence is another. The establishment of the state of Israel is another. The Cedar Revolution is another. I know that all these are very different from one another, and from the Palestinian issue. But the idea that you can inspire people with new ideological perspectives and new economic opportunities, is an idea that has withstood the test of time, and has worked under the right circumstances.

Frankly, Two Cents, I don’t think there’s an alternative, and considering what we stand to lose, I don’t see why we wouldn’t at least try to sell a vision of hope. It may work, and it may not, but considerting the alternative, what choice do we have but to try?

For the record, though, Al Zarqawi is proof of my argument, not yours. People didn’t turn on him because his death would mean more prosperity: they turned on him because his death would mean less violence and bloodshed. His betrayal was motivated not by the desire to gain something positive, but by the desire to end something negative.

Everyone who’s lost friends or family in the “collateral damage” of an Israeli response to a rocket attack ought to be motivated to stop the attacks. Everyone whose sick child is without medicine due to the embargo ought to be motivated to stop the attacks.

“…most Arabs will choose a life, and would fight those who would take that life away.” That doesn’t seem to be happening. Palestinians are dieing as a result of rocket attacks against Israel, but apparently stopping that and saving lives isn’t “something worth fighting for.”

Serious, what do you think of the Egypt idea?

Well, maybe not quite. But it will certainly take more than “death and misery.” When all you have is violence and hopelessness then most people are unable to imagine anything else. They easily succumb to an ideological explanation that takes their dire situation and makes sense of it. “Yes, our lives are miserable, but we are in the middle of an existential struggle with the Zionist enemy. It’s all Israel’s fault.”

As I have said before, if a poor Arab looks at the table and only sees an ideology of hate, along with some charitable handouts, then that’s what he’s going to buy into, becuase that’s all there is. But if he looks at the table and sees a job, and an ideology which makes more sense, then now there’s a choice, and most Arabs will choose a life, and would fight those who would take that life away. The West is well advised to put that alternative on the table.

But look at what the West is doing, Two Cents. It talks obout freedom. But talk is cheap. And it fights to protect its strategic interests. But after a while people lose sight of what the fighting is for. It’s not enough to talk. And it’s not enought to fight. We need a vision that inspires the man on the street with a vision of hope, so that he would willingly carry the mantle of hope, and be willing to fight for its realization.

Let me give you a real example. Remember Al Zarqawi? He was
Al Qaeda’s main man in Iraq. He was quite a character, cutting people’s heads off and video taping the action. All of a sudden, he gets the bright idea to blow up Muslim weddings in Jordan, by blowing up 3 hotels there. Several weeks thereafter, his location is discosed to the Americans, who proceed to take him out with a missle.

Now I ask you, is there any relation between his decision to blow up Muslim weddings, and his being killed. I think there is. I think he stepped out of the pale of decency, and his own people turned against him. That’s what we have to do to the extremists in the Middle East. We have to position them as outside the pale, as outside the will of the people. And the only way to do that, to my mind, is to sell their people on a vision of hope, and thereby empower them for the fight that lies ahead.

So to answer your question, yes, maybe a good job and a low interest car loan, would be just enough to tip the balance in favor of peace, by giving people something worth fighting for, and through that fight, sercuring the peace.

Will it take several generations? Yes. But we have to start somewhere.

Advantages: It gets Hamas out of power. It removes the issue of Jerusalem as a Palestinian capital. It is a return of land captured in war. Egypt and Israel are at peace.

Drawbacks: Egypt would need to keep Hamas from continuing attacks on Israel, or the ‘79 peace could be destroyed.

Nissim, I agree with the very common common sense , right, when it comes to the very basic issues, we have the same common sense. Now in the process of tending toward the greatest good,whom should be trusted to execute the activity on behalf of the ones who might be interested? Does the same common sense of people lead to trusting a signle person, or a single organization that they would invest in it and see the results? I am not sure if I have made my point…

With respect, I must disagree on some points.

I disagree with your assumption that the people of Gaza could grab Khaled Mashaal “by the neck” and tell him to stop impeding their progress to a better life. You speak as though Hamas is responsive to the will of the people, and I doubt that is the case.

I disagree with your assumption that the people of Gaza need to be motivated by the possibility of prosperity in order to pursue change. I suspect that the death and misery of the present situation already provides plenty of motivation. If the real and legitimate fear that their children won’t live to grow up doesn’t motivate someone, do you really think a good job and a low interest car loan will tip the scales?

“In the final analysis, the will of the people will not be deterred.” If you mean that all tyrants will eventually be overthrown then I agree, or at least I certainly hope you’re right. Of course, there have been cases where it took decades, even centuries for that to happen, and quite often the people found they’d simply traded one tyrant for another.

Common sense principles like The Golden Rule, The Golden Mean, and The Greatest Good, are to be found in almost every religion and every society on earth, in one form or another. Why is that? For the same reason that two plus two equals four. We don’t question mathematical truths because we use out logic, and they make sense to us. In the same way, there are priciples which are so self-evident that they make sense to almost all people around the world. A mother, for example, gives love and sustenance to her baby. This is universal, and is not subject to a lot of interpretation.

If we focus on the principles we share in common, instead of the trivialities which divide us, we will come up with a common language, a common frame of reference, which will help us work together to make for ourselves a better life, to keep the peace, and to solve some of the big ticket global problems which lie at our doorstep.

To answer your question, Jeremy Bentham is known for having come up with the theory of Utilitarianism. The basic idea, which again is plain old common sense, is that as a society, we should make decisions which bring about the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. I call this The Greatest Good.

So in a world of limited resources, and where the population is growing, and where people are coming to depend on one another economically more and more, we have no choice but to reconfigure some of our priorities, and to make it possible for everyone on earth to have a place at the table, a stake in his or her future. Only then will we be able to neutralize extremism and keep the peace. And only then will we give people the incentive to work together to solve the problems which threaten us all.

As you well know, Hamas was elected by the people. It is possible that they were elected because they were the lesser of two evils. But they were elected nonetheless. And now, many people are becoming aware, as you suggest, that they are being held back from a better life by their leaders.

However, knowing something, and being empowered to do something about it, are two different things.

My contention is that the West is well advised to do what it can to begin creating realities on the ground which make it clear to the people that taking the risk for change is worth it. If people become empowered with a vision of hope, they will be in the best position to force needed change, even against the worst extremists.

When the West fights the extremists head on, then their power grows because they become martyrs in the eyes of the people. Martyrdom sells well when there is nothing else on the table. But when the people decide to take on the extremists because they don’t want to be held back from a better life, then that’s a different story, and my impression is that even the extremists will have no choice but to yield to that kind of pressure.

The extremists need the people to buy into their ideological point of view. But the extremists will not be able to capture the public’s imagination, once people begin to imagine a better life for themselves. The extremists will then feel the loneliness of being out of step with the will of the people. In the final analysis, the will of the people will not be deterred.

I do not think the problem is that the people need to be empowered with a vision of hope before they grab Hamas “by the neck and say, “We want change or else,” ”

I think the problem is that the people don’t get to give “do it or else” threats to the authorities.