By Riman Barakat and Dan Goldenblatt

Palestinian and Israeil flags (Activestills)

As President Obama’s arrives for a visit to Israel and Palestine, many Palestinians and Israelis do not anticipate any euphoric moments or breakthroughs with regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Beyond the list of actions and words that Obama will address with regards to Israel’s regional fears and the Palestinian concern that the two-state solution is no longer feasible, President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry should have something to offer to a right-wing hawkish Israeli government, which is not likely to promote a two-state solution, and to a Palestinian Authority that is very close to collapse as its economic situation worsens. What is needed is for the United States to offer a slight but fundamental shift in the paradigm.

Almost 20 years ago, Yitzak Rabin, who shook hands with President Yasser Arafat on the White House lawn, called for a paradigm based on the notion that “we are here and they are there,” not a sharing approach. We argue for a shift from a separation paradigm to one of sharing. But there are several logical steps to go through before we switch paradigms:

1. Declaration of a Palestinian state and recognition by the US and Israel: What cannot be ignored or circumvented is that a Palestinian state must be established in order to grant Palestinians as a people their basic right to self-determination. Israel is the only Jewish state in the world and it must remain such. Any solution that will threaten the Jewishness of the State of Israel is doomed to fail. Two peoples who have been caught up in a national struggle for over a century cannot be expected to give up their national aspirations and leap into post-nationalism. A one-state solution is therefore a non-starter. Any solution must ensure that Israel maintains a Jewish majority and remains a democracy, and that the Palestinians establish their self-determination and sovereignty.

2. Acknowledge the fact that the separation paradigm is bound to fail: We ought to acknowledge that “we are here, they are there,” is not only no longer feasible, but fundamentally defies the emotional and deep connection that both peoples in the Land of Israel/Palestine hold to the land. On the one hand, all religious sites connecting Jews to the holy land are located in the West Bank/Judea and Samaria/Palestine. On the other hand, all the Palestinian refugees come from over 500 villages that were destroyed in Israel’s War of Independence in 1948 (known as the Palestinian catastrophe – the Nakba) that are located in today’s Israel. Any solution that does not account for these established historical connections is doomed to fail. This is probably the primary reason why all efforts, initiatives, road maps and accords have not succeeded in finding a solution that had buy-in from the Israeli and Palestinian public. Ideological settlers continue to lobby the Israeli government to build more settlements as long as they believe that their right to reside in the West Bank is threatened. Any Palestinian leader, no matter how popular, will fail to convince the Palestinian public to support a peace agreement that deprives Palestinians of the right to visit or reside in the coastal plains from which they came.

3. Propose a solution that will respect the sovereignty of both states while strengthening the sharing paradigm. Here we propose a formula of two states in one space.

The challenge lies in squaring the circle, in answering the needs of both peoples (not allowing the marginal elements to set the agenda), in putting forward a proposal that provides an acceptable solution to the key issues. We would also suggest a different list of priorities. The most important key issue must be freedom of movement. This has been proven through the continued failure of the process to date. The second is the human element.

So, in preparation for the presidential visit, as co-directors of one of the longest standing joint organizations dedicated to resolving the conflict, we would like to put forward a new and innovative way of resolving the conflict.

Our premises, in addition to the two facts above, are:

A. Israelis and Palestinians who have been involved in a national conflict for over 100 years must each have a national sovereign state. Talk of a one-state solution is illogical. It asks Israelis and Palestinians to forgo their national aspirations and leapfrog over nationalism into a post-national era. We are seeing that this can barely be implemented in Europe. There is no chance it will hold in Israel/Palestine.

B. Israel is the only Jewish state in the world and it must remain such. Any solution that will threaten the Jewishness of the State of Israel is doomed to fail.

C. The Palestinians have already agreed that their state will be on 22 percent of historical Palestine and they will not agree to one iota less.

