The Road Map
Editorial, Arab News, May 2, 2003
The Arab world would love to believe that the so-called road map which President Bush has just sent to the Palestinian and Israeli authorities will result in a state for the Palestinians and peace for the Middle East. But Arabs are skeptical about its chances for two reasons. The first is that although drafted by the European Union, Russia and the UN as well as the US, it is Washington that is in the driving seat — and Arabs do not believe it has the will to drive it through. There have been too many Mideast peace initiatives in the past, all of them ending in failure. When push came to shove, the US was not prepared to make the all-important effort. When the going gets tough, Washington loses heart and interest. The other problem is the forces at work in the region that will do everything to make sure that the road map gets nowhere. The map is only as good as its weakest points, and the weakest points are the militants on both sides whose uncompromising visions of total victory are incompatible with the compromises that are vital if there is to be a two-state solution. Those militants are Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and an Israeli hard right implacably opposed to the road map’s demands for the dismantling of Jewish settlements erected since 2001 and, among the Palestinians, those equally intransigent hard-liners in Hamas and Islamic Jihad who want no peace with Israel and who know exactly how to exploit the furious sense of impotence among ordinary Palestinians. No one can fail to notice that the incidence of suicide attacks rises whenever there is movement on the political front. The willing acceptance of martyrdom by young Palestinians is, without doubt, a genuine expression of rage against an otherwise unbeatable enemy — but such willingness to die has been used by calculating political activists out to prevent solutions they do not like. But the Palestinians by and large are enthusiastic about the plan. It is Sharon who poses the far greater threat — and he knows how to turn up the pressure on the Palestinians so as to create a new cycle of violence and bitterness that could sweep away both the plan and the new Palestinian government. Already he is trying to move the goalposts with his statement that he has been sent the blueprint for “comments” on its wording. The road map is not up for comment. It is to be accepted in whole.

For Palestinians, This Is Oslo by Another Name
By Sa’id Ghazali, Arab News/The independent, May 2, 2003
The release of the “road map” peace plan, and the appointment of the new Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas are being seen around the world as a new window of opportunity to resolve the Middle East conflict. But most Palestinians, from those on the street to political leaders, do not think the road map is a such a big deal — or that it will end their suffering and meet their national aspirations. The road map is no more than an entrance ticket to the dance hall where the Israelis will play the same old tunes against “terror”. The Palestinian officials, with their VIP cards and what’s left of their fancy cars, have been readying themselves for the thrilling dance that will put them once again at the center of international attention. A careful reading of the road map predicts an unhappy ending. The peace plan deals with the Israeli demand that the suicide bombings and other attacks by the Palestinian militants end. But it does not give the demands of the Palestinians equal importance. Why doesn’t the road map clearly and unequivocally include the main demand, that Israel withdraw to its internationally recognized pre-1967 borders? Instead, it refers back to UN resolution 242, which Israel has ignored for a long time. What about the future of Jerusalem’s Arab quarters and the city’s Muslim and Christian holy sites? Where is the solution for the millions of Palestinian refugees across the Middle East? The road map does not recognize the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the primary source of instability in the region. On the contrary, everything is the fault of the Palestinians, who unleashed the intifada against Israel.

Shameful conquest
By Salah Hemeid, Al-Ahram Weekly On-line, 1 - 7 May 2003
As the US-led war on Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein's regime comes to an end, many questions remain about the future of one of the world's oldest civilisations -- US President George W Bush said Monday that he would make good on his promise to bring stability to Iraq, and that Iraqis of all faiths and ethnic backgrounds could be assured of a voice in their new government. Speaking in Dearborn, Michigan, to an audience made up primarily of Iraqi Americans, Bush said the United States would stand by Iraq as it worked towards a representative government and a role as an anchor for regional stability. "America pledged to rid Iraq of an oppressive regime, and we kept our word," he said to cheers from the crowd. "America now pledges to help Iraqis build a prosperous and peaceful nation, and we will keep our word again," he insisted. As Bush was speaking, about 300 Iraqi political figures wrapped up a meeting held in Baghdad at the invitation of the United States and Britain. Attendees agreed to hold a conference in a month to begin selecting a post-war government for Iraq. It was the second such meeting that Washington said it had called to pave the way for a democratic Iraqi government. The first was held earlier this month in the ancient city of Ur in southern Iraq. Monday's 10-hour session brought together Iraqis from most parts of the country and most religious and ethnic factions. The Bush dministration's envoy, Zalmay Khalilzad, said afterward that the national conference was to select a transitional government and determine whether Iraq should be ruled by a leadership council or a single head of state. However, clear differences among the delegates emerged with respect to involvement by the United States. Exiles, for the most part, sought a diminished role for Washington, while Iraqis who had remained in the country generally expressed hope that the Americans would have a direct role in the interim period to prepare for elections. The exiles seem to be distancing themselves from the US amidst widespread talk that they rode into the country atop US tanks so as to hijack power and install themselves as Iraq's new rulers.

