[WCUSP] Fwd: My personal talks with the Saudis--at the Global Conference on Dialogue in Madrid July 16-18, 2008

[Odile Hugonot Haber]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rabbi Michael Lerner <RabbiLerner at tikkun.org>
Date: Jul 20, 2008 6:58 PM
Subject: My personal talks with the Saudis--at the Global Conference
on Dialogue in Madrid July 16-18, 2008
To: odilehh at gmail.com





 Tikkun  to heal, repair and transform the world

 A note from Rabbi Michael Lerner Join or Donate Now!




My Talk with the Saudis, and What I Learned from Them

 By Rabbi Michael Lerner, Editor,TIKKUN

 I had expected the World Conference on Dialogue convened by the
 King of Saudi Arabia July 16-18 in Madrid to be little more than  a
photo op for the King, a cheap way to buy good public relations for a
regime that has refused to  increase production of oil as a way to
reduce the current surge in the price, provided  haven and support for
the Wahabaist stream of Islam that has fostered extremists
likeSaudi-born and raised Osama bin Ladin and many other, and has
 done far too little with its wealth to alleviate the poverty and
suffering of many in the Middle East. For that reason, when the
Embassy called me to invite me I at first declined the invitation, and
only changed my mind a few days before the event when  it became clear
that many establishment Jewish leaders were planning to attend, so my
presence there would not be giving legitimacy that these other leaders
had not already given.

 Imagine my surprise, then, to hear the Saudi King not only affirm the
centrality of tolerance and dialogue, but speak in a language that, as
one Muslim  observer pointed out to me, sounded more like the New
Bottom Line of the Network of Spiritual Progressives than it did like
a speech of a self-absorbed monarch. [He is certainly also that, and
my praise for his actions in starting what may be a processs of
Glasnost and Perestroika is the Muslim world does not mitigate against
the strong ethical revulsion I have at a society that does not allow
the practice of any other religion besides Islam, for decades
prevented Jews from even entering the country, even when they were
members of the US Armed Services, systematically subordinates and
oppresses women, and beheads people for "crimes" like adultery].

         King Abdullah started with a strong affirmation of the goal
of a new kind of tolerance between religions. Religions have not
 caused wars, said the  King, but rather extremists who have misused
religion in a hurtful and harmful way. A truly religious person
 would not resort to war, the King reminded us. But why do people
respond to the extremists? Because there is a deep spiritual
 crisis in the world, and it is that crisis which creates
theconditions in which exploitation, crime, drugs, family breakdown
 and extremism flourish.

         The King went on to explain that it should be the task of
 the various religious communities of the world to work together to
 overcome that spiritual crisis. But that will require religious
 cooperation which must begin with mutual respect and tolerance.
 We need to emphasize what all religions have in common--the ethical
 message that permeates every major religion. That message is that
 hatred can be overcome through love. We in the religious world
 need to choose love to overcome hatred, justice over oppression,
 peace over wars, universal brotherhood over racism.

         To me, this didn't sound like the King I had come to expect
from Western media. This was obviously a new direction being
articulated by the King of Saudi Arabia. Moreover, it was not just
being articulated for a Western audience. The King had convened a
similar meeting of Islamic scholars and thinkers in Saudi Arabia six
weeks before, and there had championed this new approach for Islam as
the one most authentically rooted in traditional Islam (an argument
made previously by many Western Islamists-but when they were making
that argument, the Saudis seemed to be aligned with the other side,
the more reactionary and anti-tolerance forces). The King had faced
some real opposition in his previous meeting, and the events there and
in this meeting in Madrid represent first steps in a process that is
likely to take years or decades. But this was quite a striking new
direction, and one that is very hopeful. It was an historic event, the
thawing down of the ice that the Saudis had helped create as they
sponsored rejectionism of multiple paths in the past. Even in an
authoritarian society like Saudi Arabia, the King has to deal with
people who have different approaches to the world than he,
particularly in the reactionary and anti-Semitic elements in the
Islamic religious community, and I don't expect to see some clear line
of unambiguous goodness suddenly emerging in Saudi Arabia to magically
transform the whole society overnight, any more than I expect to see
that in the US or Israel).

