HEFFNER: I am Alexander Heffner, your host on The Open Mind.

I'm delighted to welcome our guest today, Sara Haghdoosti.

She's executive director of Win Without War and the Win Without War Education Fund, a diverse network of activists and organizations working for a more peaceful US foreign policy.

Welcome, Sara.

HAGHDOOSTI: Thank you so much for having me.

HEFFNER: Sara, can you describe just from the outset, the mission of your organization?

Specifically, how are you attempting to reduce war, or reduce the likelihood of war in the future?

HAGHDOOSTI: The mission of our organization is to build a world where everyone can have the ability to live with dignity and thrive without the fear of violence.

And the biggest way we contribute to that is by focusing on the decisions the United States government makes when it comes to war and peace.

And fundamentally, what we believe is we've seen many, many years of violence-first solutions that haven't worked and have made people here and around the world less safe.

And if we can shift that to diplomatic solutions or evidence-based approaches that can actually solve the challenges we're facing, we're going to have a much better shot of building the world that so many of us want to see.

HEFFNER: So specifically, we're talking about outbreaks of war in the Middle East and in Russia, Ukraine, right now This may seem like a broad question, but I think it's an absolutely necessary one.

Understanding those are the most, obviously war-torn parts of the world where there has been escalation and the possibility of even graver escalation.

What do we do about it?

What does the United States do about it?

HAGHDOOSTI: There's a lot of different things we can do about it.

And the first most vital thing we can do is remember the lessons of the past.

We've seen violence first-solutions not work, and especially when you look at the conflict that is happening right now in Gaza, what we learned throughout the last 20 years with wars in Afghanistan, wars in Iraq was that violence first solutions didn't obliterate the Taliban, didn't obliterate Al-Qaeda, but did give us ISIS.

And I don't want to see more radical forces in that region.

And that is the path we’re set on.

Now, what is really important in these conflicts is to ensure that we are centering humanity at the basics of how we approach the conflicts.

And especially when you look at like Gaza, securing a ceasefire is crucial in deescalating what is happening in the region and taking us onto a better path.

And then again, there is not a military solution that's going to make that conflict better.

It will be a diplomatic one.

And the key to a diplomatic solution working is having a process that doesn't just have the same leaders who have made the same mistakes over and over again, be at the table.

We've had the tremendous privilege of working with incredible peace entrepreneurs in the region with groups like Standing Together, groups like Combatants for Peace, who have Israeli and Palestinian leadership, who have been bringing people together, demanding for genuine security to keep their families in Israel and families in Palestine safe.

And we need folks like them at the table.

We need women at the table because not only is it the right thing to do, but research shows that when you have civil society, when you have those voices at the table, you can reduce conflict and any agreements you have are more likely to last longer, be sustainable and actually work.

HEFFNER: Where do we go from where the United States posture is right now when it comes to a ceasefire?

What steps tangibly would you advocate toward that goal?

And I would ask you both in the case of the Middle East, Gaza, Israel and also Russia and Ukraine.

What steps are we not taking now that we ought to be taking in pursuit of ceasefires?

HAGHDOOSTI: I think those two are different cases, and I think it's important to pull those out.

I think that when it comes to Ukraine, the Biden administration has done a fantastic job of really supporting people in Ukraine against what has been a horrific war of aggression by the Russian administration and really balancing the wider escalation risks that are happening.

What I will say on that conflict is it is such a fantastic illustration of how dangerous nuclear weapons are to everyone's security.

And more and more we're seeing that there are too many of these horrific weapons around the world, and they are increasingly being come to control by tyrants with very little accountability, as we are seeing a lot of our traditional nuclear disarmament diplomatic deals coming to the end of their terms.

Now, it is crucial, the Biden administration has done a lot of work on this, but for any US government moving forward, we need to prioritize how do we stop weapons buildups and move it to how do we get to a world where unaccountable authoritarians don't have access to nuclear weapons?

So that's my answer on Russia.

On Gaza, there's a lot of different things here.

Again, it has been fantastic to see the Biden administration have a centerpiece around ceasefire.

President Biden outlined what that looked like.

