Israeli diktat?
By Graham Usher, Al-Ahram Weekly On-line, 29 May - 4 June, 2003
Sharon's acceptance of the roadmap surprised many. But the most appropriate Palestinian response may well be fear. -- This is the "occupation" Sharon wants to end: Israel's occupation of the Palestinian "people", not the occupation of the land and resources that is their patrimony. "The provisional Palestinian state is a new term for Sharon's old strategy for achieving a long-term interim agreement," says PA Labour Minister Ghassan Khatib. "We know that if we get trapped in this phase we won't be able to move to the final status phase -- there is no chance Sharon will allow this. We also know that the provisional state will be autonomy in effect but occupation in practice. Only it won't be called autonomy -- it will be called statehood and Israel would be let off the hook." -- After an age of dormancy next week should see another meeting between Ariel Sharon and Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen); a regional get together in Sharm El- Sheikh, possibly on 4 June, with George Bush and "friendly" Arab leaders such as President Mubarak, Jordan's King Abdullah and Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah; and a summit in Aqaba between Bush, Sharon and Abbas. The trigger for this diplomatic feeding frenzy -- unmatched by even the slightest change in Israel's military rule in the occupied territories -- was Sharon's statement on 23 May that he had received assurances from the US administration that it would "fully and seriously" address Israel's reservations about the roadmap, the latest template for ending the Israel-Palestinian conflict, this time by 2005. Two days and six hours of grueling debate later, Sharon steered the roadmap through his cabinet by 12 votes to seven with four abstentions, including Finance Minister and former Likud Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. The cabinet's approval of the plan was conditional. "The government of Israel affirms the prime minister's announcement, and resolves that all of Israel's comments, as addressed in the [US] administration's statement, will be implemented in full during the implementation phase of the roadmap," said the cabinet communiqué. Israel's "comments" include the demand that the PA "dismantle existing security organisations" as well as "terrorist organisations" like "Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular and Democratic Fronts, Al-Aqsa Brigades and other apparatuses"; that the PA "waive any right of return for Palestinian refugees to the state of Israel"; that any Israeli withdrawal from re-conquered PA areas be in "keeping with changes... required by the nature of the new circumstances and needs created thereby"; and the removal of all references for negotiations other than UN Resolutions 242 and 338, including "the Saudi and Arab initiative adopted in Beirut".

Fencing out the Bedouin
By Zafrir Rinat, Haaretz, June 1, 2003
Last week saw a major development on the road to the creation of a new and previously nonexistent status in Israel - owners of private farms. The fomenter of this development was none other than a high-ranking planning institution, which is supposed to serve as the guardian of the state's lands for the good of the public at large. The Planning and Building Commission of the Southern District decided last week to recommend to the national commission that it approve a project called the "Wine Route in Ramat Hanegev." The project entails a change in the existing district master plan and has the goal of creating tourism and leisure centers along the road that passes through the center of the Negev to the Ramon Crater. These centers will operate within the framework of up to 35 agricultural farms that are effectively owned by individuals. The idea is to create a chain of farms on which up to three residential units can be built and whose occupants will manage extensive tourism and farming areas. True, they will be subordinate to local master plans with respect to building, but the district plan gives them abundant opportunities to develop the territory by means of B&Bs, restaurants, stores and vineyards. There are already a few dozen individual settlement sites in the country, but they have not yet been granted full legal status. The decision of the district commission is the first instance in which a major planning institution has validated this form of settlement on a large scale.

G8 meeting proves a predictable drama
By Gideon Burrows, The Guardian, June 3, 2003
Most of the action, at counter-conferences and demonstrations, took place in the shadow of the Evian summit -- The script for this year's G8 summit and surrounding protests could, just like the meeting's "final" communique, published today, have been written weeks before the event itself. It's the same script every year and it's getting boring. In act one, over 100,000 protesters gathered around the host city for the summit, mounting counter-conferences and colourful demonstrations in a largely peaceful way. Up to 200 "black block" protesters went on the rampage smashing windows and overturning cars, leading locals to call for a crackdown on protesters, and giving G8 leaders an excuse to dismiss every protester who had travelled across Europe for the event. Inside Evian, act two was just as familiar. Weeks before the summit, G8 leaders led by the French president, Jacques Chirac, promised that, this time, there would be real progress on tackling poverty and debt, an open ear to campaigners and concrete action - including funding - on issues such as fresh water, HIV/Aids and partnership with Africa. But as the summit got under way, it quickly became clear that campaigners' hopes would once again be dashed. Like last year, the world's most powerful leaders regarded the G8 summit as simply an expensive photo opportunity; a lavish dinner date with people they didn't much like, from which they could duck-out early.