D. One cannot negotiate over how to divide a cake while one of the parties is eating the cake. This means a complete and total freeze of all settlements that are beyond the current built-up circumference of any settlement.

E. Contrary to common belief, we think that it is actually the human element, Palestinian refugees and Israeli settlers that are the key to resolving the conflict and not security and Jerusalem. Security and Jerusalem are very important, but the human aspect is the determining factor and if we can resolve it all else is relatively, easier.

Our ultimate goal is a sustainable peace based on two states living side by side providing freedom and human dignity to all the inhabitants of the land. In addition to the above observations, there are some additional factors that must, in our eyes, be considered and accepted:

The Palestinian side has little left to lose. Israel, on the other hand, has everything to lose. Israel is quickly slipping into a one-state reality that will leave it with a choice between granting Palestinians full human and political rights, and cease to be the only Jewish state in the world. The second option, which is much more likely, is that it will not give Palestinians those rights and it will become a de facto apartheid state, which will cease to be democratic.

If Israel seeks to merge into and become part of the region, it will be welcomed here. This has been voiced (and sadly completely ignored by the Israeli government), by the Arab League in the Arab Peace Initiative. The economic potential of becoming part of the region and thereby opening it up to trade, transport and tourism is beyond question. Most, if not all the problems can be solved. It will take commitment and dedication, time and patience, but it is undoubtedly possible. However, for it to succeed, we cannot keep pushing a failing strategy. Innovation, creativity and outside-the-box thinking, so important for any business in the world today, must be applied also to this conflict.

Riman Barakat and Dan Goldenblatt are Co-Directors of IPCRI – the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information.

Ariel University’s Student Union posted a banner on its Facebook page Sunday and requested people make it their Facebook cover page. Here is how it looked originally on Sunday evening:

Screenshot of Ariel University Student Union Facebook banner

Yes, that’s right. It says “No We Cen’t!” Below that in Hebrew it says, “We will not let Obama discriminate against us: A student in Ariel is a student in Israel.”

After I noticed it on my Facebook feed, I had a hard time believing whoever made it really doesn’t know how to spell such a simple word in English – and figured it must be some joke or word game. But sure enough, a few minutes later, I returned to their page and they had corrected it:

Screen Shot of Ariel University Student Union Facebook page

I guess Ariel students should invest a bit more in polishing their English before taking on Obama.

There are already a few memes. Just saying:

Screenshot of meme from Amir Schiby Facebook page (Amir Schiby)

“What if Ariel published a stammering poster, just so that they could then blame Obama for discriminating against those with disabilities?” (Screenshot of meme by John Brown)

Flush from the success of its third annual conference, J Street stands at tough crossroads. Its first two years of heady success as the receptacle for an emotional outpouring of long-suppressed liberal Jewish sentiment have run headlong into the unforgiving landscape of American-Jewish-Israel-politics.

The powerful Jewish establishment initially tried to swat down J Street like an annoyance, but as the buzz grew the establishment unleashed its anger, desperate to delegitimize J Street from the right. Over the last year or so, the fledgling lobby took a barrage of criticism over its position that the US should not oppose a UN resolution condemning settlements, only to be flogged by the left for opposing the Palestinian unilateral statehood bid last September. Critique of the harder, outspoken left now flows freely, on a lineup of issues.

The Obama Administration, which J Street originally hoped would usher in a policy paradigm shift, has stagnated dangerously on the peace process, perhaps capitulating to the vise-like grip of the established right-wing American Jewish lobby. Has J Street disappointed the left and been defeated by the Jewish-American right? Is it toeing a line too fine to make a difference? Or is it staking out a genuine ground and digging in to reach a deeper level of long-term  change?

Two days after the conference ended, I spoke with founder Jeremy Ben Ami about some of these issues. The conversation here has been edited for length and clarity.

