DO YOU TRUST PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH? SHOULD YOU TRUST HIM?

DO YOU TRUST PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH? SHOULD YOU TRUST HIM?


From the perspective of a military veteran who is accustomed to holding leaders accountable, I feel that trust is a crucial factor in determining who is fit to lead. Ever since I served in the Army as a Paratrooper and an Infantryman, I have demanded accountability from all leaders that I either reported to in the military or leaders I followed outside of the military. Granted, it didn’t make me popular but only well known. But I think it is important to note that there at least two types of followers as there are at least two types of leaders: blind, unquestioning, irresponsible followers, and independent, thoughtful responsible followers…..ditto for leaders as they are often mere followers of their advisers. I think a responsible follower must demand accountability from their leaders. This is often no easy course to navigate. Sometimes it causes friction when one challenges their leaders to uphold basic principles of responsible leadership and be held to basic principles of responsible accountability. Fortunately, the action of friction returns the reaction of change.

To me it is pretty obvious that physics is sometimes applicable to human relationships. For example, for every social action there is a social reaction. I mean, duh, its common sense really. Whether or not it is an opposite and equal reaction however is unclear. Applied socially, Newton’s Third Law becomes far more complex since it must be socially weighed against the tightly-wrapped, richly-covered nougat of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and drowned in the spicy sauce that comes with that whale-sized burrito. And how do you possibly measure the impact of a single social action? Aside from these abstract questions, the central question that remains is how much impact does any social action have? Put another way, does my choice to simply speak out have any real impact and how can I measure it? Needless to say, trying to find the tools to accurately measure impact in the social realm quickly devolves into a cumbersome, murky blur at best. Yet, on the other hand, being privy to the process of seeing those ideas flourish and grow as they are expanded by others who adopt and alter them is an emotionally satisfying experience. It is fun to watch one’s idea develop visible impact that manifests itself in the development of social thought. This is the only tangible method I use to measure social progress as a consequence of social action. So with respect to the question does speaking out have impact, I think it does. Indeed.

In the final analysis, criticism helps keep leaders on track, responsible and more honest which seems to be a difficult proposition for politicians. Voicing criticism openly and demanding accountability is a basic tenet, if not the cornerstone, of our democracy and one of the chief rational constructional ideas that drove its very conception. These days as a leader myself, I also expect others to hold me accountable or to really let me have it if I drop the ball on whatever I am leading. This emphasis on accountability is a basic tenet of the brand of effective, responsible and principled leadership for which I believe in. I think that we the people must also hold our leaders accountable and we must speak out when they fail to meet the highest standards of responsible leadership.

Leaders who deceive their followers fail to represent the minimum standard of responsible leadership.

Telling the truth, staying informed, listening to people, making critical decisions and taking real responsibility for one’s decisions are some minimum standards of responsible leadership. And, in my opinion, due to the failure of this President to represent those standards adequately, I do openly question George W. Bush’s ability to effectively and responsibly lead our nation. Due to his recent history of lies and deceptions which have done nothing but scare everyone and alienate our country in the world, I feel President George W. Bush lacks the moral fiber that marks the minimum standards of responsible leadership. Just think of all the deceptions that mark this President as an unambiguous liar. Where are the WMD, Mr. Bush? Where is your Poker-face, cowboy? You got caught lying through your teeth, sir. As a result of this deception in particular, I no longer trust President George W. Bush. More importantly, I question the rationale that drives his thought process. The fact that I am asking this at all leads me to question his ability to lead.

As recently as this week, White House officials released information that Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) were unlikely to be found in Iraq and therefore their WMD search teams were being withdrawn from Iraq. This admission came on the heels of a CIA leak that administration officials “cooked” the intelligence reports. It was claimed that this was done due to pressure exerted by neo-conservatives to advance the idea to invade Iraq even though there existed contrary evidence that pointed to the fact that Iraq did not likely possess any real threat to the US. Then we learn of the British position when a statement by British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, notes that WMD are unlikely to be found in Iraq. Finally, a leak from the Blair administration emerges that the war was mostly about stealing Iraq’s oil. Suddenly, faster than a speeding bullet, leaping great bounds of coastline water in a single bound, appears AWOL Bush as he lands flamboyantly on a purposely delayed aircraft carrier filled with troops trying to come home only to give a thundering campaign speech in his newly fitted military garb. I must say that I was particularly disgusted by how the military uniform looked on El Presidente. Yes, thank you Mr. President for bravely and courageously moving the Risk game-pieces around the board next to your desk, scaring the hell out of most people and murdering the rest. I am sure the families of dead soldiers and Marines really appreciate the big sacrifice you made for your country with all those moves on your game-board that got them killed in the first place. When I learned this week that the Bush administration seeks foremost to seize control of current and future production of Iraqi oil, it really put a cherry on the top of Bush’s Sundae of lies, as if he can lie to our faces and then get away with it scot-free. see http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0509-01.htm for details.