A tale of two visions
By Omayma Abdel-Latif, Al-Ahram Weekly On-line, 29 May - 4 June, 2003
Arab intellectuals have gathered on opposite sides of the American question -- "Are you with us or against us?" -- and are shouting at each other over the divide. -- "If this war does not change us, what will?" That was the question posed by Lebanese sociologist and Al-Hayat newspaper columnist Dalal Al-Bizri in one of her post-war soul-searching tirades. Al-Bizri was not the first to ask -- she is just one of a chorus of Arab intellectuals who are struggling to come to terms with the whirlwind unleashed by the Iraqi crisis. In the months leading up to the war on Iraq, and ever since the US-UK occupation of that country became a fact on the ground, an endless stream of writing by journalists, thinkers and political scientists from across the spectrum has deigned to assist in answering some of the tougher questions catalysed by the Iraqi crisis and the re-colonisation of an Arab capital for the first time in modern history. A heated debate regarding the region's future was soon evolving on the pages of the Egyptian as well as the Arab press. The emerging picture, however, was one of division, polarisation, charge and counter charge, and sometimes even slander. The argument over the path the Arab world should pursue was -- in some cases -- reduced to a war of words between "the Egyptian marines" or "the neo-liberal Arabs" on the one hand (as they were called by their opponents for their supposed complete acquiescence to US dictates in the region), versus "the Arab fascists, Stalinists and their Islamist substitutes" (as their opponents have termed them -- accusing them of the same empty rhetoric and outdated "isms" that have resulted in one historic Arab disaster after the other, with Iraq as its most recent manifestation), on the other.

Separation of Synagogue and State
By Hussein Shobokshi, Arab News, June 3, 2003 
There are some wonderful, objective Jews in the West who stood for Palestinian rights and fought for them against ignorant and devastating Zionist trends. However, one can only wonder what the opinions of America’s founding fathers would be today if they saw their country’s policies being hijacked by an “Israeli gang” inside its administration. A gang that has been creating enemies and targets one after the other with a grand goal in mind, “the protection and expansion of the State of Israel.” These conclusions are not those of “Muslim fundamentalists,” “Arab nationalists” or even “European zealots.” They are those of red, white and blue-blooded Americans from various ends of the political spectrum; pure Americans, who see no sense in their government’s extremely biased policy in supporting Israel. Throwing billions of dollars annually in the coffers of Israeli governments, setting up new enemy lists of Arab and Muslim nations and individuals while at the same time totally ignoring (mostly really encouraging) the killings of the Palestinians by the war criminal Ariel Sharon. Never has there been such a vulgar, wicked and unholy alliance between America and Israel as there is today. Initially, it was easy to “market” the support for Israel in America and the West. One used to hear that Israel was David to the Arabs’ Goliath; therefore let’s support the underdog in this modern-day biblical fairytale.

The Neocons in Power
By Elizabeth Drew, New York Review of Books, June 12, 2003
1. The conflict within the Bush administration in recent months over policy for postwar Iraq has caused much confusion and has already damaged the reconstruction effort. The stakes are enormous not just for the US and for the people of Iraq, but for the entire Middle East, and the rest of the world. Almost from the outset of the Bush administration there have been battles between the State Department and the Defense Department, but the controversy over postwar Iraq has brought out bitterness and knife-wielding of a sort that Washington has seldom seen. To some extent, the tension between the two departments is inherent because of their different missions. This conflict spills over into the White House and the think tanks and the offices of various consultants around town. It is really a conflict between the neoconservatives, who are largely responsible for getting us into the war against Iraq, and those they disparagingly call the "realists," who tend to be more cautious about the United States' efforts to remake the Middle East into a democratic region. The word "neoconservative" originally referred to former liberals and leftists who were dismayed by the countercultural movements of the 1960s and the Great Society, and adopted conservative views, for example, against government welfare programs, and in favor of interventionist foreign policies. A group of today's "neocons" now hold key positions in the Pentagon and in the White House and they even have a mole in the State Department.