———

If Jeremy’s energy level is any indicator, the answer is clear: J Street is single-minded and undaunted. Before I even managed to ask a question, he was gushing about the conference:

Attendance was up 25 percent compared to last year (to 2,500). The enthusiasm level seemed not all diminished despite realities on the ground. On the Hill and in politics, there are people we couldn’t get a meeting with two years ago, and one year ago we could get a staff person. Now they’re meeting and agreeing to put their name on letter, when two years ago we wouldn’t have even been allowed in the door. Person by person, office by office.

DS: As Obama’s first term draws to a close, how do you view the arc of his approach to the conflict? What do you see as his most and least successful moves?

One, he came into office with the clear recognition that resolving the conflict is an essential American national security priority. Two, he recognized that you can’t deal with this in year eight of a second term, but from day one. Three, you need to bring in some fresh people and ideas to do it.

…He had the right vision. He talked about the existential necessity for Israel of achieving a two-state solution, he understood that…that’s what it means to be a friend. He made the commitment to put it into action with a full-on settlement freeze and showed a real desire not just to speak but to act.

And that’s where the good news ends. The inevitability of an Israeli “no” to the concept of a settlement freeze was not fully [thought out]… The president backed down and became very defensive about its friendship with Israel rather than being on the offense and saying that friendship means pursuing a peace deal and providing military hardware, exercises and strategic operations – not just military aid.

At the end of the first term, the vision is unfulfilled, the tactics have not worked. If he is reelected, he has to press reset if he wants to achieve the vision he laid out at the beginning.

DS: J Street’s August poll of American Jews showed 57% who supported the broad outlines of a two-state solution package, but also 60% who feel favorably about Prime Minister Netanyahu, who has paid lip service, but not moved forward on the two-state solution. What’s going on among American Jews?

The biggest hurdle for the Israeli two-state camp and the American pro-Israel pro-peace camp is that people don’t believe there’s a way to get it done and a partner. But this is a far better situation to be in than the other way around. It’s a much harder task to change minds of the majority on the substance, than to mobilize people who agree with you.

The way to change the current situation is political leadership. Sadat changed public opinion overnight by speaking in the Knesset. Any one of the leaders in Ramallah, DC, Jerusalem stepping forward and leading on this issue will change the perception that [peace] is never going to happen. I have argued [this] to President Abbas …and to Israeli leaders who meet with us…to the White House, the President and will argue with whoever the American leader is after November. This is what will dissipate people’s doubts that [peace] can’t happen.

DS: J Street is committed to the two-state solution. Amos Oz said “[Israelis and Palestinian conflict resolution] is not a honeymoon, but a fair and painful divorce.” Isn’t this the old rhetoric? Is J Street being inflexible by not opening up different options?

This isn’t just a five or ten year old idea. For 80 years, there’s been no other realistic answer to how you resolve this conflict. You have two peoples, with an unbreakable claim on one piece of land. You have three options: a. one side wipes out the other, and controls all the land; b. you both continue to live there and continue to fight ad infinitum, with blood, tears, violence and war; c. you figure out a way to draw a line, and say you’re here, we’re there. For 80 years, it’s been really hard to figure out where that line is…but that doesn’t mean that we’re naïve to keep trying.

The other two outcomes are simply not acceptable. It may be academically interesting to debate…but the entirety of human history tells us that that’s not possible.

DS: Did J Street cut too far to the center/right? In trying too hard to please all, is its message getting diluted?

I am one-thousand percent convinced that two-thirds of Jewish Americans fall squarely in the middle of the political map which is the space that J Street is trying to claim. There is a very, very activist group on the right, a very, very activist group on the left, they are more passionate, they are louder, they are more intensely engaged in the debate, but ultimately, the power is going to belong to the center, which is rooted in Jewish values, committed to Israel, it wants peace….it [holds] liberal views on issues like human rights, civil rights, peace and democracy. That’s why we see our movement growing, expanding year to year.

DS: Why did you ask Obama not to oppose the UN resolution against settlements, but you opposed Palestine’s unilateral statehood bid? Were you influenced by the fallout against J Street following the UN settlement issue?

