In a recent interview with John Simpson of the BBC, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad indicated again that he was open to a negotiated peace settlement with Israel, though he expressed skepticism that either Israel or the U.S. was ready to renew talks. "You say in English 'it take two to tango,'" President Assad told the reporter. Whatever one ultimately feels about the regime in Damascus, ignoring any opportunity for negotiations would be an enormous mistake. Israel, the United States and Syria all have a great deal to gain from renewed talks. So what's stopping us? by Peter Ryan

Saddam's Secrets: How An Iraqi General Defied and Survived Saddam Hussein By Georges Sada (with Jim Nelson), Integrity Publishing A former Iraqi Air Marshall exposes the brutality of Saddam's regime and argues that Hussein transferred Weapons of Mass Destruction to Syria before the invasion. Georges Sada's new book is sure to start a mudfight between the supporters and detractors of the U.S.-led invasion. But both will probably miss Sada's deeper message. In this deeply powerful and challenging memoir, Georges reminds us that the most powerful tool in our arsenal to forge a new Iraq is, quite simply, the power to forgive. Reviewed by Peter Ryan

Pat Robertson believes that Sharon had a heart attack because God is punishing him. How did Sharon incur God's wrath? By withdrawing illegal Israeli settlements from the Gaza Strip. Robertson, a powerful and highly influential Christian broadcaster, lives in a theologically topsy-turvy world where war is divine and God is determined to punish even the slightest gesture toward peace. by Peter Ryan

The President has refused even to consider implementing a projected timeline for redeployment of U.S. troops. But if recent polls tell us anything it's this: we can't stay in Iraq forever-or even for very much longer. The Iraqi people and the American public simply won't allow it.

by Peter Ryan

by Peter Ryan

As the number of U.S. and civilian causalities continue to mount throughout Iraq, the question on everyone's minds seems to be "what went wrong?" Was this the inevitable consequence of a foreign occupation of a predominately Muslim country? Did failed strategies after the initial invasion lead to a popular insurgency? What happened, is it fixable and who's to blame?

Wandering around the University of Irvine's "Peace Wants You" conference, I was expecting to find these question rehashed, debated and scrutinized in every detail, as I had already seen it done a thousand times before. Instead, during a lecture by Professor Mark Levine, I found a much more focused zone of inquiry. Mr. Levine also wanted to know "what went wrong"-not in the war in Iraq but with the global peace movement.

"Bush didn't plan for the post war," Mr. Levine remarked, "But the Peace and Justice movement didn't plan for the post war period either."

by Peter Ryan

On November 2nd, in a speech and discussion at Occidental College in Eagle Rock, California, Rabbi Michael Lerner, head of the Interfaith peace organization Tikkun, spoke about U.S. politics, the "war on terrorism," global poverty, spiritual activism, the power of hope and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

On the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Rabbi Lerner urged Israelis to end the Occupation and Palestinians to seek out a "rigid and principled" strategy of nonviolence. A true commitment to nonviolence would have to make room for "the humanity of the Other" and must be unwavering in its rejection of violence. Lerner acknowledged, however, that nonviolent resistance was always difficult and is, at times, unpopular with oppressed groups. "Many people often asked me," Lerner told the group, "How he can you tell the Palestinians to use nonviolence when so much violence was being perpetuated against them?" In the U.S. civil rights movement, Lerner noted, groups like the Black Panthers were bewildered by Martin Luther King's call to nonviolent resistance and his willingness to recognize the humanity of his oppressors. Whites had been using violence against blacks throughout the entire nation's history and now they were expected to resist nonviolently? At the time, many felt that Martin Luther King was simply being naive, Lerner pointed out, but history seemed to show that the strategy of nonviolence had turned out to be far more effective.

by Peter Ryan

There is no doubt that the United States has dealt with its share of tragedies and losses over the past five years. On September 11th, 2001 about 3,000 men, women and children lost their lives during an onslaught of terrorist attacks. In the war in Iraq, we have lost over 1,000 of our men and women in uniform to the conflict. Every town and every county in America has, one way or another, been touched by these losses and the repercussions of these events--on our culture, our politics and our way of viewing the world--has been imminently clear. The violent acts committed against us have left a mark on our national psyche. In response to the 3,000 who died on September 11th, many Americans vowed to "never forget" that day--or its implications.

How then can we even begin to contemplate how the loss of 100,000 Iraqi civilians has transfigured Iraq? A recent study by the Lancet medical journal concluded that, since the US invasion of Iraq, there have been at least 100,000 more civilian deaths than there would have been otherwise, many of these due to US actions. Richard Horten from the Lancet, in an article about the new study, explained that "Much of this increased mortality is a consequence of the prevailing climate of violence in the country, and many of the civilian casualties that are described were attributed to the actions of coalition forces. These findings--and the tentative countrywide mortality projections they support--have immediately translatable policy implications for those charged with managing the aftermath of invasion."