These facts, coupled with the unjustified desire to invade Iraq at the cost of 137 murdered American lives and thousands of murdered Iraqi lives, makes the entire matter only more deplorable. Further complicating the matter of Bush’s mass deception methods are the facts, such as the fact that few resources were spent trying to protect key historical sites from looting, or the fact that few resources were spent trying to maintain order for the benefit of Iraqi’s, or the fact that few resources were spent trying to facilitate good will from foreign nations or the from the UN. Rather, almost all pre-conflict resources available to the Bush administration were spent on cooking intelligence, building public support for the war by lying to the American public and burning the good will of nations. Nearly all post-conflict military resources were spent on safeguarding the oil ministry and spent crushing any flower of Iraqi democracy by shooting dead those who protested the now ongoing, unjustified US Occupation of Iraq. (Unfortunately for the troops, they will likely be denied a trip home until they begin to suffer heavy casualties as a result of this illegal Occupation…I say support the troops and bring them home pronto.) For these reasons, I cannot in good faith place my trust in this President. Since, for me, trust is the most crucial element in deciding who is fit to lead, I question President Bush’s ability to lead our nation.

Perhaps, you do not mind having the wool pulled over your eyes and being openly lied to by this President, but I do. Therefore, I see it as my responsibility as an American citizen to hold him accountable by speaking out and questioning his ability to lead our nation. I am quite sure many of you did also question President Clinton’s ability to lead after he lied to the American people about his sexual practices. Now, I’m sure you will also rush to question President Bush’s ability to lead since he just lied about the realistic threat level posed by a third world nation devoid of any real military might or any WMD. Then again, perhaps you only question liberal Presidents. With respect to Mr. Bush’s original far-fetched claim that we are threatened by imminent attack, logically speaking, no country is ever going to attack us without plenty of thought, not to mention plenty of second thoughts and in the end probably not at all. What, beyond suicide of the attacking nation, would be gained by that? Mr. Bush, since I feel that you constructed an oil-field-sized lie and sold it to the American people, I feel also that it is my responsibility as an American citizen to question your ability to be honest with the American people and lead our nation according to the highest standards of competence, honesty and honor.

I feel that some of us, including myself, often weigh our leader’s competency to lead by emotional, rational and moral guideposts. The reason why I think this is important is because beyond rational thinking, I feel that our inner moral compass is one of the best guideposts at our disposal to help us measure our leader’s ability to lead with respect, dignity and honor. By my standards, Mr. President, you are too morally corrupt to lead, however, I am judging by you by my moral standards, sir. Now I know that many folks, liberal-progressives and conservative-libertarians, dislike even hearing the word “morality” because unfortunately it conjures up all kinds of uncomfortable images. This is primarily the result of extremist right-wing elements that have hijacked the word “morality” and attempted to unfairly constrict its inherent etymological ambiguity and flexibility. Their brand of morality is however quite different from my brand of morality. Oh I must say that I certainly did get an earful of their “morality” when I was in college in Colorado Springs at Colorado College. There in Colorado Springs, aside from the liberal bubble in and around the college, did I hear all about right-wing “morality” and how homosexuals were social deviants and how family values could also be hijacked to serve as the vehicle to bring hate against homosexuals, immigrants and liberals. Needless to say, I highly disagreed with their version of morality. But instead of rejecting and surrendering the word “morality,” I decided to reclaim it.