     The overwhelming majority of people in the room were leaders
 from Muslim countries around the world. It appeared as if they
 were the King's primary audience. He was introducing a new
 language into the Islamic religious discourse, and it was a
 language that has in the past largely been rooted in Western
 humanism and human rights. Many Muslims in the room mentioned to
 me or to others that they felt that this speech was actually a
 significant breatk-through, because the King is one of the more
 influential figures in Islam, because of his role as "Protector
 of the 2 Mosques" (in Mecca and Medina), gives him immense influence
in the Islamic world.

 Like the Jews, the Muslims have no pope and no authoritative body
that makes all religious rulings, but instead has a plethora of
religious authorities who read Islamic law in as many different ways
as Jewish Hallakhic authorities read Jewish law. Protestantism in
Christianity de facto created this same kind of plethora of sources of
authority, so that in effect people get to choose among a variety of
different Christian traditions today, just as they have had in Islam
and Judaism for many many centuries. But the identification of
religious leaders with state power leaders in Islamic countries has
defacto created a much tighter control by the powerful elites over the
religious tradition in those countries.

  It remains to be seen whether the King can impose his new tolerance
over a Saudi society which has not done much yet to embrace this new
tolerance. But if the Saudis do in fact allow other religions to teach
their ideas and practice their religions in Saudi Arabia, and if they
can make other changes in law that embody a new spirit of respect for
human rights, that could have a huge impact throughout the Islamic
world. Moreover, even if none of this happens very soon, we should
understand that in changing ideologies, statements of a new worldview
are themselves acts of importance-sometimes writing or saying things
(e.g. writing the Declaration of Independence or giving a speech about
the failure of Stalinism or writing a book about the way that Israelis
kicked Paletinian non-combatants out of their homes and into refugee
caps) can be just as important an action as any other.

       The Saudi King was followed by the King of Spain who talked
 about tolerance as an old Spanish tradition,  presumably
 referencing the period when Christians, Jews and Muslims lied in
 Spain in the 11-th  to the 14th centuries. He made no mention (or
 apology) for the Spanish expulsion of all Jews in 1492, He made a
 point of stressing, however, that today Spain is a democracy
 (presumably to acknowledge that unlike the King of the Saudis,
 the King of Spain no longer rules Spain in the way that the King of
 the Saudis actually does rule Saudi Arabia).

       Next, the leader of the Muslim World League spoke about the
 common values held by all  humanity that should be a foundation
 for transcending our political differences. Instead of rejoicing
 at the possibility of a clash of civilizations, as some right-wingers
in America have preached  (like Norman Podhoretz in
 his most recent book The 4th World War), we actually need to be
 seeking cooperation between the various global civilizations.
 Islam, he insisted, believes in the equality of all. There is no
 legal foundation for the prevalence of any given community or
 race within Islam.

         Here too was an incredibly hopeful message. It wasn't
 relevant, really whether this is an accurate description of Muslim
 practice. It was, as was the King's talk, an obvious attempt to
change the thinking in his own community, a change that could have
profound
 political effects if it is taken as seriously inside Saudi Arabia  as
 it was in Madrid.

 After hearing the Kings of Saudi Arabia and Spain speak, the
"religious leaders of the world" moved to  a reception line in which
each of us was to give our name and shake the hand of the King. I was
in one of my more irrepressible moods, so when it was my time I broke
protocol and said to King Abdullah "I represent the many Jews in the
world who wish to see cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians
and a peace that provides security and justice for both sides (and I
pointed to the Tikkun pin I was wearing which has the Israeli flag and
the Palestinian flagm with the words "Peace, Justice, Life, TIKKUN").
I hope that you will use some of your huge oil-generated billions of
dollars to help Palestinians build decent housing and plumbing in the
refugee camps." By this point the people
 surrounding the King were moving to push me forward, and the King
 merely gave me a big smile (English was being translated for him by
his US Ambassador) and I moved on into the dining area.

 To my surprise, I was seated at a table with 8 members of the
 King's cabinet and his closest associates (I was the only
 non-Muslim or non-Saudi at the table).  I sat next to the Secretary
 of Labor, and next to him was the Secretary of Finance, and then
 the others I remember included the Secretary of Communications, the
Secretary of Labor,  and one person who was introduced as the King's
main counsel and another as a close personal friend of the King and
another was one of the major corporation heads in Saudi Arabia.
Several people knew about Tikkun and it turned out that these men had
mostly been educated in the US or England, several at Oxford,
 some at the University of Southern California or at University of
 California. Whereas at almost all of the other tables in the huge
 dining room there were several conversations going on at the same
 time, these people stopped their separate conversations and
 focused on me and wanted to know my perspective on American
 politics and on Israel/Palestine.

