In politics, shoddy theories never die. In the Middle East, one of the oldest is that Palestine is the "core" regional issue. This zombie should have been interred at the beginning of the Arab Spring, which has highlighted the real core conflict: the oppressed vs. their oppressors. But the dead keep walking.

"The plight of the Palestinians has been a root cause of unrest and conflict in the region," insisted Turkish President Abdullah Gul in the New York Times last week. "Whether these [recent] uprisings lead to democracy and peace or to tyranny and conflict will depend on forging a lasting Israeli-Palestinian peace." Naturally, "the U.S. has a long overdue responsibility" to forge that peace.

Writing in the Financial Times, former U.S. National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft intoned: "The nature of the new Middle East cannot be known until the festering sore of the occupied territories is removed." Read: The fate of democracy hinges on Palestine.

So do "Iran's hegemonic ambitions," he insinuated. This is why Tehran reaches for the bomb? Syria, too, will remain a threat "as long as there is no regional peace agreement." The Assad regime is slaughtering its own people for the sake of Palestine? And unless Riyadh "saw the U.S. as moving in a serious manner" on Palestine, Mr. Scowcroft warned, the Saudis might really sour on their great protector from across the sea. So when they sent troops into Bahrain, were they heading for Jerusalem by way of Manama?

Freedom does not need the enemy at the gate. Despots do, which is why they happily let the Palestinian sore fester for generations.

Shoddy political theories—ideologies, really—never die because they are immune to the facts. The most glaring is this: These revolutions have unfolded without the usual anti-American and anti-Israeli screaming. It's not that the demonstrators had run out of Stars and Stripes to trample, or were too concerned about the environment to burn Benjamin Netanyahu in effigy. It's that their targets were Hosni Mubarak, Zine el Abidine Ben-Ali, Moammar Gadhafi and the others—no stooges of Zionism they. In Benghazi, the slogan was: "America is our friend!"

The men and women of the Arab Spring are not risking their lives for a "core" issue, but for the freedom of Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Syria. And of Iran, as the Green revolutionaries did in Tehran in 2009.

Every "Palestine-first" doctrine in the end comes down to that fiendish "Arab Street": The restless monster must be fed with Israeli concessions lest he rise and sweep away our good friends—all those dictators and despots who pretended to stand between us and Armageddon. Free Palestine, the dogma goes, and even Iran and Syria will turn from rabid to responsible. The truth is that the American and Israeli flags were handed out for burning by those regimes themselves.

This is how our good friends have stayed in power: Divert attention and energy from oppression and misery at home by rousing the masses against the enemy abroad. How can we have free elections, runs a classic line, as long as they despoil our sacred Islamic lands? This is why anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism are as rampant among our Saudi and Egyptian allies as among the hostile leaders of Iran and Syria.

The Palestinians do deserve their own state. But the Palestine-first strategy reverses cause and effect. It is not the core conflict that feeds the despotism; it is the despots who fan the conflict, even as they fondle their U.S.-made F-16s and quietly work with Israel. Their peoples are the victims of this power ploy, not its drivers. This is what the demonstrators of Tahrir Square and the rebels of Benghazi have told us with their silence on the Palestine issue.

So Palestine has nothing to do with it? It does, though not in the ways insisted by Messrs. Gul and Scowcroft. The sounds of silence carry a different message: "It's democracy, stupid!" Freedom does not need the enemy at the gate. Despots do, which is why they happily let the Palestinian sore fester for generations.

Israel, which has reacted in utter confusion to the fall of Mubarak, might listen up as well. If democracies don't have to "busy giddy minds with foreign quarrels," as Shakespeare has it in Henry IV, then Israel's reformed neighbors might at last be ready for real, not just cold peace. Mr. Mubarak was not. Nor is Mr. Assad of Syria, who has refused every Israeli offer to hand back the Golan Heights. If you rule at the head of a tiny Alawite minority, why take the Heights and give away a conflict that keeps you in power? Peace at home—justice, jobs and consent—makes for peace abroad.

Still, don't hold your breath. Yes, democracy is where history is going, but it is a long, perilous journey even from Tunis to Tripoli, let alone all the way to Tehran.

The conference is organized by the Centre for Baltic and East European Studies (CBEES) at Södertörn University, in cooperation with the Nobel Museum.

Ideas and aims

Cosmopolitanism has been a major topic in academia since the end of the cold war. While cosmopolitanism and multiculturalism have been recognized officially, xenophobia has become more intense. Is cosmopolitanism a way out of the xenophobic state, or is the interest in cosmopolitanism in itself adding to antagonism and disrespect for human rights? The problem can be highlighted from several different aspects. However, cosmopolitanism has been extensively theorized within the social sciences, where the semantic field often tends to be separated from its historical context. In an effort to make the academic discussion more responsive to conceptual and historical perspectives, we would like to gather researchers with different backgrounds to an international conference on cosmopolitanism, with a special view to its conceptual history.