Being a big ‘ol gay queen myself, and being on a campus that was reasonably accepting toward homosexuals even if the surrounding community was not, I discovered how to mold my own sense of principled based morality drawing on both the Jewish and Christian traditions that comprised my childhood upbringing and fused this new conception of morality within the construct of my homosexual existence. That combined with the moral fiber and courage to speak out which I learned in the military helped propel me to do just that, speak out. And so I did speak out in favor of a brand of morality which for me is based NOT on hate but on love, understanding, mutual tolerance, independent thought, self-defined freedom and rugged individualism. My “whatever floats your boat” philosophy that celebrates our diversity allowed me to reclaim and renew the meaning of the word “morality” in a way that makes sense to me. I must say that the one nice aspect of the word “morality” is its inherent ambiguity which leaves it subject to individual interpretation. However, I tend to think many people would likely feel comfortable knowing morality and ethics are rooted in a philosophy that basically instructs us to strive to treat others in the same manner we would like them to treat us. So when hate is expressed by some as a good family moral value, that worries me and I take issue with it. Would you want to be hated? I don’t either. What did I ever do to them to be hated? Perhaps being hated has more to do with my speaking out, hey? Just joking. I just happen to think that hateful talk should be relegated to the margins of society. Don’t you think it should be relegated to the margins Senator Santorum? How about you Senator Lott? Apparently not either of you, dear irresponsible Republican leaders.

To share with you an example of the brand of morality I embrace, let me tell you about a conversation I once had while still in the military. I remember discussing with fellow soldiers in the army that the real problem with gays in the military has nothing to do with gays but only to do with those who hate them. If you kick all the bigots out of the military, as opposed to the gays, then the problem is pretty much solved isn’t it? I think the problem is there are a lot of bigots in the military, at least, that was my experience. And that’s the truth as I see it folks, whether it appeals to you or not. I think hate is not a family value; I think hatred is immoral and I think it should be relegated to the extreme margins of society. This idea of morality is the product my conscience-based and self-crafted brand of Jewish-Queer morality specific to my experience. But that’s me so you decide on your own what makes sense to you.

I happen to think that I have exceptionally high moral values and the courage to express them; I am a reasonably religious person as I believe in G-d and identify with G-d from a Jewish perspective and I am also gay. I think my moral values are just fine the way they are now. In fact, with respect to family values, I am quite impressed with the family values demonstrated by members of our synagogue in San Francisco, Sha’ar Zahav, which is described as a Progressive, Reform Synagogue Embracing a Diversity of Sexual and Gender Identities. Many of our members are gay parents who raise wonderful, happy children. I think that children who have gay parents benefit from the product of the love there are shown and imbued with, just as in any other family. I think that love is the most important family value we can bestow upon children. I will certainly love my children when I decide to have children someday in the future. Hatred should have no place between people, and certainly no place in the construct of family values at least in the moral schema that I define.

Perhaps, this is why I am so disturbed when extreme right-wing Republican elements represented in the ranks of the current leadership of the Republican Party begin expressing hatred and embrace hate as a family value. They do this when senior ranking members of the Republican Party express their contempt for African Americans or homosexuals as Senator Lott and Senator Santorum did recently do. To me, it is only more evidence of their obvious lack of human compassion, understanding, tolerance, appreciation of diversity or of any authentic belief in inclusiveness. Furthermore, I think that if they spoke about Jews in the same way they speak about homosexuals, I think most Jews would be freaking out and rightly so. Fortunately, the Republicans brand of hatred does not include anti-Semitism. But it does include hatred. Let us remember that homosexuals suffered in the Holocaust too as I am reminded daily by the pink triangle that hangs from a mirror in my room which is the symbol that the Nazi’s stuck upon homosexuals. As a homosexual, I am deeply disturbed when hate is expressed from the upper echelons of the current Republican leadership and then re-defined by our President as inclusive in nature, i.e., by proclaiming Senator Santorum to be a man of inclusiveness. Nothing could be further from the truth for Senator Santorum is anything but inclusive. As a result of President Bush’s obvious attempt to paint a picture of Republican inclusiveness by excusing Senator Santorum and deceiving the American public by obscuring the moral corruption and extreme hatred that drives ranking Republican leaders to utter their bigoted filth, I question the ability of President Bush to lead our nation in a truly fair and inclusive manner. President Bush’s continuous pattern of deception leads me to distrust most of what he says.