And at the same time, we, there are other levers that the United States government can use to ensure that our biggest ally is the Israeli government comes to the table and is able to accept that agreement.

And right now we're seeing that we're providing a lot of military support that is countered to US law in this conflict.

And looking at what are some of those lever points that we could use to ensure that this deal is done and that things we can ratchet down the tensions in the region and move towards what actual solutions look like.

HEFFNER: How has the misery and the atrocity that’s occurred, and the human trauma on both sides, how has that impacted the viability of a two-state solution?

HAGHDOOSTI: I think that the human trauma of this is horrifying, right?

Like we're there are still hostages who are torn from their loved ones.

There are 30,000 people in Gaza who have died as a result of this conflict.

It has been 10 months of horrific war.

And what gives me hope is two things.

We did have a moment where there was a ceasefire, diplomacy did work.

It brought a reprieve to people in Gaza.

It helped deescalate what was happening in the region, and it got over a hundred hostages home.

It was by far the most effective policy that was enacted.

Now, what I'm also seeing right now is despite how horrific the war has been, despite how much pain and trauma it's called for people in Israel and people in Palestine, there are still a lot of phenomenal leaders who are calling for a different way, who are calling for solutions that bring genuine safety to people in Israel and Palestine.

And I'll quote Standing Together here, they have said over and over again that there are 7 million people in Israel.

There are 7 million people in Palestine.

No one is going anywhere.

And we need leaders to show actual leadership so that everyone can have dignity and thrive without this constant fear of violence.

HEFFNER: What I hear you saying, Sara, is that even if it has impacted the viability in the emotional wellness of the people, which wasn't all that well to begin with, but it's horrible now.

This is all we have.

I mean, the two state solution is, is all we can continue to aspire to achieve.

HAGHDOOSTI: That’s absolutely what I'm saying.

What we have seen is what we have tried has not worked.

People in Israel are certainly not feeling safe, and this system has not delivered safety for them.

And it is certainly not delivered safety for people in the West Bank or Gaza.

And the only way through this is to design a solution where everyone is guaranteed dignity and can thrive and can have hope.

And if you don't have that, we can't break out of this cycle.

So that is the most important thing to be working towards.

And again, as bleak as things are, there are people who are working towards that.

And if they can have hope in this moment, people like us have to have it true.

HEFFNER: And how do you respond to an unpopular figure in Benjamin Netanyahu?

HAGHDOOSTI: It's always important to distinguish a government of a country from the people of the country because no country is a monolith and there are a wide ranging amount of views within Israel.

And what I have seen is there has been an incredible resurgence of a peace movement in Israel.

On July 1st, the peace movement had a phenomenal event that brought together lots of different speakers, hostage families, et cetera, who shared their incredible criticism of Prime Minister Netanyahu and his failure to bring back hostages home and to his failure in getting a ceasefire to be able to secure the release of hostages.

So yes, there is very much that discontent.

And what I think is important is we all spend a lot of time talking about people like Bibi Netanyahu.

And he has had a lot of power in Israeli politics for a long time.

He has also been incredibly key into undermining peace talks for almost as long as he has been in power.

I think it is equally important to talk about other parts of Israel.

There have been massive protests in Israel against corruption, policies against corruption, and against a lot of policies of the Netanyahu administration even before October 7th.

We have seen a lot more of those.

We have seen protests around his handling of the war since then as well.

And again, there are new leaders emerging from civil society around the peace movement that frankly aren't getting the platforms they deserve to share their visions.

And what I think is one of the most important things we can do is to help elevate those voices.

HEFFNER: I love what you just said, I think that's so perceptive and accurate about the failure of media in particular to elevate peacemaking perspectives, folks who want to build bridges.

And that's been again my problem with both of these conflicts, besides the human hurt and bloodshed is that we are being responsive to it.

You and I are right now, but the vast industrial media complex, not just the vast industrial military complex, have essentially guaranteed the continuum of Netanyahu and Putin's politics.

Now, again, in Israel, it's a free enough country where if a major news outlet went to Jerusalem right now and established some sort of forum with a conversation with four or five voices that might be alternatives to the Netanyahu administration, that would be a powerful thing to showcase and to bring life to alternative perspectives.