  I very briefly described the Tikkun/NSP perspective, particularly
the need for a new consciousness based on open-heartedness, mutual
repentance, and compassion, and the idea of the "New Bottom Line." I
also talked about the new Global Marshall Plan as a way to do foreign
policy based on the recognition that our interests as human beings in
the West are directly tied to the well-being and success of eveyone
else on the planet, and that the smartest way to achieve Homeland
Security is not through Domination and "Power ove" other, but through
Generosity and Genuine Caring for Others. To start in this new
direction, I argued, would take a major act of public repentance by
the peoles of the world.

 A few embraced this right away, and explained that their own
understanding of Islam led them to feel very comfortable with what I
was saying. Others argued that my thinking might be right for the
U.S., but certainly couldn't apply to the Middle East, since it would
be unfair to ask Palestinians to show equal repentance toward
Israelis,  given that the Palestinians had been made homeless by the
1947-49 conflict and were living in terrible conditions.

 I agreed with them that the suffering of the Palestinians was
impossible to accept as legitimate, and certainly ran counter to the
dictates of Judaism with its commands to care for "the other"
(ve'ahavta la'ger-You must love the stranger).  But then I added that
it was a shame that the Saudis with all their wealth had not done more
to help the Palestinians. The Finance Minister smiled and said that
that was simply not true, but that Israel was not letting their aid
come through. He is certainly right about the intransigence and
human-rights-violating policies of the Israeli government as it
attempts to punish the entire Palestinian population for the
activities of a few (an explicit violation of international law).
However,  I pointed out that Palestinian refugees lived in Jordan,
Syria, Egypt and
  particularly in Lebanon where their conditions were
 appalling and that the Saudis could rectify that.




The Finance Minister responded by saying that they had done more than
was known, but that the particulars he was not going to discuss.


I then pointed out that Gaza and the West Bank were in the hands of
the Arabs from
 1948-1967 and that their Arab hosts and the Saudis had done
 nothing to improve their slum-like conditions. Several people
 pointed out to me that the Palestinian leadership that existed at
 that time (1949-1967) prior to the emergence of the Palestinian
Liberation Organization)

did not want to accept that the expulsion from their homes was
permanent, and hence did not want to begin any housing construction
project that would appear to be a resettling in the refugee camps.

 Didn't I agree that the refugees had suffered a huge humanitarian
 disaster? Yes, I said I did agree with that, but that Israelis
 were fearful that if Palestinians were to return now with their
 millions of people, that would eliminate Israel as a Jewish state.
 And I referenced my article on Israel at 60 in May/June 2008 Tikkun

 in which I had analyzed the situation in terms of the Post Traumatic
Stress Syndrome facing both Jews from our long history of oppression
 culminating in the Holocaust and the Palestinian people as a
 result of their displacement for the past sixty years.

 Myeven-handedness was challenged by some who said that certainly

the suffering of the Palestinian people couldn't be excused by
 reference to the suffering of Jews in Europe, since it was not the
 Palestinians who had participated in the Holocaust? I replied that
 the Palestinians had played an important role, along with the
 Saudis and other Arab states in convincing the British to cut off
 immigration of Jews to Palestine. They responded that this policy
 was understandable, given the explicitly stated goal of the
 Zionist movement leaders to create a Jewish state in Palestine,
 and thus, Palestinians feared, to exclude or evict Palestinian
 settlers (and as several pointed out, Israeli historians like Beni Morris,

Avi Shlaim, and Ilan Pappe uncovered documents and letters from Zionist leaders


 revealing that their intent in accepting the UN resolution of 1947 to partitio


n Palestine was only a first step in their larger intent to eventually take


 over all of Palestine-and that goal was clear to the Arabs as well as
to the Zionist movement and
 accounted for their resistance to the partition agreement). I
 pointed out that whatever their fears, the reality was that they
 had chosen an immoral path in pushing the British to close
 immigration to Jews, and that a majority of my larger family had
 died in Europe during the Holocaust and might have been saved had
 there been a place to escape to, and that Palestine was the
 nearest place in which Jews had some historical claim.

