A Respectful Open Letter to AIPAC, Prime Minister Olmert, and Others

from Jewish Analysts Investigating Peace and Conflict (JAIPAC)


The New Pro Israel: Mutually Assured Survival


We are writing to you out of our deep concern about your potential participation in a war against Iran, and to warn you about the catastrophic consequences that would result. We are Jewish professionals devoted to developing strategies for reducing tension, preventing violence, and transforming conflict. We work in the areas of political science, international relations, conflict analysis and resolution, psychology, history, Middle East studies, and other fields engaged in observation, research and practice in relevant bodies of knowledge. Many of us have family, friends, and colleagues in Israel. We are all committed to the survival and security of Israel and the elimination of anti-Semitism around the world.

Most of us accurately predicted the consequences of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and warned politicians and the public about predictable, preventable unintended consequences. We are unanimous now in predicting the dangers for Jews, Israel, the U.S., and efforts to reduce global terrorism that would be triggered by any military action against Iran. Many military analysts, politicians and other thoughtful observers have made similar predictions.


Spirals of Violence

We are aware of your deep distrust of the Iranian regime and of the belief that military action will make Israel more secure. Our training and experience inform us that attacking Iran puts Israel and other nations in far greater danger. Short-term thinking, using violence to physically eliminate threats, fails to correct underlying causes of conflict, including unsatisfied human needs and desires for recognition. It provokes deeper, wider, more enduring problems that are more difficult to resolve. There exist more mature strategies capable of producing enduring security.

Desires for a success after a failure and memories of past victories can lead to overconfidence about the potential for success and denial of the potential for catastrophe. Decisive actions of the past, such as the destruction of Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981, are not replicable in today’s world, and have no chance of making Israel safer. Globalization, media, technology, lethality, non-state actors, environmental risks, and high civilian death tolls, have completely changed the nature of warfare. In the recent Lebanon war, as the Iraq war, the "quick fix" of military action left everyone traumatized and more vulnerable. Unintentionally, such tactics too often serve to:


* escalate instability and cycles of violence

* increase the popularity of those attacked

* undermine popular movements for peace, democracy, and acceptance of Israel in the Muslim world

* increase incentives for nuclear weapons development* increase trauma, fear, humiliation, despair, and rage

* provoke desires for revenge, motivation and rationales for recruitment and increased terrorism

* alienate Israel from its neighbors and make it more dependent upon the U.S.

* cause irreversible environmental catastrophe and health crises from radiation and oil fires

* desensitize people to the taking of human life on all sides


Most experts predict that an assault on Iran will produce immediate retaliation against U.S. and British troops in the region, attacks on shipping in the Straits of Hormuz, sharp increases in the worldwide prices of oil and gas, and an explosion of violence against Israel, Jews, and United States interests around the globe. Israel could be subject to missile attacks by Iran or Hezbollah, and the war could become regional, spiraling out of control. The continuing toll of innocent life will play into extremists' hands, creating another generation of anti-American, anti-Israel terrorists, motivating attacks here and abroad.

If either Israel or the US are reckless enough to use tactical nuclear weapons (bunker busters) in the planned attack, Israel’s fate might be sealed I suspect. If the US does so, it is likely to provoke world wide outrage and attacks against the US, impeachment proceedings against the President, and charges brought in the Hague against the President for war crimes.


Fear Based Decision-making

Still, some believe that the only way to prevent a nuclear Iran is to attack now, and that not to do so would be more dangerous. As Otto von Bismarck said, “Preventive war is like committing suicide out of fear of death.” Acting out of fear, we make unintelligent decisions that backfire and play into the hands of extremists.

Many politicians assume they must “leave the military option on the table.” Threatening war to prevent war is likely to provoke war. Actions taken out of existential fear, “in self defense” trigger existential fear in those threatened, creating a self-fulfilling paranoia. Actors are most dangerous when afraid and most violent when attacked, humiliated, and despairing. Paradoxically, the way to be more secure is to make your enemy more secure. We have such strategies in our tool kits.


Exaggerated Enemy Images

People are driven to war by enemy images that are exaggerated, simplified, one-sided and distorted in predictable ways. Notwithstanding President Ahmadiejad’s provocative statements about Israel and the Holocaust, he is portrayed as far more dangerous than he actually is. He has offended many Iranians, suffered a significant defeat in the last election, and may well be removed from office – unless, of course, we unite his people behind him by attacking their homeland.