In Russia, you don't have a free and open discourse.

So the idea of there being a safe environment in which you can have a town hall with three or four rivals of Putin's, it's just not going to happen.

Maybe you'd be able to assemble that in a neutral location wherever it may be elsewhere in Europe, Switzerland.

But I am thinking exactly as you are on this, which is just there have not been adequate platforms for the peacemaking perspectives and I'm not so sure what we do about that.

HAGHDOOSTI: I think, so yes, there are challenges in terms of how do you, especially in countries like Russia, how do you find the people who have a different point of view and have that critique and provide them with more platforms.

And I will say, even though it's hard, they do exist.

Like we have seen opposition leaders in Russia who have brought to light corruption that's happening in Russia and have paid really heavy prices for it.

And it's so easy to not do that work.

And I think one of the biggest challenges when it comes to national security is that it is really easy to focus on the elite stories and to who is in charge now.

And again, when you peel back in even authoritarian countries, you still have people resisting.

You still have civil society, you still have people who are putting everything on the line to create change.

And sharing those stories and seeing what's working, even if it is outside of the country, even if it is in different forums, is crucial to understanding how we can create that change, how we can create policies that actually support their work and how we can start building through the world we want to see.

HEFFNER: Do you see your organization as one that would partner with media companies, um, or documentarians who want to try to amplify this pro-social, pro-peace agenda?

Again, if you watch the nightly news as a habit, the focus is going be on the harm and the lives lost.

And so there these people say there are no water coolers anymore.

That's just not true.

Even after the pandemic, Netflix is a water cooler.

If Netflix or Apple wanted to, they could snap their fingers and have multimillion dollar commitment to peacemaking public affairs, a kind of world global event where you find a neutral party or a safe country where the leaders of Israel, Palestine, the leaders Ukraine and Russia could be offered a platform, but we don't see that.

And I'm just wondering if you consider your organization one that would be interested in partnering with media outlets that could have this impact?

HAGHDOOSTI: Absolutely, we would.

And I think it's so crucial to highlight voices outside of those elite circles.

And when it comes to the Russia conflict with Ukraine, highlighting Ukrainian voices is also really crucial.

Highlighting voices of folks who want what we all want.

They want the basic right of self-determination.

They want their country to still exist after the incredible act of aggression by the Russian government.

And hearing from them about what support they need, and again, making sure that as we're talking about the future of Ukraine, having the voices of their government is key.

But having the voices of unions and civil society there is also key to ensuring that we are supporting that country in the way that we should be.

Again, when it comes to Israel and Gaza, I have had a huge privilege of working with so many phenomenal leaders there who go out every day and do incredible things.

And I would love to see, like as we're having world leadership summits, instead of inviting elite politicians who have made terrible decisions over and over again, that we highlight this new generation of leaders and actually provide them with the platforms and resourcing they need to succeed.

HEFFNER: Well, it's encouraging to hear that you would be a part of that.

I would also be a part of that.

So just keep that in mind, right?

HAGHDOOSTI: We have a fun project to work on together now.

HEFFNER: In the case of Ukraine, did you think it was necessary for Zelensky to suspend elections?

If you think about it from the American perspective, we did have a Civil War.

Elections continued.

Lincoln did not suspend the Constitution, in that respect at least.

And you know, we've gone through global catastrophes and wars without amending our constitution.

It has concerned some members of civil society and even some champions of Ukraine's independence that he suspended elections and they've been essentially operating extra-constitutionally, extrajudicially.

HAGHDOOSTI: I think when we see civil rights and elections being suspended, it's always a cause for concern.

And this is again, where I would defer to partners in Ukrainian civil society and ensure that what they want is at the center of a solution as opposed to what someone like me who's outside of the country wants.

And I know that for them, again, ensuring that Ukraine survives is key.

Ensuring that Russia doesn't win this war is key.

And also there's a lot of people who are very committed to this issues, and we should be hearing from them in terms of what they think the most effective pathway forward is.

HEFFNER: Likewise, you would defer to the Israelis on having a deliberative process that is, would call it hyper super deliberative.