 At this point the Saudis challenged my contention that the
 Palestinians or Arabs had had much of an impact on the British in
 their decisions. I argued that the British in the 30s and 40s were
 following policies shaped by their concern for steady oil supplies
 for their coming war (either with Hitler or Stalin). The Saudis
 responded by telling me that they (the Saudis) were not a major
 source of oil for the British and that in any event the British
 were a colonial power that was shaping the policies of other Arab
 states, and not vice versa. I was not sure that that was true, but
 then switched my line to point out that wherever colonial
 authorities ruled, they always tried to set the native populations
 against their minority groups, and that this is what had happened
 in Palestine and more generally in the Middle East. The Jews, I
 argued, were the minority in Palestine at that time, and the
 potential Arab revolt against colonialism had been weakened by the
 distraction onto opposing Zionism.

 But was it a distraction or were the Zionists really agents of
 colonial rule? The Saudis pointed to the Balfour Declaration in
 1917 proclaiming Britain's commitment to supporting the Jews in
 establishing a state in Palestine. I argued that a. the British
 had no right to determine the future of the area, since it wasn't
 theirs in the first place (a point that showed the Saudis that
 there were indeed Jews who did not identify with the colonialist
 perspective) and b. that most Jews coming to Palestine were
 fleeing oppression, most form Europe but some from Arab countries.

 They responded that Jews had lived in harmony with their Arab
 hosts until the colonial period and the rise of Zionism. At that
 point, rather than pursue that argument (I disagreed with them and
 would have pointed out that the conditions were akin to apartheid
 for Jews in most of those countries through much of that history),
 I turned instead to the larger frame of our discussion and said,
 "Wouldn't it be better if we really wish to build a future of
 peace that we stop trying to get a triumph on the issue of guilt?
 There are two national discourses here, and each has lots of facts
 to back it up, but it is futile and destructive to follow the path
 now being followed in which each side tells the story as though
 they are the righteous victims and the other side is the evil
 oppressors! Lets move beyond that to ask what we can do to build
 peace now, and start by each side acknowledging that the other has
 a legitimate though partial view, and that each side has sinned
 and gone off course." I then explained the Jewish view of "sin" as
 similar to an arrow going off course, implying that the sinner was
 fundamentally good, not evil, but had lost his or her way. They
 seemed happy with that notion.

 But then they turned to the current situation and told me how
 surprised and outraged they were that the Saudi proposal to end
 the struggle and create peace based on a return to the 1967
 borders, a proposal offered to Israel several years ago, had
 gotten zero response from Israel. I responded that if they really
 thought that there would be a full return to those borders, they
 were mistaken, because no Jew would ever agree to give up access
 to the Western Wall which was part of Jordan before the 67 war (and while

under Arab rule, Jews had been prevented from going to the Wall to
pray). They thought that could be negotiated, but the point, they
said, was that they had gotten exactly ZERO RESPONSE to a gesture
which they felt should have been perceived by Israel as giving Israel
the recognition that Israel always claimed to be central to its
 needs.

 I could not justify the Israeli government's behavior, but
 said that I opposed the current and past Israeli governments since
 the death of Rabin precisely because they had given up on peace
 and seemed more interested in holding on to the West Bank. But, I
 argued, most American Jews and a large number of Israelis would
 accept major territorial compromises if they really believed that
 peace was possible.

  The Saudis said that it seemed impossible to believe that when the
Saudis had made it clear that peace was indeed possible. I responded
by pointing to the PTSD thesis coupled with the continuing fear of
Israelis that they might be wiped out by a combination of the Iranians
plus the surrounding Arab states. Incredulously, they asked if any
Jews in the US seriously believed that destruction of Israel was
possible. I responded that such fears were frequently voiced in the
organized Jewish community, though many younger Jews did not share
that fear. At this point, the Saudis were so astounded they almost
lost interest in the conversation. They found it impossible to believe
 that anyone could believe that Israel was in any danger of
 destruction. Israel, they pointed out to me, had close to two
 hundred nuclear bombs-no state would dare seek to destroy Israel
 for fear of being wiped off the face of the earth. Similarly, they
 perceived Iranian threats from Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
to be a joke, since
 everyone knew that Iran did not have any nuclear capacity
 whatsoever and was unlikely to have anything in the next decade.