The aim of the conference is to present a new perspective on a contemporary discourse, which is often dominated by ahistorical presumptions. The conference seeks to create a meeting between the social sciences and humanities in order to examine how the history, and prehistory, of cosmopolitanism has left traces in contemporary notions and perceptions.  We are interested in how the history of the concept says something about the often contradictory meanings attributed to the term today—empirically, theoretically, and normatively. What impact did the events of 1989 have on the conceptualization of cosmopolitanism? How have the concepts of cosmopolitanism and the cosmopolitan been used in the past—and how and why are they used differently today? Can the cosmopolitan project be released from its original Enlightenment impulses of Eurocentrism and Occidentalism? How do we create or reconstruct a linguistic horizon of intelligibility that transcends rather than reproduces the dichotomizing implications of cosmopolitanism, such as between West/East (and North/South)?

Keynote speakers

Andrew Vincent, Prof. of Political Theory, University of Sheffield
Georg Cavallar, ass. Prof. of Philosophy, University of Vienna
Galin Tihanov, Prof. of Comparative Literature/Intellectual History, University of Manchester
Mica Nava, Professor of Cultural Studies, University of East London

Call for papers: Available here on the conference website.

Where: Södertörn University, Alfred Nobels allé 7, Flemingsberg/Huddinge, Sweden; The Nobel Museum, Stortorget 2, Old Town, Stockholm, Sweden.

Language: English

Anyone interested in participating in the conference with a paper must send in an abstract to cosmopolitanism@sh.se by 19th May, at the latest. The abstracts will be peer reviewed.

For registration and further information, please visit the conference web page at www.sh.se/cbees (follow the link ‘Conferences’).

Coordinator and contact: PhD Kristian Petrov, cosmopolitanism@sh.se

The conference is organized in connection with the research project ‘East of Cosmopolis.’

Website (in Swedish): www.sh.se/adress

Website (in English):  www.sh.se (In English/How to find us)

The Europe Center at Stanford University’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies is proud to announce its major international conference on “Democracy in Adversity and Diversity” (May 18-19, 2011, Jerusalem).  This conference – co-sponsored and hosted by the Center’s project partner, the Van Leer Jerusalem Institute – is designed to engage global, profound, and heretofore considered intractible problems of divided societies, as well as today’s crises events of the Arab world in the greater Middle East and North Africa.  With US, European, and NATO command forces engaged in the region, The Europe Center recognizes shared concern across the transatlantic community, and brings its Stanford senior research affiliates as well as international partner scholars to illuminate the immediate as well as long-term points of contention, and prospects for meaningful peace and reconciliation.

The Europe Center’s conference on “Democracy in Adversity and Diversity” includes
sessions on the following critical subjects:

• In Search of What Democracy Is and Should Be: Contemporary Challenges to democratic ideas/formations
• Institutional Forms of Contemporary Democracies: Translating Democratic Theory into Practice
• The Challenge of Managing Diversity in Contemporary Democracies
• Civil Societies and Democratic Quality and Efficacy
• Democracy and Development
• Democratic Transitions and Recessions: The International Dimension 

The participants include leading scholars and policy analysts:

• Dan Banik, Centre for Development and the Environment, University of Oslo
• Bashir Bashir, Van Leer Jerusalem Institute
• Nancy Bermeo, Nuffield College, Oxford University
• Naomi Chazan, Hebrew University, Academic College of Tel Aviv Yafo
• Amir Eshel, Stanford University, The Europe Center, FSI
• Francis Fukuyama, Stanford University FSI
• Ruth Gavison, Hebrew University Jerusalem, Van Leer Jerusalem Institute
• Amal Jamal, Tel Aviv University
• Michael Karayanni, The Sacher Institute, Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University
• Jeffrey Kopstein, University of Toronto
• Stephen Krasner, Stanford University FSI
• Leonardo Morlino, University of Florence
• Gabriel Motzkin, The Van Leer Jerusalem Institute, University of Jerusalem
• Kathryn Stoner-Weiss, Stanford University FSI
• Ramzi Suleiman, University of Haifa
• Laurence Whitehead, Nuffield College, Oxford University

The Europe Center’s conference on “Democracy in Adversity and Diversity” is co-developed by Michael Karayanni and Kathryn Stoner-Weiss, and co-sponsored by The Van Leer Jerusalem Institute.  The conference is one of The Europe Center’s international partner projects run within the Center’s larger and multi-year program on “Reconciliation".

This project is conceived to address subjects of contention, and potentially reconciliation, in divided societies.  The multi-year collaborative project is designed to develop, in successive stages, a full range of programming including international workshops, publications, and scholar exchange.  Sponsored work will benefit scholarly, policy-oriented, and cultural relations.  We especially seek to support the work of colleagues from a wide range of fields including the humanities, social sciences, law, business, and education.  

Further information on The Europe Center’s multi-year program on “Reconciliation” may be found here.