Keep them out
By Tamam Ahmed Jama, Al-Ahram Weekly On-line, 1 - 7 May 2003
The contradictions of international migration and the ascendant role of organised crime in moving people across borders -- The widening gap between the world's "haves" and "have-nots" is accelerating the exodus of people across borders. Encouraged by improvements in transportation and communications technologies, more and more people are seeking to escape from comparatively dismal working and living conditions in developing countries in search of better employment prospects in the industrialised nations of Western Europe and North America. "Migration pressures are increasing as possibilities for employment and economic survival at home dwindle or disappear altogether," said Patrick Taran, senior migration specialist at the International Labour Office (ILO) in Geneva, Switzerland. While liberalisation has been the hallmark of globalisation in the areas of trade and finances, migration policies have not seen similar developments. On the contrary, most industrialised countries, and an increasing number of developing nations, have imposed restrictive immigration laws over the past decade. Restrictions on visas and tighter border controls have not, however, halted the flow of migrants; they have simply driven the movement underground. This is especially the case because of a steady demand in most industrialised countries for cheap foreign labour -- particularly in the areas of manufacturing, agriculture, construction and domestic work. "With [increasingly] fewer options available for legal migration, irregular migration channels become an alternative, which presents lucrative 'business' for those offering to match the supply and demand for a fee," Taran said. Here is where organised crime enters the picture. The smuggling of people is now a thriving multi-billion dollar industry -- worth $10 billion to $15 billion annually, according to ILO estimates -- second only to drugs smuggling in size and sophistication.

Occupation Eats Away at the Basic Fabric of Democracy
By Jo-Ann Mort, Arab News/LA Times, May 2, 2003
The goal of bringing democracy to the Arab world is a worthy one. But if we have any hope of creating democratic societies in the region, we have to stand up against the erosion of basic human rights in Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East. For more than 35 years Israel has been an occupier. This has frayed Israeli democracy, and it’s not likely to improve without a sharp change of course. The bald truth is that the Palestinian birth rate is much higher than that of Israeli Jews. This means that Jews will be a minority in the territory Israel controls within the next few decades unless Israel gives up most of the West Bank and Gaza. If Israel insists on holding onto that land, it will become either an apartheid state or a non-Jewish, binational state. There is another issue. Since 1967, when Israel captured the occupied territories, a messianic religious fundamentalism has taken hold of the right-wing nationalist camp among Israeli Jews. The growth of the extreme right-wing hard core among the settlers — especially among the young who continue to build and populate new illegal outposts — is a great danger to Israel and to the Jewish people. This is amplified by anti-democratic sentiments among many serving in the current government in Israel and on the Israeli street. The core of the settlers who hold Israel hostage are as fanatical in their religious zeal as the worst Islamic fundamentalist. They have no belief in the modern state or rule of law but expect that redemption will come from God. This minority keeps Israel in a state of siege. According to a new report by Peace Now, there are at least 100 illegal settlement outposts where the settlers defend their hilltops by uprooting Palestinian olive groves, among other often-violent provocations. Rather than insist that the settlements be removed, or even that the settlers obey basic laws, some in the Israeli government are seeking ways to strengthen the settlement movement. Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz who was head of the Israel Defense Forces until recently, speculated in a secret government report — made public in the newspaper Maariv last month — that 95 percent of the illegal outposts can be legalized with retroactive building permits. And Israel continues to defend illegal settlers militarily. At least 40 of their settlements are guarded by the IDF.