 Many of the Saudis at the table felt that at this point they were
 listening to a typical Israeli propagandist (me) and that there
 was no point in continuing to talk since they believed that I knew
 and all Israelis and Jews knew that there was no possibility of
 Israel ever getting destroyed by the weak Arab or Islamic world,
 and that taking such concerns seriously were about as rational as
 thinking that Saddma Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

 In any event, they asked what I thought they should do-was there
 anyone among Israelis leaders who had the power and inclination to
 build peace. When I talked about Yossi Beilin they said I had
 misunderstood-they wanted to know about anyone who was likely to
 actually have the power to implement a peace agreement, and I was
 not sure who to suggest. Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni does
not seem to me to have the kind of commitment to peace that would be
necessary to gain the support of the current cabinet for a path to
peace that involved serious land compromises, and Bibi Netanyahu, who
may be Israel's next Prime Minister, has zero inclination toward a
negotiated settlement with the Palestinian people.

 The Saudis then asked me about Obama and particularly his seeming
 capitulation to AIPAC immediately after securing the Democratic
 nomination. I told them about the divisions in the Jewish world,
 the way that the peace forces represented a majority of American
 Jews were largely without the finances or access to media to
 make their presence known, and that the pro-AIPAC dems would
 likely make it difficult for Obama to provide strong leadership on
 Israel/Palestine unless there emerged a powerful grassroots force
 in the Jewish world and in the Christian world that would push in a
 different direction. Many of them asked if that was not in part
 the role of the Network of Spiritual Progressives, and I affirmed
 that but pointed out major problems we faced: a. lack of finances
 b. media power of the Jewish right and the willingness of the
 liberals in the media to assume that AIPAC and the Jewish
 establishment spoke for most if not all American Jews. c. turf
 battles that made groups like Brit Tzedeck unwilling to cosponsor
 Washington lobbying with NSP and Jewish Voices for Peace or any
 groups that were interfaith, the unwillingness of Christians for
 Middle East Peace to align in their lobbying with Jewish groups,
 the unwillingness of Jim Wallis' Sojo group to work with the
 Network of Spiritual Progressives on Israel/Palestine issues, the
 fear that J Street people seemed to have about getting involved
 with any group that might appear too critical of Israel or even
 too explicitly critical of AIPAC, and the contrast with the Jewish
 right which had been willing to all work together to support AIPAC
 for the sake of maximizing their political power. I also discussed
 the lack of political coherence of the Christian Left and their
 inability to join in any effective public political action with
 other groups with whom they disagreed theologically (so, for
 example, it was rare to see progressive Catholics joining
 with progressive Protestants on Middle east issues, or even on
 issues like the Global Marshall Plan because they didn't want to
align with groups that had a different stand than they on abortion or
gay rights), much less with Jewish groups, except in the narrow frame
of specific legislative issues on Capitol Hill (but not in challenging
the dominant political ideas that shaped American thought on the
Middle East and made Obama reluctant to challenge the willingness of
the American government to follow the lead of whoever happened to be
in power in Israel). But I also told them that all this could change.
I
 pointed out that Obama had been intellectually close to Tikkun for
many years, that his ideas on many issues closely aligned with the
Tikkun perspective, and that he had signaled 8 years ago to our
Chicago chapter of the Tikkun community that he was very sympathetic
to our position on reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians.

 Still, I pointed out, in some respects the Clintons had been aligned
with Tikkun before they took office, but our failure to mobilize
enough public pressure on them had made it possible for AIPAC insiders
in the White House and the Democratic Party to push them far from me
or Tikkun's perspectives, and the same danger existed for Obama unless
the progressive forces in all the religious and secular
 communities could organize a serious and systematic alternative in
 every Congressional district.

 But how could that help, the Saudis wanted to know. What could
 change the discourse in America or Israel in the way that I had
suggested, a way that would recognize the humanity and fundamental
decency of most Muslims, most Arabs and most Palestinians

 To answer that I presented the Global Marshall Plan. Many were very
positive about it, but insisted that the initiative would have to come
from the United States in the first instance. If that happened, they
felt sure that Saudi Arabia and many others would join such an effort.
Theyhoped that the Global Marshall Plan would gain traction, and they
fully embraced the view that security would come through
 generosity more than through military domination.

 That was my discussion with the Saudis. I consciously held myself
 back on several fronts. I felt it pointless to argue with them
 about the deficiencies of this conference-the fact that though it
 was centered on the notion of "dialogue" that in fact the sessions
 were a series of presentations in which there was zero opportunity
 for dialogue with others in the room. I several times tried to
 raise the issue of the de facto exclusion of women from the
 dialogue, though there were some women in attendance, but I got
 zero response or understanding on that. I got nowhere in pointing
 out the contradiction of holding an interfaith dialogue in Spain
 at a time when the Saudis themselves prohibit the practice of any
 other faith but Islam inside Saudi Arabia. Many of these sessions
 seemed empty to me precisely because they were mere preaching about
tolerance and dialogue, though the reality in Saudi Arabia
 provides so little dialogue or tolerance of other religions.