Futhermore, how do you rectify George W. Bush’s demonstration of family values when he just got done lying to the American people about the threat level posed by a third-world nation. How do rectify his notion of family values when the message the Bush administration just sent to America is that it is ok to lie to get what you want, murder to get what you want and steal to get what you want. Oh yeah, great family values Mr. Bush. If we all took up these family values, society would more than likely self-destruct rather quickly. If these are your family values, then please keep your family a healthy distance away from my family. I think good moral values can be found in our ability to tolerate differences in opinion, in addition to tolerating differences in race, color, creed, or sexual orientation. I think good moral values give us the roadmap to get along with others. I think good moral values give us the flexibility to craft our own meaning of the word “morality” specifically relevant to our own lives. I think good moral values rests on the principle that we should try to be honest with people, be good to others and earn what we want for the good of ourselves, our families and our nation. I think good moral values instructs us to bring real homeland security to our people by helping our American brothers and sisters in need by providing universal health care to families and children who need medical assistance and the means to help realize their American dream. Due to the fact that President Bush’s moral values are obviously in direct conflict with my own, I question his ability to competently lead our nation.

What I find particularly disturbing if not incredibly frightening from the Bush Administration is that they do a great job of talking the mainstream talk that deceives the American public and hides the Administration’s ugly way of walking the extremist walk. At least with fascists of the 20th century, their rhetoric was clearly extreme as was their policy. Some folks knew what was coming. But with the Bush Administration, their rhetoric is fluffy and mainstream while their policy is rooted in extremist action as demonstrated by their neo-fascistic, or as they call it, neo-conservative tendencies. I spent a few years in college focusing on the rise of fascism and the tragedy of the Holocaust. To this day I still cannot fully fathom the monstrous magnitude and astronomical tragedy of the Holocaust, but at least I know what societal elements allowed the political system to come to power that made it possible. I know that if more people had spoken against the rise of fascism early on, it probably would not have come to pass. And that is why I speak out in favor of Democracy. Since fascism has a very specific meaning and we in America have fortunately not yet descended to that latitude, we must ask if this Administration is exhibiting fascist tendencies so that we may be sure to blunt any political thrust in that direction. Speaking out is a process that I call the responsibility of being an American citizen.

When I learned President Bush’s grandfather, Preston Bush, was selling Nazi war bonds in the United States all the way up until 1942, clearly a year after the start of the Final Solution, it disturbed me at first but I do not judge a person on the basis of their father’s actions. However, it did propel me to ask more questions; questions I think do need to be asked. But to be fair, I DO NOT THINK Bush is Hitler, NOR is he a Nazi but he does reflect qualities similar to Mussolini’s style of fascism cloaked cleverly by his usage of mainstream language. There is a big difference between Mussolini-fascism and Nazism. Hitler hated Jews and targeted them, Mussolini did not target Jews until Hitler put pressure on Mussolini to round up Jews. Mussolini originally referred to fascism as Corporatism since it was the most extreme form of unchecked Capitalism. Fascism’s origin mostly began in Italy where street thugs accompanied by both Christian and Jewish collaborators also helped erect it, including help from the Vatican in Rome. It’s a good thing the Vatican is not making that mistake again. That said, one distinctive feature about fascism then is that it was marked by extreme language followed by extreme policy. With respect to the Bush administration, however, their style is marked by comfy, mainstream language followed by extreme policy. Not only is it clearly the distinctive feature that differentiates President Bush from last century’s fascists, but I find this new and prominent feature to be even more frightening and more disturbing than last century’s fascists. This is why I prefer to say that Bush is a President exhibiting neo-fascist tendencies, or if you prefer, neo-conservative tendencies. If you consider all the facts taken in context of the nefarious Patriot Act, its theoretical son-in-waiting, Bush’s mad rush into perpetual warfare and the constant lying and deception he actively engages in, we are left with some disturbing questions about his leadership and whether or not he is a neo-fascist. This is especially true when one considers the serious questions raised by Senator Bob Graham who apparently may have the smoking gun on how Bush purposefully failed to prevent 9-11, see http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j050903.html for details. Why would it be necessary to mask policy in mainstream language unless the policy is extreme in nature? Why would Bush be so compelled to risk the credibility of his character by directly lying and deceiving the American people to pursue a war policy unless that war policy is extreme in nature? Why does Bush not seem to fit the definition in the modern sense of the word “conservative?”