They’re completely different questions. If there was a United Nations resolution tomorrow on [settlement condemnation], we’d take the same exact position, which reflects American policy for over 40 years, to oppose the settlements over the Green Line.

The application for statehood is a separate question…This Administration was in line with United States policy, not against it, that the state of Palestine should be admitted [to the UN] as a result of a peace deal. We felt that jumping ahead to membership was just a symbolic statement. If Palestine had been admitted, today nothing would be different;[it] would not change the reality of occupation, of continued encroachment of settlements on land where they have to build their state.

DS: After inviting Peter Beinart as a central speaker at the conference, did you reject his views when they went too far?

I have absolutely no problem with his book. I am thrilled by the sense of urgency that he is infusing into the discussion, I am one-hundred percent supportive of his desire to rekindle a passionate liberal Zionism that unites our values and our love of the project of building a national home for our people. Does that mean that I’m going to agree with every single tactical recommendation he makes? No. Is he going to agree with all of ours? No, but that doesn’t influence the philosophical case we are making.

We are here to solve the broken dynamics of the American political system, and broken leadership of the established American Jewish community, which stakes out positions on Israel that are not in line with the American Jewish public,and represent a small hawkish part of it….We deserve to have all voices represented in the discussion.

It’s fine for some groups to [boycott settlement products], but it’s not our mission. Many people within J Street are not going to buy products made over the Green Line, spend a dollar or see a play in Ariel, because if you support J Street’s vision and you’re grounded in our values, you’re probably not going to buy those products, or attend the plays. But we’re not going to endorse that.

DS: You are both a political lobby but also committed to pushing the boundaries of the conversation among American Jewry. Is there any tension or contradiction between these?

We have a single mission – to advance American support for a two-state solution…The broader the conversation in the Jewish community on Israel, the healthier that community will be. I’ve never staked out any claim or made any pretense that J Street is left of center or far left, other people have tried to paint us that way or marginalize us, but since day one, we’ve been passionate moderates.

DS: What are your next steps?

In 2012, the campaign is the future of “pro-Israel”: to help define “pro-Israel” in American politics so that it doesn’t mean this downward spiral of ever-more hawkish pronouncements by politicians who think they’re currying favor and support from Jewish communities. We have to make clear that the future of “pro-Israel” in this country is to support the necessary moves to achieve a two state solution…We want Obama, or the next leader, to know that the politics support them in doing that.

DS: What would you see as short-term and long-term achievements?

This is a marathon [disclosure: Jeremy is a multi-marathon runner - ds]. When we created J Street, we thought there was a possibility that Obama would sprint forward and maybe get to a two-state solution within his first two years. We wanted to clear the political space, be the “blocking back” for him. That was J Street 1.0. When that didn’t work, it became very clear that we are absolutely in a marathon and to win we’re going to have to do the hard and slow work, community by community, synagogue by synagogue, member of Congress by member of Congress…

It’s amazing to see yearly growth, we have the 5000 students involved in J Street U after just two years; there were 650 students at the conference… The progress on Capitol Hill has been enormous. There are dozens [of members] today who are engaged and openly have a relationship with us. If you can continue at that rate, every year you add 10-20 more members, that’s real progress.

DS: Are there any possible ripple effects beyond the direct impact of J Street?

If voices to our left can get more organized and bring in more activists, that’s good for the Jewish community to have this argument about what their values mean. I hope people who disagree with us on the left won’t just confine their critiques to internet but get off their seats and do something.

That’s the hard work. It’s much easier to sit at home and lob criticism through blogs and tweets, and by posting that this isn’t changing the world overnight. But political change happens one step at a time, one foot in front of the other to reach the finish line of the marathon. If you’re sitting on the sidelines critiquing the runners, I have no respect for you. Get in the race, show you can run it faster, show you can get to the finish line, prove you have better ideas, but don’t put your energy into simply critiquing the form and style of other runners.

