I am receiving a considerable amount of abusive comments here, in my email inbox, and in other places where I publish my thoughts (most recently in the British The Guardian and the French Le Monde). Hence, I wanted to tell you that I am a fairly decent guy, at least I think so. I love dogs (I am not as crazy about cats); I dote on my small army of grandchildren (one is cuter and smarter than the other; nobody else’s grandchildren come close); I do not spit on the sidewalks nor do I blow smoke into anyone’s face. (I do sometimes jay walk; I just got a ticket after I crossed a street mid-block in Bethesda). And I do not curse, at least not when other people can hear me.
Above all, I am a champion of peace among nations and people, any time, any place. I was involved in close quarter fighting for two and half years before I turned twenty. The killing and maiming left me with a deep aversion to all forms of violence and guns. (Some of the most abusive mail I get is when I remind my fellow Americans that the Second Amendment does not authorize an individual right to gun ownership, and that guns in the house are much more dangerous for kids and spouses than for any criminal who might one day break in).
Soon after I graduated from UC Berkeley I wrote two books whose titles tell it all: The Hard Way to Peace and Winning without War. They dealt with ways in which the United States and the Soviet Union could work out their differences without coming to blows, ways to ensure that the Cold War would not turn hot and could best be terminated.
When I got my first job at Columbia University, I joined a group of faculty who, in 1968, formed a human chain to prevent students from a right wing group from forcing left wing students out of a campus building that they were occupying in protest against college policies: policies concerning Columbia's institutional affiliation with the Institute for Defense Analyses (a weapons research think-tank affiliated with the U.S. Department of Defense during the Vietnam War) and concerning the university's plans for an allegedly segregatory gymnasium in Harlem.
More recently I got a group of people from the left and right to endorse a statement that calls on all schools to teach children ways to resolve differences by using their words rather than their fists [here]. Adults, too.
For the last year, I have been trying to convince policy makers in Washington and elsewhere to stop presuming that all Muslims are terrorists, and to cease maintaining that the West is involved in a clash of its civilization with those of all others. I showed in great detail that Islam is no different from other religions and even secular bodies of belief, in that it can be read to promote war or spiritual growth, terrorism or peace. Moreover, I showed that most Muslims belong to the peace loving camp. Hence as long as we do not demand that they accept our form of government, we can find among them many partners in peace. (For more see Security First). You may disagree with me, but I do not believe that you will find these ideas violent or offensive.
I am especially proud, as an Israeli-American, to have issued a statement together with a leading Palestinian-American, Shibley Telhami, calling on both Israel and the Palestinians to put aside, for now, the blame game, and focus on the joint future. We pointed out that as long as each party holds that the other one started it all, each side will wait for the other to yield, instead of looking for a common ground which would require concessions from both parties.
My main problem is that I often can see both sides (or more) of many issues, and hence find it difficult to be fully on any one side. I do not believe that liberals are right all the time; I do not feel that neocons have horns and forked tails; I was a guest of the reformers in Iran and learned a lot from them, as I did from Shimon Peres in Israel. I am not sure that such moderation is a fault, though I do realize that being one sided makes for a better pitch, an easier advocacy. Anyhow nobody is perfect, and I cannot stop myself from trying to find the middle of the road. I am not even sure that I want to. Now how about giving the brick pats a rest, and let’s have a reasoned give and take?
Above all, I am a champion of peace among nations and people, any time, any place. I was involved in close quarter fighting for two and half years before I turned twenty. The killing and maiming left me with a deep aversion to all forms of violence and guns. (Some of the most abusive mail I get is when I remind my fellow Americans that the Second Amendment does not authorize an individual right to gun ownership, and that guns in the house are much more dangerous for kids and spouses than for any criminal who might one day break in).
Soon after I graduated from UC Berkeley I wrote two books whose titles tell it all: The Hard Way to Peace and Winning without War. They dealt with ways in which the United States and the Soviet Union could work out their differences without coming to blows, ways to ensure that the Cold War would not turn hot and could best be terminated.
When I got my first job at Columbia University, I joined a group of faculty who, in 1968, formed a human chain to prevent students from a right wing group from forcing left wing students out of a campus building that they were occupying in protest against college policies: policies concerning Columbia's institutional affiliation with the Institute for Defense Analyses (a weapons research think-tank affiliated with the U.S. Department of Defense during the Vietnam War) and concerning the university's plans for an allegedly segregatory gymnasium in Harlem.
More recently I got a group of people from the left and right to endorse a statement that calls on all schools to teach children ways to resolve differences by using their words rather than their fists [here]. Adults, too.
For the last year, I have been trying to convince policy makers in Washington and elsewhere to stop presuming that all Muslims are terrorists, and to cease maintaining that the West is involved in a clash of its civilization with those of all others. I showed in great detail that Islam is no different from other religions and even secular bodies of belief, in that it can be read to promote war or spiritual growth, terrorism or peace. Moreover, I showed that most Muslims belong to the peace loving camp. Hence as long as we do not demand that they accept our form of government, we can find among them many partners in peace. (For more see Security First). You may disagree with me, but I do not believe that you will find these ideas violent or offensive.
I am especially proud, as an Israeli-American, to have issued a statement together with a leading Palestinian-American, Shibley Telhami, calling on both Israel and the Palestinians to put aside, for now, the blame game, and focus on the joint future. We pointed out that as long as each party holds that the other one started it all, each side will wait for the other to yield, instead of looking for a common ground which would require concessions from both parties.
My main problem is that I often can see both sides (or more) of many issues, and hence find it difficult to be fully on any one side. I do not believe that liberals are right all the time; I do not feel that neocons have horns and forked tails; I was a guest of the reformers in Iran and learned a lot from them, as I did from Shimon Peres in Israel. I am not sure that such moderation is a fault, though I do realize that being one sided makes for a better pitch, an easier advocacy. Anyhow nobody is perfect, and I cannot stop myself from trying to find the middle of the road. I am not even sure that I want to. Now how about giving the brick pats a rest, and let’s have a reasoned give and take?
Comments