Aren’t conservatives supposed to want a smaller, less powerful government and greater liberty for the people? Not Mr. Bush. His Patriot Act wiped out liberties like the Fourth Amendment and many other liberties and made government super-powerful over the people he said it was designed to protect. Even the word “conservative” in Webster’s dictionary is described as “marked by moderation and caution.” So ask the question: Is Mr. Bush moderate and cautious in the crafting of his policy? Why, it even sounds silly as you hear yourself say it, does it not? That’s because the Bush Administration is anything but moderate and cautious. Their extreme, liberty-crushing, murderous policy program is wrapped in a warm, snuggly blanket of mainstream language. To run a government the way Bush does is anything but moderate and cautious. Therefore Mr. Bush, I again question your ability to competently lead our nation without betraying the moral values and principles upon which our country is founded.

As a result of President Bush’s obvious deceptions and attempt to lead the people astray by utilizing language designed to gloss over the glaring nature of extreme policy, I question President Bush’s ability to lead our nation with honesty and honor. I question the sincerity of every word you utter, Mr. Bush. And I question your ability to be honest with those to whom you serve: the American people. Personally, by my standards of morality and principled leadership, you sir, don’t fit the bill of a good leader. I think America can elect someone far more principled, morally inspiring and trustworthy than you Mr. Bush. In my moral schema, Mr. Bush, we affirm the freedom of ourselves by first affirming the freedom of others. This means we treat all others as our equals. Furthermore, by my moral code our job is not to rule the weak but rather to help take care of the weak, helping them realize their own American dream and helping them discover the means and the ways by which they are equal to everyone else. Ira Chernus, Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado, Boulder discusses this idea well, see: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0509-06.htm for details.

To whoever is reading this analysis and tirade of mine, please understand that this is just my opinion; you can adopt your own. I hope you will do best by your country and yourself by thinking for yourself and asking hard questions. Then, speak out. Speaking out has great impact and is so easy to do. You just open your mouth and let loose. Try to do so thoughtfully and respectfully as best you can. Speak out in defense of our nation and the democratic values that we so deeply cherish. Speak out in favor of a moral-driven policy that earns us the respect, dignity and good will of nations and peoples. Speak out in favor of a policy that engenders the human spirit and engages the cosmic connection that binds us all. Speak out in favor of the moral righteousness of honesty, love, moderation, mutual understanding, appreciation of diversity, and tolerance. As Americans, I feel our diversity strengthens our unity as a people without constricting us to a single, narrow uniformity of thought and mind. Speak out folks, speak out now!!



WAGE PEACE!!!

---Except in politics
"Be at war with your voices, at peace with your neighbors, and let every new year find you a better man."
---Benjamin Franklin


Sincerely,

Eric E. Johansson
Ex-US Army Paratrooper and Infantryman
President, SF Bay Area Veterans for Peace, Chapter 69
San Francisco, CA
http://www.veteransforpeace.org
"There is no way to peace. Peace is the way." ---A.J. Muste

“Loyalty is the realization that America was born of revolt, flourished in dissent, became great through experimentation. Our tradition is one of protest and revolt, and it is stultifying to celebrate the rebels of the past while we silence the rebels of the present.”
---Henry Steele, Historian

"My pacifism is not based on any intellectual theory but on a deep antipathy to every form of cruelty and hatred." --Albert Einstein

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official."
---Theodore Roosevelt, Republican

“The world stands on three pillars: The truth, the justice and the peace. And these three are indeed one. When justice is served, truth is served, peace is served.”
---Rabbi Shimon Ben-Gamliel, Talmudic sage






Here is what I read, you read whatever you like to read:



ALTERNATE SOURCES OF NEWS FOR YOU

My preferred 2004 Presidential Website:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/index.cfm


My Top Five Favorite Sites:
http://www.commondreams.org
http://www.counterpunch.com
http://www.alternet.org
http://www.antiwar.com
http://www.truthout.com


Humor Website
(The world is full of tragedy so take a moment to enjoy a good laugh now and then)
http://www.theonion.com

Radio and Television Programs in your Area:

http://www.radioleft.com
http://www.democracynow.org/stations.htm
http://www.democracynow.org/watch.htm
http://www.pacifica.org
http://www.takebackthemedia.com/index.shtml
http://www.pbs.org/now
http://www.jimhightower.com
http://www.buzzflash.com/
http://www.ieamericaradio.com
http://www.radiopower.org
http://www.freespeech.org