Few Americans realize that one million Iranians held a candlelight vigil in Teheran in support of the United States on September 12, 2001. Iran’s leaders subsequently helped us by providing intelligence about Al Qaeda, and in 2003, they approached the U.S. with an offer to improve relations, recognize Israel and the two-state solution, to demilitarize Hezbollah, and to discourage violence against Israel. The offer was spurned by the Bush administration. Still, Ahmadinejad offered peace talks with the US, and Iran's deputy Oil Minister, Iran's OPEC representative, offered one billion barrels of oil after Katrina. The Bush administration responds with demonization, humiliation, and refusal.


Paradigm Shift

What possibilities exist for addressing this conflict? According to old thinking we have three limiting options; 1- coercive diplomacy (an oxymoron) - control by threats, ultimata, sanctions, carrots and sticks, which can be humiliating, provocative, and likely (or intended) to backfire, 2 - negotiation and diplomacy –considered impossible with a dehumanized enemy, or 3 - military action, considered a last resort, which unleashes catastrophic consequences. In this paradigm, beliefs, premises and assumptions often drive parties towards violence.

Fortunately, there is another category of responses, which are just now becoming known outside of academia. It is based on a different set of premises, tested through research and practice. Rather than focusing on controlling symptoms and behavior, the new paradigm employs techniques that address root causes, underlying vital needs and fears, and transforms the nature of the relationship to create a new reality. The old paradigm, in efforts to eliminate enemies, in fact creates more. The new paradigm is designed to eliminate enmity. These methods may seem counterintuitive, or impossible, but they have been demonstrated to offer a way out of cycles of violence.


Some Principles for Reversing Cycles of Violence

Psychological Intelligence for Intended Consequences -Violence escalates through “natural” automatic processes. Reversing spirals of violence is more challenging, requiring more intelligence, effort, maturity, uncommon sense and conscious intention to create a best-case scenario. In the words of Carl Jung, this is a “work against nature.”

Tension reduction, a basic organizing principle, reduces volatility in the system and allows for healthier interactions and more creative strategies. Rhetoric and behavior that increase tension increase volatility in the system and potential for violence.

Political Heisenberg Principle – Our behavior creates relationship dynamics that affect those engaged with us. We cannot judge our adversary’s behavior independently from our effect on them. With asymmetrical power, the dominant party has more power to change the dynamics for better or worse. When parties lose perspective, trained facilitators can be helpful. If we view adversaries as inherently, unchangeably evil (which is how they see us) and if we treat them with threats, rejection, and humiliation, we can provoke violence in a self-fulfilling prophecy. Security assurances, recognition, and satisfying vital human needs, reduce fear and make it safe for others to be less violent. We have evidence of Iranians’ desire to improve our relationship, and we have the ability to transform our relationship.

Mutually Assured Survival - Effective measures aimed at satisfying the Iranian people's needs for identity, dignity, security, autonomy, and development will remove the fundamental causes of Iranian hostility toward Israel and the West and can initiate a new era of peaceful cooperation. Either everybody wins or everybody loses. Win-win strategies replace zero sum approaches.


Some Conflict Transformation Strategies

What are some measures we can use now to avert a catastrophe? Many can be imagined, but they may include the following:

* The US, as the most powerful actor, is in the best position to create an atmosphere for success by taking the initiative to reduce tension quickly by offering security assurances that we will not attack and initiating a series of de-escalatory, confidence-building measures designed to create an atmosphere conducive to further dialogue.

* The US can dramatically reduce tension by recalling the carrier groups recently dispatched to the Persian Gulf. To reciprocate, Iran can redeploy its missiles and weapons now positioned to threaten warships and shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. This would initiate a cycle of reciprocated de-escalation.

* Influential members of the U.S. and Iranian communities enter into confidential "track two" dialogues, assisted by non-partisan facilitators to define the major underlying issues alienating our nations and to envision methods of solving those problems. This is neither a threatening "negotiation from strength," which inflames deep-rooted conflicts, nor a naive idealistic "let's be friends" procedure. This type of process has helped resolve or prevent violent conflicts in dozens of locales since 1960, including Northern Ireland, South Africa, Macedonia, Mozambique, Indonesia, Peru, etc.