Female Fedayeen
By Chris Johnson, AlterNet, May 2, 2003
BAGHDAD – The Bush administration, U.S. soldiers, and the mostly-male media have little or no knowledge of what Iraqi women think about the invasion of their country. The views of some of these modern, educated, outspoken Iraqi women may come as a big surprise. To begin with, it's hard to know what women really think since many of them are staying home amid the political chaos. They are not likely to be found anywhere near the Palestine Hotel's island of security, available to talk to journalists and soldiers. But it is unlikely that they will be overjoyed at the prospect of being liberated from their burkhas a la Afghanistan. Saddam Hussein, despite all his ills, gave these women many of their rights three decades ago, making Iraq the relatively progressive oasis of women's rights in a highly conservative and repressive region. While the views of the vast majority of Iraqi women remain a mystery, the dictator's rare generosity toward them may explain why at least some of these women are plotting to oust what they call American invaders in the name of their "liberator," Saddam Hussein. "We love Saddam Hussein very much," says Arwa, 23, who was a senior in chemical engineering at Baghdad University before it was trashed by looters. "He was kind. We were safe, even when there were wars. He gave opportunities to Iraqi women. Now every dream is broken." At their northern Baghdad home, which features a Kalashnikov rifle under a mural of Chariots of Babylon, Arwa and her female relatives, including internet-junkie Lubna, 16, proudly show off photos of them training in the desert with revolvers and machine guns to kill invading Americans. They say they are female "fedayeen" or Saddam loyalists and members of all-girl units of the Jaishil Kodus, a local branch of the Jerusalem Brigade of Islamic Jihad, a Palestine-based terrorist group wanted by the Bush administration. The concept of female terrorists is hardly a matter of idle rhetoric. As Arwa's mother proudly notes, two female suicide bombers have already blown themselves up to kill American soldiers in Iraq, while another woman with a rocket-propelled grenade launcher destroyed an American tank in Nasiriyah. Female suicide bombers have increasingly becoming more common in Palestine and Chechnya. When about 50 Chechen terrorists stormed a Moscow theater and threatened to blow up 800 hostages last year, 18 of them were women.

Bush's Top Gun Photo-Op
By David Corn, AlterNet/The Nation, May 2, 2003
Winning a war or two goes a long way toward redefining a man. -- As the cable news networks enthusiastically covered George W. Bush's trip to the USS Abraham Lincoln – cool military hardware, guys in uniforms, the Big Man, and a touch of can-anything-go-wrong drama – there were plenty of references to Bush's days in the Texas Air National Guard, when he flew F-102 fighter jets. (Well, sort of – but we'll get to that.) On MSNBC, correspondent George Lewis noted that Bush, with his tailhook landing on the aircraft carrier, was "becoming one of" the troops on board. He didn't add, only 25 years late. That is, neither Lewis nor any of the other television journalists covering this gee-whiz event (whom I saw) mentioned Bush's rather spotty (to be kind about it) record in the National Guard. Those of you who closely followed the 2000 campaign might already be familiar with the tale of Bush's service – or non-service – in the Guard. It received some, but not much, coverage. Not as much as Al Gore's not-quite-true remark about the cost of meds for Tipper's mother's dog. Bush dodged a bullet on this, for he offered dubious explanations in response to serious questions about his military record – and never was called on it. Here's an all-too brief summary: Getting into the Guard. Enlisting in the Guard was one way to beat the draft and avoid being sent to Vietnam. Is this why Bush signed up? During the campaign, Bush said no. Yet in 1994, he had remarked, "I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Not was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes." That sure sounds like someone who was looking to avoid the draft and pick up a skill. Obtaining a slot in the Guard at that time was not usually easy – for the obvious reason: lots of young men were responding to the call of self-preservation. (Think Dan Quayle.) Bush, whose father was then a congressman from the Houston area, has said no strings were pulled on his behalf. Yet in 1999, the former speaker of the Texas House of Representatives told The New York Times that a Houston oilman who was a friend of Bush's father had asked him to grease the skids for W. and he obliged. What Bush did in the Guard. In Bush's campaign autobiography, A Charge To Keep, he wrote that he completed pilot training in 1970 and "continued flying with my unit for the next several years." But in 2000, The Boston Globe obtained copies of Bush's military records and discovered that he had stopped flying during his final 18 months of service in 1972 and 1973. More curious, the records showed Bush had not reported for Guard duty during a long stretch of that period. Had the future commander-in-chief been AWOL?