Read also:
Why I am proud of my work for J Street
J Street third annual conference marks shift to the right
What’s wrong with J Street – an open letter to members
WATCH: Why does a Palestinian speak at a J Street conference?

“Jordan and Palestine’s future (prospects) are stronger than Israel today and that it is the Israeli who is afraid now. When I was in the United States, an Israeli intellectual talked to me and said that what is going on in the Arab world is in the best interest of Israel; but I answered him and said: on the contrary; your situation today is harder than ever before.

“We support the Palestinian people right to a Palestinian state; our political stance did not and will not change and that the alternative homeland issue must not be part of the discussion.”

Most of the headlines in Israeli and international media went with the “Jordan will never be Palestine” or “Israel in tough situation” headlines. I would have chosen something else, which for some reason is a part of the King’s speech that was not translated in most of the news sites I skimmed through, and gave me the chills:

“We have an army and we have fought Israel more than once. We are calm.”

Talk about “tough”. A few days ago I wrote about the lethal cocktail in the region that could lead to war. Turkey, Egypt and Israel have all acted irrationally over the past few weeks, and the U.S. and EU have been watching silently from afar, except for the usual flurry of diplomatic activity that ensues behind the scenes during these kinds of outbursts. Hopefully someone will understand soon that this situation is already out of control.

And now, even small and virtually powerless Jordan feels it is time to use war rhetoric.

UPDATE: MK Arieh Eldad (Yisrael Beitenu Ichud Leumi) said today: “In my meeting in Washington with members of Congress I found people willing to listen to the ‘Jordan is Palestine’ plan. Abdullah knows very well there is no other justification for Jordan’s existence, and he is terrified of the day when the masses in Amman will do to him what they did to Mubarak and Qadaffi. He’s better off declaring today that Jordan is the national Palestinian state or requesting diplomatic asylum in London as long as still has control.”

On the first day of my first visit to Cairo, which happened to be the day after President Obama gave his speech at the university, a friend rescued me from the fortress-like luxury hotel I’d been booked into by an eccentric potential employer and took me to see the things she loved about her city. It was a fabulous day that made a big impression. Ever since, I’ve been trying to figure out a way to return to Cairo for a longer stay – especially since the revolution, which has kept me glued to Twitter and Facebook practically all my waking hours for more than a month.

On that June day, we started my introduction to the city with a coffee and a long chat at the Alain le Notre Café overlooking the Citadel. My eyes kept wandering back to the romantic view of old Cairo, its haze- shrouded mosques and minarets, even as I kept up a running conversation with my companion. After coffee, we strolled along the paths that wound through the meticulously maintained green spaces of Azhar Park. Young couples sat on the grass under trees, discreetly holding hands until a tongue-clicking uniformed guard admonished them against public displays of affection.  The scene reminded me of a talk given to a small group at Tel Aviv University by a junior diplomat from Egypt. He spoke passionately about the social crisis caused by delayed marriage in Egypt – about young couples that could neither afford to get married and set up a household, because of the high unemployment and low salaries; nor find a place to be alone in a conservative, crowded city that offered little privacy. The visceral understanding of that speech came when I saw the embarrassed expressions on the faces of those young couples that were just looking for a place to sit quietly and hold hands.

Alain le Notre Cafe (photo: Flickr/Sdhaddow)

Al Azhar Park (photo: Lisa Goldman)

Lunch was koshary at Abou Tarek’s – where I photographed the famous proprietor in the flesh, nonchalantly reading a magazine behind the cash register and oblivious to my camera. Like Hosni Mubarak, he looked considerably older in person than in his official photos.