* Work to transform U.S.- Iranian relations and to reconcile two nations alienated by recent and historical wounds. Recognize positive Iranian attitudes toward Jews and Israel in the past and overtures to the US and Israel in 2003. Establish people-to-people and group-to-group connections between American, Israeli and Iranian citizen and institutions. Use popular media to show images, such as the million Iranian 9/12/01 vigil.

* Convene a series of regional conferences to discuss outstanding current issues affecting the relations between Persian Gulf/Middle East nations and the industrialized states. The nations of the region may decide to form a multi-state association, like the European Union, to represent their collective interests. Conferences can explore the guarantee of local ownership and control of regional oil resources while recognizing the industrialized states' need for access to oil on reasonable terms, the recognition of the State of Israel and normalization of relations, and the issue of nuclear proliferation in a regional context.

* Convene a series of academic conferences involving American, European, Israeli, and Arab and Persian scholars to discuss historical issues affecting the relations between the nations of the region. Conferences might deal with the effects of colonization on the region; the historicity and effects of the European Holocaust, and the healing of the historic clash between Palestinian nationalism and Zionism.

Once the war trend is reversed, there will be many opportunities to restore strained or severed relations. Traditional inter-state negotiation is better than war -- but to make peace between seriously estranged nations, more imaginative and transformative processes are needed. The technology of peacemaking exists. It is up to us to employ it.


The New Pro Israel: Mutually Assured Survival

“For more than half a century, AIPAC has worked to help make Israel more secure by ensuring that American support remains strong.” (AIPAC website). In light of 21st century warfare and new security realities, we must rethink the deepest meaning of “unwavering support” for Israel. Collaboration between the US and Israel against Iran, encouraging, enabling, and even using Israel to engage in military ventures is the greatest existential threat to Israel - physically, morally and spiritually. War is no longer a “last resort” It is an unnecessary resort, and in today’s world it is the “worst resort.” It would invite retaliation, increase global anti-Semitism and threaten American security. Israel and the US would be the world’s pariah states, living in infamy.

As Americans, Jews, and conflict analysts, we are appealing to you to think through the catastrophic consequences and consider the potential for effective strategies to dramatically improve Israel's short and long-term security, role, and image in the region and the world. Surely we can draw upon our collective intelligence, resources, and tradition of social justice to turn this around. The “New Pro Israel” requires helping Israel find ways to live cooperatively and productively within a Middle East Community. It can only be based on a policy of Mutually Assured Survival, which is in everyone’s best interest. This approach reflects our Jewish prophetic moral vision. We offer our expertise and advice on wise, mature, effective strategies that can help produce conditions that will reduce tension, prevent violence, and create a new reality so that Israel can live in peace, stability and prosperous cooperation with its neighbors.



**********************************************************************************************



JAIPAC – Jewish Analysts Investigating Peace and Conflict Diane Perlman, PhD. The Paragon Institute for Enduring Security, Executive Director, Co-Chair, Working group on Global Violence and Security, Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict, & Violence, Division 48 of the American Psychological AssociationTRANSCEND

Richard E. Rubenstein, Professor of Conflict Resolution and Public Affairs, Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University, TRANSCEND

Professor Ian Lustick, PhD, Chair, Political Science, University of Pennsylvania, Author, Trapped in the War on Terror, Associate Director, Asch Center for the Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict

Rona M. Fields, Ph.D. Author, journalist, President, DC Psychological Association (former) Senior Research Fellow, Institute for Cyber-Security Policy, George Washington University

Jessica Benjamin, PhD, Author, psychoanalyst, co-founder, Psychotherapists for Social Responsibility

Alan E. Gross, Ph.D. social psychologist, mediator, conflict resolution trainer

Professor Andrew Samuels, University of Essex, England; Author, Psychoanalyst; Political Consultant,

James M. Statman, Ph.D. Political psychologist, international development and conflict mitigation practitioner

Paul Kimmel, PhD, Past President, Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict, & Violence, Division 48 of the American Psychological Association

Professor Andrew Samuels, University of Essex, England; Psychoanalyst; Political Consultant cofounder, Jews for Justice for Palestinians, and Independent Jewish Voices in the UK