NEWS sites - Non-Partisan

http://news.bbc.co.uk
http://www.haaretzdaily.com
http://www.islamonline.net/english/index.shtml
http://english.aljazeera.net/topics/index.asp?cu_no=1&lng=0&template_id=1&te
http://www.hindustantimes.com
http://www.dailymirror.co.uk
http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk
http://www.latimes.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com
http://www.nytimes.com
http://www.timesonline.co.uk
http://www.independent.co.uk
http://www.telegraph.co.uk
http://www.reuters.com



NEWS-sites - Liberal Perspective

http://www.commondreams.org
http://www.unemployedworkers.org
http://www.alternet.org
http://www.silenceissedition.com
http://www.freepress.org
http://www.motherjones.com
http://www.thenation.com
http://www.workingforchange.org
http://www.tompaine.com
http://www.villagevoice.com
http://buffaloreport.com
http://www.interventionmag.com
http://www.truthout.com
http://www.dissentmagazine.org
http://www.lchr.org
http://www.drudgereport.com
http://www.progressive.org
http://www.utne.com
http://www.zmag.org
http://www.inthesetimes.com
http://www.fpif.org
http://www.presentdanger.org
http://www.counterpunch.com
http://www.movingideas.org
http://www.yellowtimes.org
http://www.progressivemajority.org
http://www.freespeech.org
http://www.indymedia.org
http://www.transnational.org




NEWS-sites - Conservative Perspective

http://www.anti-war.com
http://www.fff.org
http://www.drcnet.org/cops
http://www.lewrockwell.com
http://www.mises.org
http://www.lp.org
http://www.cato.org
http://www.reason.com
http://www.drugpolicy.org
http://www.stopthedrugwar.org
http://www.theamericancause.org
http://www.amconmag.com
http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?sec=iolmisc



Veterans / Peace Issues

http://www.veteransforpeace.org
http://www.vaiw.org
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org
http://www.vvaw.org
http://www.mfso.org
http://www.avnery-news.co.il/english
http://www.peacefultomorrows.org
http://www.antiwarnetwork.org
http://www.actagainstwar.org
http://www.debka.com
http://www.mwaw.org
http://www.iwpr.net
http://www.patriotsforpeace.org
http://www.ruralpeacemakers.org
http://www.addictedtowar.com
http://www.unitedforpeace.org
http://www.moveon.org
http://winwithoutwarus.org
http://www.peace-action.org
http://www.californiapeaceaction.org
http://www.warresisters.org
http://www.globalexchange.org
http://www.war-times.org
http://leb.net/IAC
http://www.nonviolence.org/vitw
http://www.objector.org
http://www.nonviolence.org
http://www.activism.net


Good Organizations to Join or Follow:

http://www.aclu.org
http://www.civilrights.org
http://www.fair.org
http://www.poclad.org
http://www.unequalprotection.com
http://www.democraticmedia.org
http://www.now.org
http://www.sierraclub.org
http://www.greenpeace.org/homepage
http://www.aflcio.org
http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org
http://www.hrc.org
http://www.gay.com
http://www.ngltf.org
http://www.pflag.org
http://www.glaad.org
http://www.stopaids.org
http://www.hispaniconline.com
http://www.naacp.org
http://www.childrensdefense.org
http://www.aarp.com
http://www.plannedparenthood.com
http://www.responsiblewealth.org
http://www.bsr.org
http://www.tolerance.org
http://www.corpwatch.org
http://www.amnestyusa.org
http://www.hrw.org



Religion-Based Organizations to Join or Follow:

http://www.shalomctr.org
http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org
http://www.btvshalom.org
http://www.jewsagainsttheoccupation.org
http://www.paxchristiusa.org
http://www.ncccusa.org
http://www.afsc.org
http://www.csmonitor.com
http://www.tikkun.org
http://www.gush-shalom.org/english/index.html
http://www.seruv.org.il/defaulteng.asp
http://www.yesh-gvul.org/english
http://www.rhr.israel.net/intro.html
http://www.seekpeace.org
http://www.rebuildinghomes.org/start.htm
http://www.socialaction.com/index.phtml
http://traubman.igc.org/dg-prog.htm
http://www.junity.org
http://www.geocities.com/jewishpeacemakers
http://www.peacenow.org
http://www.btselem.org
http://www.ipcri.org/index1.html
http://www.pij.org