Abou Tarek (photo: Lisa Goldman)

Abou Tarek's koshary (photo: Lisa Goldman)

After lunch, my friend showed me the new art gallery scene – edgy raw spaces in an industrial area crowded with auto repair shops. The gallery owners we met were like my friend – young and cosmopolitan, shifting easily between Arabic and English. In their dress-style and body language they were practically interchangeable with people  their age – in their 20s and 30s – that you’d see hanging out at galleries and cafés in Istanbul’s Beyoglu district or Beirut’s Gemmayzeh. For all their sophistication and gloss, Paris, London and New York seemed tediously world-weary, pretentious and stagnant compared to the energetic creativity bubbling in the old-new cities of the Mediterranean region.

In the late afternoon we sat at the rooftop café of the Odeon Palace Hotel, with its faded old-world lobby and wood-paneled elevator. The waiter was a bit grumpy, but the view of the narrow downtown streets was very photogenic.

Street view from the roof of the Odeon Hotel (photo: Lisa Goldman)

At the Diwan Bookstore I pocketed a postcard advertising ashtanga yoga classes in Zamalek. Whenever I visit a city I like, my default is to imagine living there; and for me, a livable city must have a good yoga studio. 

A couple of days later, at a casual meet up with some local bloggers at Le Grillon, I responded enthusiastically to one woman’s polite question about my impressions of Cairo, adding that wished I could stay longer. “That’s because you can leave,” she answered, smiling bitterly.

A few minutes later, the journalist sitting to my right engaged me on the subject of contemporary Hebrew fiction. “I am not so crazy about Amos Oz,” he said, “But I like that younger guy – Keret.” Etgar Keret, 43, is best known for writing short, sometimes surrealistic stories in idiomatic Hebrew. Nael Elthoukhy, an Egyptian who studied Hebrew at Cairo’s Ain Shams University, had translated a few of Keret’s stories into Arabic and posted them on his blog, which was all about contemporary Hebrew literature. Already thinking about my own blog post – the one I never did write about that trip – I asked the journalist at Le Grillon if I could mention his name as the person who introduced me to Eltoukhy’s Arabic blog about Hebrew fiction. He thought for a moment and answered, “Better not.”

As we left the restaurant, someone pointed out a couple of men loitering on a corner, at the edge of Tahrir Square, and identified them as police spies. During the revolution, I learned that they were more commonly called thugs, and that everyone was afraid of them. A year after my Cairo visit, a couple of them beat to death Khaled Said, a 28 year-old Alexandria man, because he refused to show his identity card when they barged into an internet café without a warrant.

Throughout my five days in Cairo, people that I knew only via their blogs and occasional email exchanges went to a lot of trouble to make sure I had a good time, and that I saw as many sides of the city as possible. They were proud of the good and never tried to hide or excuse the bad – like the thugs, the dirt, the corruption and the sexual harassment. They were smart and articulate and honest. They were also depressed and frustrated. Many were semi-employed, unable to find full-time jobs that matched their skills and education. Some lived with their parents, even though they were approaching 30. The fear factor was always there, in the knowledge that anyone could be arrested and jailed without charge. Even though that was unlikely to happen to them, just the knowledge that they would have little recourse if it did happen – that they could just disappear if someone from state security wanted to make them disappear – was always there. Which is what happened to Khaled Said, another well-educated, middle class, under-employed man in his late 20s. Between the fear, the unemployment and the corruption, their lives seemed to be on hold.

The people I spent time with in Cairo were privileged, although not from the super-rich elite. Most of them had gone to the best schools and spoke fluent English, but they were not rich. They were internet savvy, well-informed and outward looking – much more so than Israelis, who seem increasingly to look inward. These young Egyptian bloggers had been born in a country that was once, not so long ago, the intellectual and cultural center of the Arab world; now they lived in a country that was poor, corrupt and stagnating, and they were depressed because they didn’t feel they had the power to effect change, or even to control their own lives. There was no meritocracy, no democracy and no freedom of speech. The only country that did not require Egyptian nationals to apply in advance for an entry visa was Iran. Many talked about leaving, although few knew how or to where. “I can’t think of any reason to be proud of being Arab,” said one.