 And yet, I realized that that point, though righteous, somehow
 missed the significance of this gathering, which was in fact more
 about advancing the idea of tolerance, peace, non-violence, mutual
 understanding and dialogue in the Islamic world and in particular
 in the religious community in the Islamic world.

  The Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, and others who were
in attendance here were props for this discussion, but what the King
 of Saudi Arabia was doing was nevertheless of historic significance.
In a previous meeting in Mecca with Islamic religious leaders, he
faced considerable opposition to his proposal for an interfaith
conference around dialogue and mutual understanding. He had used his
power and authority as the Guardian of the Sacred Mosques of Mecca and
Medina to override opposition and go forward with this conference.
Precisely because Saudi forms of Islam are perceived as the most
conservative, taking this step is certain to reverberate for decades
through the Islamic world and to be an historical marker in the
process of modernization in Islam. For Islam, this gathering and the
one before it in Saudi Arabia were roughly equivalent in signifiance
to that og Gorbachev announcing the beginning of a new openness and
tolerance toward the West that was the first step toward the
dissolution of the Soviet Union.

 And there is also another dimension. The Saudis are implicitly
 taking religious leadership in the struggle with a reactionary
 version of Islam that has emerged in Iran. Though Iran was never
 mentioned, this gathering, plus the actions of the Prince of
 Jordan in calling for an Islam that works in cooperation with the
 Western world and with other religious communities, renouncing the
 "conflict of civilizations," appears to be a major challenge to
 the growing appeal of Iranian forms of Islam among young Muslims
 who are filled with righteous indignation against the West in
 light of the devastation brought to Iraq by the US and the UK.

 Finally, a word about the media. As I listened to the Saudis at my
 table I realized once again what I've known for four decades-how
 completely the media misrepresents who the people are with whom the
powerful in the US are at odds. I have long known that about the
 Jewish media as well-I'm portrayed often as an enemy of Israel or
 a self-hating Jew! And ever since the Clintons embraced my
 "Politics of Meaning," the American media has represented me as a
 New Agey thinker rather than as someone deeply rooted in
 Judaism,psychology, philosophy and still learning from all the
 other religious and spiritual traditions of the human race through
 its history. Still, with all that, I was amazed to find myself
 amazed at the humanity, intelligence, and shared commitment to
 rationality among all these leaders of the Saudi regime. NO, I'm
 not giving up my skepticism, and no, I have not forgotten the
 barbarism of some Saudi legal practices, the strong misogyny of
 their culture, and the profound anti-Semitism that exists in their
 society. No, I was not holding some racist view-the Saudi system is
actually extremely oppressive, its legal system extremely intolerant
and imposing of a particularly reactionary version of Islam that goes
with beheading some people for being   But what I was discovering at
lunch is that there is a modernizing Saudi elite that sees those
reactionary aspects of their own society as problematic, and hopes to
change that (indicated to me in many comments made during the two
hours we sat together and which I've only partially summarized here).
 I am not an advocate for the Saudi regime, but I now see that there
are elements in it with a true and deep humanity. I see the
fundamental decency of some who are engaged in an effort to "reform
from within," and am reminded once again of how
 ridiculous it is to talk about a whole society as though it
 represented a single perspective or shared a single worldview. I also
see now the need to work with the most progressive elements, and the
need to avoid "Othering the Other."

  Another point about the media: this conference is a front page story
in most of the world, but is being largely ignored in the US media who
were notably absent from the hundreds of media covering this event.
This is a willed ignorance about the world fostered by the US media
establishment.

 What was also clear to me in this conversation was that these very
 enlightened Saudis had NEVER met or been in a conversation with
 Jews who held progressive values and took those value seriously.
 For them, it was an exciting revelation that there were Jews who were
both pro-Israel and pro-Palestine, who could hold both narratives as
having elements of truth and elements of goodness, just as it was
exciting to them to learn about the interfaith Network of Spiritual
 Progressives. They too had fallen for the media distortions and
 for believing that the American elites with whom they have had
 contact represent the democratic will of the American people, so
 they were happy to be disabused of that notion.