Tel Aviv first, then Manchester?
By Fuad Nahdi, The Guardian, May 2, 2003
We have seen the first British suicide bombers - but not the last -- Last month, I warned of developments within British Islam. "We need to be scared," I wrote on these pages. "The end of the war in Iraq might even usher in the beginning of our own intifada." Among the many responses was one from 10 Downing Street. I was told that my piece was "uncharacteristically alarmist" and I did feel temporarily defensive. But, sadly, I was right. I am not surprised by news of Britain's first suicide bombers; what, however, I find astonishing is that it took place in Tel Aviv, not Manchester. The descent into extremism of parts of the British Muslim community has been a long process, though "community" leaders remain in a state of denial over the mess. The combined forces of racial discrimination and Islamophobia have been awesome in the marginalisation and alienation of the community. As a result few, particularly young people, feel they have any viable stake in society. To add to all this is the chaos and confusion that is all-pervasive throughout the Muslim world - traumatised by colonialism, raped by "independence". If we are to understand what is going on we need to scrape away the layers of rhetoric and euphemism, put to one side events of 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, and come to the running sore of Palestine. The western conscience, troubled by anti-semitism, is reluctant to look too critically at Israeli behaviour towards a colonised Muslim population. But unless the Palestinian voice, and the Muslim voice that echoes its pain, is listened to, there will be no understanding of what happened to Asif Muhammad Hanif and Omar Khan Sharif. Instead, we will be subjected to more banal rhetoric about "evil" Islam and the motiveless nature of fundamentalist terror. The reality is that Muslims - including the majority of those in Britain - are enraged about Palestine. Angry about the expansion of illegal Jewish settlements on confiscated Arab land. Furious about decades of military rule on behalf of Jewish conquerors over resentful Christian and Muslim populations. Furious about the perpetuation of colonial-era racism and apartheid-style zoning laws. Furious about the plight of Palestinian refugees. Furious about the conquerer's control of the third holiest place in Islam.

Media Monopolies Have Muzzled Dissent
By Ian Masters, Common Dreams/Los Angeles Times, May 1, 2003
If information is the oxygen of democracy, the United States has just been gassed, not by weapons of mass destruction but by a weapon of mass distraction. With George W. Bush basking in glorious ratings and Fox News climbing in the ratings, we may be moving toward a coronation instead of a reelection in 2004. It was, after all, Rupert Murdoch's unilateral anointment of Bush as the winner in the early hours of the morning after the undecided 2000 election that led Al Gore to foolishly concede, because he and the other networks believed what they saw on Fox Television. Now the marriage between a government and its volunteer information ministry has been consecrated by the blessed victory of "Operation Iraqi Freedom," the geopolitical equivalent of an O.J. meets "Joe Millionaire" wrapped in the flag. Totalitarian regimes don't tolerate any distinction between journalism and propaganda, but in most democracies it is unprecedented for the free press to abandon Joseph Pulitzer for the methods of Joseph Goebbels. How did a born-again, family-values administration get in bed with a purveyor of misogyny and mayhem, trash and titillation? The common thread, for all the public piety, has to be the late Lee Atwater, who was friend, mentor and role model to George W., Karl Rove and Roger Ailes, the head hound in the Fox pound of junkyard attack-dog journalism. This undemocratic confluence of politics and propaganda has long been in the making as corporate media have been incrementally empowered while public influence, input and "interest" have been eliminated. The transformation of active citizens into passive consumers was enabled by the Federal Communications Commission under Ronald Reagan's Mark Fowler, who declared "the perception of broadcasters as community trustees should be replaced by a view of broadcasters as marketplace participants." Welcome to America, Mr. Murdoch: You can buy the airwaves and, who knows, some day the presidency. TV's Fox could not get away with its shameless shilling for the White House if the Fairness Doctrine were still in place, and radio's Clear Channel monopoly would not be able to impose wall-to-wall Limbaugh, Hannity and Savage, etc., on the public if broadcasters were accountable to public opinion rather than the dictates of plutocrats. How could it be that in the land of the free and the home of the brave Americans are afraid of opinions? Where are the Tom Paines, the Mark Twains, the Menckens, the Ida Tarbells? Dissent has not gone away; it has just been marginalized by monopolies and relegated to the interstices of the Internet.