Graduation Day For Palestinians, and people living under occupation, one day soon
By Leila Diab, Middle East Online, June 13, 2003
Graduates have a reason and a cause to celebrate the completion of their long awaited goal. Graduation Day! For Palestinians, and people living under occupation, they cannot. -- This year's graduation Class of 2003 can be heard amplifying the words, YAHOO, I have arrived. and praise the Lord! For Palestinians, and people living under occupation, they cannot. Many may be seen even with tears in their eyes and the realization that their hard work and efforts leave a trail of accomplishments, friends, teachers, mentors and the reality of new challenges that await their many ambitions. For Palestinians, and people living under occupation, they cannot. Graduates have a reason and a cause to celebrate the completion of their long awaited goal. Graduation Day! For Palestinians, and people living under occupation, they cannot. On college campuses, elementary and high school auditoriums, it will be a very special moment in time in one's life that is rewarded and praised for reaching a higher level of academic achievement. For Palestinians, and people living under occupation, they cannot. Their end depended on the beginning. And that beginning was the foundation of knowledge is power. And knowledge of all things possible is beholden to the new generation of spirited free thinkers and future leaders. Carpe Diem!

The Remains of the Road Map
By MIFTAH, June 13, 2003
As the events over the past two days unraveled, an overwhelming feeling that hope and history are doomed to never cross paths in the Middle East engulfed the minds of those who most often find themselves caught in the crossfire – the Palestinian and Israeli civilians. The killing of the innocent will linger in the thoughts of future generations and with each death the anger will be further fuelled until our respective leaders either tragically wipe out each other’s people or assume their obligations and responsibilities by salvaging the remains of the ‘road map.’ Israel’s botched assassination of Abdel Aziz Rantisi, and the innocent lives lost and injured during the attempt justifiable show that Israeli Prime Minister Sharon does not miss an opportunity to drag the conflict back towards violent confrontation. His inability to break away from the military general of yesteryears and assume the role demanded by the conflict of a peace partner was on full display as Israeli Apache helicopters wreaked havoc on Gaza. Obviously threatened by the emerging need to address illegal outposts and settlements and to provide Palestinians with a contiguous and independent state, expressed by President Bush during the Aqaba Summit, Sharon found a way to kill two birds with one stone when he ordered Tuesday’s military operation. He has managed to deflect international pressure by reigniting the cycle of violence and then conveniently placing the blame squarely on the Palestinians and more importantly he torpedoed the ‘road map.’ While no doubt this reasserted Sharon’s power among both his right wing government and extreme Israeli settlers, whose violence and lawlessness unashamedly drowns out the more reasoned voices in Israel and continues to hijack any attempt to reach lasting peace, his actions seem poised to lead Israelis down a dangerous path that threatens further destabilization, fear and violence with no end in sight.

Bitter global harvest
By Danny Rabinowitz, Haaretz, June 12, 2003
One of the conclusions of the workshop two weeks ago was that food production and biotechnology are matters that are too serious to be left to the control of business moguls. There is an urgent need for dialogue among those involved in this area. Only a broad agreement will prevent this promise of accelerated modernism from engendering a contemporary version of destructive feudalism. --- Over the gate of the ancient church in the city of Tepoztlan, south of Mexico City, is a historical fresco: Aztec chiefs, Spanish conquistadores, priests in dark robes and battles of the 1810 War of Independence. It is not an especially antique painting, but it is fascinating because of its materials: It is made entirely of seeds. Grains and pulses, pumpkins and lentils, corn and rice - a rich and varied mosaic of color and texture. Most of the important strains of corn, grains and pulses were developed in Mexico, and the symbolism of the fresco is obvious to every Mexican. Our history and identity, they say, are handed down from generation to generation exactly like the material in the seeds that have been cultivated here for thousands of years.....The latest technological breakthroughs do indeed enable an amazing shortcut. From the passive improvement of species - that is, the elimination of less successful individuals so that only the successful survive and pass along their characteristics to coming generations - agricultural and medical research has gone on to the transplantation of genetic information. A gene that endows a fish with resistance to a certain virus can, for example, be engineered into a soy gene that will make soybeans resistant too....However, this idyllic picture conceals a problematic and destructive system of dependency. Under the shelter of the intellectual property laws, the developing conglomerates see to it that most of the engineered seed strains are sterile. They are good for a single generation of crops, but ensure that the farmer is dependent on the conglomerate to supply seed for the next generation. When the conglomerate is wealthier than the state, this dependence compels farmers to concentrate on crops that bring the greatest profit to the conglomerate.

America's imperial delusion
By Eric Hobsbawm, The Guardian, June 14, 2003
The US drive for world domination has no historical precedent -- The present world situation is unprecedented. The great global empires of the past - such as the Spanish and notably the British - bear little comparison with what we see today in the United States empire. A key novelty of the US imperial project is that all other empires knew that they were not the only ones, and none aimed at global domination. None believed themselves invulnerable, even if they believed themselves to be central to the world - as China did, or the Roman empire. Regional domination was the maximum danger envisaged until the end of the cold war. A global reach, which became possible after 1492, should not be confused with global domination. The British empire was the only one that really was global in a sense that it operated across the entire planet. But the differences are stark. The British empire at its peak administered one quarter of the globe's surface. The US has never actually practised colonialism, except briefly at the beginning of the 20th century. It operated instead with dependent and satellite states and developed a policy of armed intervention in these. The British empire had a British, not a universal, purpose, although naturally its propagandists also found more altruistic motives. So the abolition of the slave trade was used to justify British naval power, as human rights today are often used to justify US military power. On the other hand the US, like revolutionary France and revolutionary Russia, is a great power based on a universalist revolution - and therefore on the belief that the rest of the world should follow its example, or even that it should help liberate the rest of the world. Few things are more dangerous than empires pursuing their own interest in the belief that they are doing humanity a favour. The cold war turned the US into the hegemon of the western world. However, this was as the head of an alliance. In a way, Europe then recognised the logic of a US world empire, whereas today the US government is reacting to the fact that the US empire and its goals are no longer genuinely accepted. In fact the present US policy is more unpopular than the policy of any other US government has ever been, and probably than that of any other great power has ever been.