  I came away from this direct time with the Saudis with
 the distinct impression that I had helped foster more positive
 notions about who Americans are, who Jews are, and what Israelis
 are about. I believe that this happened in many other conversations
that took place in the hallways between the 20 or so Jews at the
conference and the hundreds of Muslims and Christians.  While some of
those Jews probably conveyed the same stuckness and stubbornness that
Israel and the American Jewish establishment always conveys, there
were fresh thinkers like Rabbi Michael Paley, Rabbi Brad Hirschfield,
Rabbi Phyllis Berman, Rabbi Arthur Waskow,  Rabbi Marc Gopin, Rabbi
Scott Sperling and Rabbi David Rosen who each have creative and
exciting ideas on how to continue this dialogue. For that, as for many
other aspects of this set of
 conversations, I give thanks to God for the opportunity that I
 have had to serve the causes of peace and reconciliation!

 Returning to the rest of the conference would be a downer in
 comparison with this conversation, but I soon realized that that
 too was a premature judgment. I felt richly rewarded by the
 opportunities to meet and chat with many other Muslims, and to
 realize how safe the place felt for us Jews even though we were a
 tiny minority in a hall filled with Muslims. But the actual formal
 presentations also raised some important issues and even a rather
 encouraging vision of the future, which I'll translate somewhat
 into my frame.

 I mentioned above that this conference is a significant step in
 the process of modernization in the Islamic world. But of course,
 modernization in the West has been deeply linked to a process of
 "de-mystification of the world" that we at Tikkun call
 "scientism," the triumph of the worldview that the only things
 that count are those that can be measured or empirically verified,
 and that everything else is literally "non-sense."
 The result is the empty public square, a public life devoid of
 values. And as I've showed in our empirical research at the
 Institute for Labor and Mental Health, and explained more fully in
 my The Politics of Meaning and in my Spirit Matters and The Left
 Hand of God, this has created a spiritual crisis of monumental
 importance that is at the root of family breakdown, drug and
 alcohol abuse, narcissism and alienation, loneliness and a sense
 of the meaninglessness of one's life that has grown to monumental
 proportions.

 While the poverty in the under-developed world is itself a major
source of pain, one of the aspects of the West that is most resented
and feared is the power of Western culture to uproot traditional
cultures to replace them with the values of the
 marketplace and the demystification and scientism that is central
 to capitalist enterprise.

  Watching the spiritual suffering and degradation that in the West is
taken for granted and rarely connected with the values generated by a
society that measures "success" primarily in material terms and
encourages a world view of "looking out for number one" and
"me-firstism" and "values out of our professions and out of our work
world and only have a place on a weekend religious moment but not in
dailylife," people in the Muslim world are particularly concerned
about this aspect of Western imperialism and are committed to fighting
it.

 So what was said by some of the speakers was that the kind of
 modernization that should be welcomed into Islam, and the kind of
 tolerance that should be an important element of Islamic culture,
 should not include a tolerance for those kinds of values that
 shape the culture of capitalist imperialism and are reflected in
 the pop culture it has fostered. Instead, they envision a
 modernization that is respectful, inclusive, and based on
 affirming the value of spiritual and religious diversity, but that
 does not accept the secularism and the scientism of the modern
 world that parades under the name of Western "rationality" and "progress."

 That, of course, is a vision closely aligned with ours. We do not
 at Tikkun or in the Network of Spiritual Progressives (NSP) affirm
any particular religious tradition, nor do we believe that  one must
be religious or part of some religious tradition in order to be part
of the NSP or in order to  deserve our respect or connection.

 But we do affirm that there is something in the
 spiritual worldview, even the "spiritual but NOT religious"
 worldview that is an essential part of a fulfilled life. While
 that spiritual element may manifest as play, art, music, dance, or
 even study of the wonders of the universe as experienced through
 the study of science, it is an irreducible element that cannot be
 accessed solely by scientism (though it could be by scientific
 investigation). To be spiritual in our sense is to recognize that
there are aspects of reality that are real and knowable, but cannot be
know through measurement or empirical verification.

  What the advanced-consciousness-Muslims whose
 wisdom was in full flower at this conference seem to be promising
 us is that the coming spiritual renaissance of Islam may provide a
 foundation for precisely this kind of tolerant, loving, and
 generous form of religion that becomes a beacon for future
 generation. This kind of Islam will speak to people who may be
experiencing the crisis of spiritual
 emptiness of the contemporary world but are not willing to embrace
 fundamentalisms of any sort or give space to worldviews that do
 not include tolerance, mutual respect for others, and a true
 spirit of generosity. This is precisely the kind of renewal that many
of us in the NSP are seeking to build in the Christian and Jewish
worlds today.

