Inclusive peacemaking

Last month in Sudan I worked with Darfuri women leaders to prepare for peace negotiations set to take place in Libya later this month. They defined priorities and next steps, and committed to continued collaboration and communication. Although they represented a wide variety of ethnicities and political interests, these women worked together productively. Unfortunately, most of them will never make it to the talks.

The contrast between my meeting and the halting march to peace talks in Libya was stark. Recently, an unprovoked attack on African Union peacekeepers in Darfur deeply rattled the already fragile push for peace. Pre-negotiations with various armed factions have been characterized by increasing fragmentation and grand standing.

Mediators must start giving seats at the table to those who are ready to negotiate peace and to discourage people from taking up arms to gain influence.

Nonviolent interests are almost never given a direct voice in peace talks. Whether it was the Sri Lanka, Liberia or El Salvador, the conversation has always involved only those who carried arms. But reaching a real peace requires participation from all sectors of society, not only those who wield guns.

Women, in particular, lose out in the peace process. Generally, few women take up arms; they hope dialogue will resolve conflict. They are often the victims with the largest stake in conflict resolution. They also are key to rebuilding communities and societies in the aftermath of war. Excluding them from talks results in poor policy.

There are many alternate strategies for negotiating peace. Participation in talks about a cease-fire could be a precondition to further dialogue about power and wealth sharing. Civil society could be given direct representation at the negotiating table. Political factions could be asked to bring representatives beyond their political leaders and field commanders. Mediators could invite civil society to help define the agenda for negotiations.

In shaping the negotiations for Darfur and elsewhere, creative thinking is needed. We need to alter the incentives and shift the balance of power. We need to stop rewarding violence.

Carla Koppell, Washington Director, The Initiative for Inclusive Security

Israel and the U.S.

That Daniel Levy ("How about a peace lobby?" Views, Oct. 17) can write a essay on the obstacles to achieving peace in the Middle East without mentioning Hamas, Hezbollah or the pervasiveness of anti-Semitic incitement in Palestine and the greater Arab world is emblematic of the intellectual dishonesty that plagues the much of the left when it comes to discussing Israel.

Those of us who unapologetically support both Israel and the creation of a democratic Palestinian state will continue to seek true partners in the quest for peace. But we will also resist the urge to create false moral symmetries between those who support liberal democratic values and those groups - like Hamas and Hezbollah - who use democratic language and invoke human rights only for advancing their illiberal, theocratic ends.

Adam Levick, Philadelphia

Dore Gold's criticism of the Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer paper on U.S.-Israeli ties fails to address the paper's main premise: In the United States, it is very difficult to criticize Israel without being branded an anti-Semite or having one's professional reputation attacked.

Gold refrained from the former but certainly indulged in the latter. Gold's failure to address the difficulty of criticizing Israeli policy in the United States only goes to show how correct Walt and Mearsheimer were.

Marc Sellès, Montreal