Just over eighteen months later, just a few days after the revolution began, I listened as that same friend told a radio interviewer exultantly about his pride in being Egyptian. I watched video clips showing people I knew demonstrating on the streets of Cairo, clapping rhythmically and shouting, “Masr!” (Egypt), as they faced rows of black-clad, baton-wielding riot control forces. On January 25, pride suddenly became the new theme amongst the Egyptian bloggers I’d been following for more than five years. I was amazed that they had overcome all those psychological barriers – the fear, the passivity, the helplessness and the depression – and taken control of their lives, just like that. Where did they find the inspiration and the courage?

Over the following three weeks I watched – via Twitter, Facebook, blogs, YouTube and Aljazeera – as those disheartened people I’d met in Cairo went to the streets and led a popular revolution that was informed by remarkably democratic principles. They organized that revolution intelligently, and without a charismatic leader. They left the fear barrier far behind and faced down some pretty terrifying state-sponsored violence. Someone I knew and cared about was beaten and detained, and there was nothing I could do about that except lose sleep (he is fine now). And then I watched as Omar Suleiman announced Mubarak’s resignation, and I read the exultant tweets from the internet-savvy young activists in Tahrir, and that was the most amazing, exhilarating thing I ever experienced.

Even as I tweeted and facebooked the revolution obsessively from my desk in Jaffa, I mourned not being in Egypt to experience it first-hand. Two months earlier, the idea of positive change in the Middle East had seemed too remote even to contemplate. The whole region was stagnating – or, in the case of Israel, taking huge strides backward. Suddenly, everything seemed possible. Optimism was possible. This was something amazing, and I wanted to experience it and write about it.

I was not the only freelance journalist who watched the revolution from afar. It’s not news that the news business is in a financial crisis, and there was no way to put together enough commissions to pay my expenses – let alone pay for my work.  Quite a few of my colleagues found themselves in the same position. I love writing and I am optimistic that it will become a means of making a decent living again soon, but for now I do my most interesting work for free. +972 Magazine is a volunteer project that we bloggers maintain with our own funds. Writing an opinion piece for the New York Times was an honor (especially when it was picked up by Andrew Sullivan on his blog, the Daily Dish), but not a paid one. The same goes for having my interview with “Ali,” a friend in Tripoli, picked up and re-posted on the Reuters site after I published it on +972 Magazine. Lots of credit, but little-to-no (mostly no) remuneration, is all too common in the world of contemporary freelance journalism.

The Egyptian revolution is far from over. There are all sorts of things going on – like the protestors’ raid on state security headquarters this past Saturday, and the ongoing Friday demonstrations at Tahrir. Mubarak may be gone, but much of the old regime is still in place; will the protesters succeed in pushing for system-wide change?

Then there’s the changing definition of the role of women, who figured so prominently in planning and leading the protests. There are the workers’ strikes, which the army has forbidden. There is the uncertain relationship between the army and the protesters. What happened to the national museum after it was damaged in late January, allegedly by thugs? How are the very poor – the ones who live on less than two dollars per day – managing these days?

I would like to spend about three weeks in Egypt, staying with friends in Cairo and reporting from there, but also going beyond the capital – to the small towns in the south, to Alexandria and Port Said and other cities. I would like to publish my reports here, on +972 Magazine, while I am in Egypt.

So I am going to try an experiment.  I am  turning directly to readers to fund the trip and pay for my work, via donations to my PayPal account.  To participate in my experiment – and I hope it’s obvious that a relatively small amount, like the cost of a magazine ($2, $3 or $5), is more than welcome – just click on the ‘donate’ button below.

*** Since I am having problems embedding the code for the PayPal link on this page, I have cross-posted this article on my old personal blog, where it does work. So to make a donation just click here to get to my old blog, scroll down to the bottom of the post and click on the yellow ‘donate’ button there. Many thanks, Lisa