Please astonish us: a response to EU officials’ open letter
By Chibli Mallat, The Daily Star, June 3, 2003
Greek Foreign Minister George Papandreou and EU Commissioner Chris Patten, please astonish us. It is time to talk straight. Too many people have died unnecessarily from the divergence between grand speaking and the harsh reality, it is high time for robust discussion to replace wishy-washy dialogue. Ever since the 19th century, from dragomans to seekers of political support to visa applicants, you have been accustomed to sweet talk and polite entreaties from Middle Easterners. You mistook the forest for the trees, only to find that all the courtesans around you cannot prevent West-haters from assassinating your citizens abroad and planting bombs in your cities. And as we hope to astonish you with some straight talk, we also wish you to open a debate with like-minded, Western-educated, democratic friends on this less fortunate side of the Mediterranean. You suggest in your open letter that EU policy seeks to develop a transition to democracy and respect of human rights. We have been hearing that rhetorical line at least since the Barcelona Declaration in 1995. The results are plain: Not a single country on this side of the Mediterranean can pretend that it is in a serious process of transition to democracy, and G-8 and other summit meetings continue to accommodate all our presidents and kings-for-life next to your leaders. If there was any pressure on any government to start a transition to democracy, we have not seen it ­ except for the controversial case of Iraq, which split the European Union....We need to engage you on the fact that Israel is not a democratic state. It never was, because Israeli rule over Palestinians has been brutal and absolute ever since its inception. Look at the situation in perspective: among the 8 million Palestinians, 4 million among those prevented since 1948 from going back to their homes “do not exist.” Three to 4 million have been subjected to the most brutal policy since 1967, and over 1 million Arab-Israelis have a constitutionally inferior status within 1948 Palestine; they are harassed and discriminated against daily, without ever holding a single ministerial position despite the fact that they represent on paper some 20 percent of the “Israeli” population.

Sharon and the Myth of the Peacemakers
By Ramzy Baroud, Palestine Chronicle, June 2, 2003
"Sharon referred to the Israeli occupation of the occupied Palestinian territories as 'occupation' during the debate that preceded the approval of the Road Map peace initiative late May. For a right wing extremist, we are told, such a word was taboo, and might signal a fundamental shift in the Israeli government’s policies toward the Palestinians .." -- History is already remembering a handful of Israeli Prime Ministers as well intending peacemakers. Former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, although affiliated with terrorism in his early years, then bloody wars in later years, was made a peacemaker when he struck a deal with former Egyptian President Anwar Sadddat, virtually ending hostilities between both countries, while sidelining the Palestinian question altogether. History has also shown its soft side depicting the late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, another Israeli Noble Peace Prize recipient, for his role in the signing of the Oslo agreement of 1993, in Norway. Interestingly, both Israelis and Palestinians see the document as an infamous one. Rabin’s own violent history was almost completely scrapped the moment he signed his name, endorsing the agreement on the White House lawn. Ehud Barak, also relatively young and still vibrant, was spared by history from any blame. After all, the retired General and former Prime Minister’s name shall also be synonymous to the term “generous offer”, allegedly offered to Palestinian President Yasser Arafat at Camp David in July 2000. Although Barak’s offer largely failed to address the important topics regarded by Palestinians as fundemental, he remains nonetheless, a “peacemaker”. For Palestinians, the signing of a document resolves nothing, their own reading of history taught them such a lesson. On one hand, Begin’s association with the ethnic cleansing of over a million Palestinians, and a list of bloody massacres, from Palestine to Lebanon, were greater witnesses to Begin’s true merit than the signing at Camp David. The late 1970’s agreement, like Oslo and Camp David 2, satisfied little of their long held aspirations for freedom, the right of return and a sovereign homeland. Rabin is also remembered by thousands of Palestinian men and by their families. The former Israeli Defense Minister was the one who initiated the “broken bones” policy during the first Palestinian uprising, which started in 1987. Such a legacy was overlooked after his signing of the Oslo accords, and following his assassination by an Israeli terrorist. But the cheers that followed the historic signing of Oslo on the White House lawn could never be loud enough to cover the screams of thousands of men and children whose hands and legs were broken, because the Israeli economy couldn’t handle their uprising and quest for freedom. There is history, and there is Palestinian history. The first refers to how Israel or pro Israeli pundits wish to see history written, joined by the collective efforts of the media. The second refers to how Palestinians choose to remember their own plight and those who contributed to their misery.