But the problem is that it's lent itself to the same outcome, which is Netanyahu or someone who in effect is subservient to the Netanyahu ghost, just cannot power through our political system.

It does seem like in even countries that are aspiring to demonstrate democratic will, there is a cult of personality that is winning at the end of the day.

I say that about Zelensky Netanyahu, of course, Putin, Trump has been a figure like that in the US.

It is concerning and, and just yet another reason why this type of forum that we're describing is so necessary to show you don't have to rule with an iron fist or speak autocratically in order to be a credible and legitimate voice.

I think what happened in the terrorist attack on Israel, especially because it happened to peace-loving people at a music festival.

It has given the opportunity for a militant approach that sort of exploits this idea that peace-loving people will never succeed.

They're always going to be mowed down in acts of violence.

I just think that that is the context in which Netanyahu engaged militaristically, was to almost suggest to his fellow Israelis.

It's unrealistic, and just being pollyannish and naive that diplomacy will work.

HAGHDOOSTI: I would argue the reverse, it is naive to think that a policy we've seen enacted for over 20 years that has failed at every point would work again.

We tried a military solution to eradicate the Taliban.

They were not eradicated.

We tried it to eradicate Al-Qaeda.

And we not only didn't do that, we helped foment ISIS.

And over the last 10 months, Netanyahu and his administration stated goal has been to eradicate Hamas.

They have not succeeded.

And like people who advocate for peace are often called naive.

But the solutions we see being put forward around violence, first approaches that have failed over and over again trying to say doesn't work and has caused such horrendous harms.

HEFFNER: Let me ask you this to close.

I think that especially in the nuclear age, pacifism has been stigmatized.

How do you counteract that?

You're answering that question essentially, but I just wanted to make it a little bit more specific.

I'm not saying that your strategy and your historical vision is inaccurate.

I'm simply saying that someone like that Netanyahu exploited the idea that this approach, if you want to call it passivism or peace-first is, is so easily stigmatized by autocratic language and behavior.

And how do you counteract that?

HAGHDOOSTI: I think you counteract it with policy.

Again, Netanyahu's approach failed to like bring back hostages to their loved ones when a ceasefire did.

And the policy outcomes there are so clear, the approach of people who have been supporting peace helped get a reprieve in Gaza, helped deescalate the region in that brief moment when it happened.

And we had a overages get back home to their loved ones.

I want to see more of that.

And the policies I have been advocating for are the only ones that have worked.

So yes, it is in the interest of people like Netanyahu to call people like me naive, but they aren't correct.

HEFFNER: Let me just push back in one instance.

I admire what you're saying and I think that it's not Pollyannish with respect to Al-Qaeda.

I just want to focus on that particular question because the US has not endured an attack on the scale of 9/11 since the military intervention in Afghanistan.

The broader, um, invasion and exploration of Iraq we know was a distraction and not the source of what attacked the United States on 9/11.

But to those who would say that the initial operation to attack Al-Qaeda was effective, insofar as we have not experienced an attack on the scale of 9/11 in this country, why are they wrong?

HAGHDOOSTI: I am really grateful that we have not had an attack on US soil and many others are as well.

And I do think that context is very different to what we're seeing in Israel and Palestine right now.

The countries we were involved in we're also incredibly, there were much further away from the US than Palestine is from Israel.

And the crises we left in our wake in those wars are a step removed in a way that the Israeli, that they're never going to be for the people of Israel and the Israeli government.

So I do think the consequences there are much more dangerous in a lot of ways.

HEFFNER: Sara, thank you for your inspiration.

And thank you for the peace building and healing work that you do.

HAGHDOOSTI: Thank you so much.

HEFFNER: Please visit The Open Mind website at thirteen.org/openmind to view this program online or to access over 1500 other interviews.

And do check us out on Twitter and Facebook @OpenMindTV for updates on future programming.

Continuing production of The Open Mind has been made possible by grants from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Angelson Family Foundation, Robert and Kate Niehaus Foundation, Grateful American Foundation, Robert S. Kaplan Foundation, Draper Foundation, and Ploughshares Fund.