  It may be hard for many of us to imagine a
 world in which Islam becomes identified with these values of love,
 generosity, kindness, tolerance, social justice and peace. Such a
development for Islam, or for that matter for Judaism and
Chrisitianity, would certainly be an incredibly wonderful development.
For those of us who despair about Christianity or Judaism having gone
astray from the loving elements in their founders' visions that these
religions now embody, in at least part of their practice, exactly the
opposite values from those that made these religions catch fire in the
hearts of their adherents (that may be what it means to see the
Burning Bush), the notion that Islam might be the spark that generates
a new religious revival based on mutual respect and spiritual
intensity could dramatically expand our understanding of
 the endless potential for God to surprise us, un-do our conceptual
 certainties, and open our hearts to each other.

 Well, I won't hold my breath for that in Islam or any other religion.
As moved as I was by this conference, I believe that the historically
significant process that the King of Saudi Arabia helped advance in
Madrid will take decades to fully mature in the actual reality of
daily life in Saudi Arabia. In fact, I expect that we are more likely
to see progressive visions from Islam emerge from the diaspora
communities of Muslims in the U.S. (see the work of the Zaytuna
Institute in the SF Bay Area), Canada, England, and France, and from
Jordan, Egypt, Turkey and Palestine. But none of these will have as
much lasting impact as the transformation, however difficult and long
it may take, that was set on path by this process initiated by King
Abdullah. Similarly, those of us who are seeking to build a renewal in
Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism have our work cut out
for us, and overcoming the out-of-balance energy toward repression,
distrust, fear of the other, and commitment to "domination as the path
to security" (the  legacy of what I call "the Right Hand of God") will
be a task that will not be completed in my lifetime, not even in
Western religions. But I think it is very important to acknowledge
victories and steps forward, and I believe that we are seeing now a
major step toward strengthening the Renewal forces in Islam, and I am
grateful to have been part of that experience.

 I also came away with a hopeful attitude about what is possible in
the way of Middle East peace once the Israeli people come to the place
of being willing to give up the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan, and to
the consciousness of recognizing that their security will come more
from a spirit of generosity and caring for others than through
domination and occupation. But that, too, is not around the corner.
All the more reason why we at Tikkun and the Network of Spiritual
Progressives have to be willing to remain true to our faith that love
and generosity will eventually triumph in the hearts and minds of all
people on the planet, and that our task is to do what we can to
accelerate that process so as to relieve the suffering that is
happening as long as the old paradigm of fear and domination continue
to shape the policies of  states around the world.

 Rabbi Michael Lerner, July 18, 2008 Madrid, Spain

 If you find this perspective moving and wish to support it, here's
what you can do: 1, copy and send this to everyone you know or who is
in any email discussion group or list you are on; post it on your own
web-site, YOUTUBE, or wherever else you have access, and talk about it
to everyone you know. An electronic version can also be found at
www.spiritualprogressives.org  2. Join the Network of Spiritual
Progressives (NSP) at www.spiritualprogressives.org and give us the
financial support we need to keep this kind of analysis coming. When
you join NSP you will automatically receive a one year subscription to
Tikkun magazine..   We need your financial support, not just your
agreement with our principles or perspective-so how about acting NOW
to strengthen our voice!

 Rabbi Michael Lerner is editor of Tikkun magazine www.tikkun.org,
 chair of the Network of Spiritual Progressive
 www.spiritualprogressives.org, and author of 11 books (including
 The Politics of Meaning, Healing Israel/Palestine, and The Left
 Hand of God, the latter a national best seller in 2006). He is
 rabbi of Beyt Tikkun synagogue in SF, conducts Friday evening
 services in SF, and teaches Torah on Shabbat mornings in Berkeley
 (see www.beyttikkun.org for schedule) and High Holiday services in
 S.F.  You don't have to be Jewish to register for the High Holiday
services, which are among the most creative and unique traditional
services you'll ever experience.

  RabbiLerner at Tikkun.org
   510 644 1200








 ________________________________
 web: www.tikkun.org
 email: info at spiritualprogressives.org
 Click here to stop receiving future emails
 ________________________________

 Copyright (c) 2008 Network of Spiritual Progressives(R).
 2342 Shattuck Avenue, #1200
 Berkeley, CA 94704
 510-644-1200 Fax 510-644-1255