Standard Operating Procedure
By Paul Krugman, New York Times, June 3, 2003
The mystery of Iraq's missing weapons of mass destruction has become a lot less mysterious. Recent reports in major British newspapers and three major American news magazines, based on leaks from angry intelligence officials, back up the sources who told my colleague Nicholas Kristof that the Bush administration "grossly manipulated intelligence" about W.M.D.'s. And anyone who talks about an "intelligence failure" is missing the point. The problem lay not with intelligence professionals, but with the Bush and Blair administrations. They wanted a war, so they demanded reports supporting their case, while dismissing contrary evidence. In Britain, the news media have not been shy about drawing the obvious implications, and the outrage has not been limited to war opponents. The Times of London was ardently pro-war; nonetheless, it ran an analysis under the headline "Lie Another Day." The paper drew parallels between the selling of the war and other misleading claims: "The government is seen as having `spun' the threat from Saddam's weapons just as it spins everything else." Yet few have made the same argument in this country, even though "spin" is far too mild a word for what the Bush administration does, all the time. Suggestions that the public was manipulated into supporting an Iraq war gain credibility from the fact that misrepresentation and deception are standard operating procedure for this administration, which — to an extent never before seen in U.S. history — systematically and brazenly distorts the facts. Am I exaggerating? Even as George Bush stunned reporters by declaring that we have "found the weapons of mass destruction," the Republican National Committee declared that the latest tax cut benefits "everyone who pays taxes." That is simply a lie. You've heard about those eight million children denied any tax break by a last-minute switcheroo. In total, 50 million American households — including a majority of those with members over 65 — get nothing; another 20 million receive less than $100 each. And a great majority of those left behind do pay taxes.

The Palestinians' pain and hopes
By James Carroll, Boston Globe, June 3, 2003
THE REFUSAL of the Bush administration to involve itself in resolving the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians has been one of the worst consequences of the 9/11 terror attacks. Here's hoping that President Bush's meeting tomorrow with Ariel Sharon and Mahmoud Abbas in Jordan marks a change in the attitudes not only of the two antagonists but of Washington as well. When Americans felt vulnerable to the devastation wrought by suicidal terrorists, we found a new way of identifying with citizens of Israel, where suicide bombers wreak such havoc. Washington's hyper-belligerent reaction to terrorists reinforced the Sharon government's response. A traditional alliance between the United States and the Jewish state was intensified. After Sept. 11, an Israeli friend told me, ''Now you know what it feels like,'' and it was true. But another question arises: Having empathized with Israeli feelings of vulnerability, do Americans have any real idea of what Palestinians have been experiencing? Leave aside the complexities of the political dispute to focus on its less well known human consequences. The character of Palestinians has been perceived stereotypically, as if every citizen of East Jerusalem or Ramallah were ready to murder innocents or dispatch their children to do so. The terrorists have clouded Palestinian claims, but they and their supporters represent a mere fraction of the Palestinian population in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. Suicide murder represents a horror to those millions, too. It is to them Americans must now turn in empathy. Their experience must be acknowledged. If Americans grasped the full dimensions of Palestinian suffering, we would insist on our government's effort to end it by renewing the work of peace. The still point around which a compassionate American imagination might most productively turn is the plight of Palestinian children. Americans read news reports of the widespread malnutrition that has come to plague a significant proportion of the babies and youngsters of the West Bank and Gaza, but do we really take in what that word defines? The severely underweight child. The tortured mother. The doctor at a loss to help. The teacher aware of the impossibility of the child's learning. The father driven to depths of shame and despair. Relief workers unable to deliver what is needed. All of this multiplied by thousands. More than a million people in the West Bank and Gaza, including hundreds of thousands in refugee camps, depend on agencies for food, but need outpaces aid. Levels of destitution among some Palestinians have begun to approach those of the world's poorest nations.