Mideast: Let US Be an Honest Bystander
By John V. Whitbeck, Arab News, June 14, 2003 
In early June, the respected Pew Research Center in the United States released the latest of its global opinion surveys, which polled more than 15,000 people in 21 countries in the wake of the invasion and conquest of Iraq. In traditionally pro-American Jordan, 97 percent of those polled opposed America’s “war on terror”, while, in NATO-member Turkey, 83 percent expressed an unfavorable opinion of the United States. The selection of Osama Bin Laden by the publics of five of the eight Muslim countries surveyed (Indonesia, Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan and Palestine) as one of the three political leaders they would most trust to “do the right thing” in world affairs did not go unnoticed. Less noticed, but no less significant, were the responses to another question. Those polled were asked whether the United States is too supportive of Israel. In 20 of the 21 countries surveyed (notably including Israel), most of those polled said “yes”. There is no prize for guessing the one country where most said “no”. Israeli support for this proposition, while extremely encouraging, should not come as a complete surprise. Israelis have to live in Israel/Palestine. While their lives since Ariel Sharon provoked the current intifada in September 2000 have not been the living hell experienced by Palestinians, they have still become unpleasant, insecure and stressful. Increasingly, the essential realization that occupation and security are mutually exclusive is sinking in. American supporters of the occupation tend to be Christian fundamentalists concerned about being personally raptured up to heaven after the much-to-be-hoped-for Battle of Armageddon, Jews who feel personally guilty to be living prosperously and comfortably in America rather than having emigrated to Israel/Palestine or politicians interested only in preserving or furthering their personal careers by not offending the other two groups. Americans in these three groups, which are fundamental to the formulation of Washington’s Middle East policy, do not have to suffer the consequences of the occupation or the resistance to it, and their support for the occupation rarely reflects any genuine concern for the best interests of Israelis (let alone Palestininians). Their militant “pro-Israel” activism is self-centered in its motivation. It is also the primary obstacle to peace. Those Israelis who feel that America is too supportive of Israel presumably can see that America’s involvement since 1967 has not advanced the cause of peace but, rather, has blocked it, with America’s periodic pretenses of peacemaking simply providing an “only game in town” cover behind which the occupation could be perpetuated, deepened and made more nearly irreversible. They presumably wish, for their own sake, that America would “reform”.

American Operations Continue to Foster Iraqi Resistance
By Michael Slackman, Arab News/LA Times, June 14, 2003 
DHULUIYA, Iraq, 14 June 2003 — The men lined up along both sides of a table, digging their hands into piles of rice and lamb that had been set out for lunch at the funeral for Mehdi Ali Jassim. Jassim, 53, was a teacher, a father and, now, another wedge in the relationship between US troops and Iraqis. The locals say the soldiers beat Jassim to death when they swept into this town in a massive operation this week to root out resistance fighters who have been ambushing US troops. The US military says that Jassim died of a heart attack. It almost doesn’t matter who is right. The anger is palpable in this town of former Baath Party officials and favored citizens of Saddam Hussein’s government. “The Americans are going into people’s houses and killing them,’’ Zaid Sami, 33, said as he stood inside a rundown one-table billiard hall where Saddam’s picture still hung on the wall. On the dusty, unpaved streets outside, US troops patrolled in their Humvees and armored vehicles. The benefits of allegiance to Saddam dot this city of 50,000 people, where many live in large, two-story villas with landscaped gardens and green lawns that are as out of place in this sun-scorched land as palm trees might be in New York. The United States military said Dhuluiya and several other surrounding communities had become refuges for former Saddam loyalists who were attacking Americans across central Iraq. With fresh attacks coming daily, early Monday the US Army launched “Operation Peninsula Strike,’’ a comprehensive invasion of this Tigris River region about 35 miles north of Baghdad involving more than 4,000 soldiers. They attacked from land and sea and air. They came in hard and fast. The tally so far: As many as 15 Iraqis dead, at least four Americans wounded and more than 300 Iraqi men detained.

A Macabre Alliance
By Gila Svirsky, Dissident Voice, June 14, 2003
It was a good week for the extremists on both sides.  As they perceived some hope rising last Wednesday in the seaside resort of Aqaba, they got to work:  The very day after all those high falutin’ words, Sharon sent a hit team into the West Bank and knocked off two senior Hamas figures.  So Hamas and allied groups made use of the weekend to kill 5 Israelis in Gaza and Hebron.  Tuesday was a big one:  Sharon launched Apache gunships at Rantisi, senior political leader of Hamas.  Though Rantisi survived, the funerals of 2 more Hamas leaders and 6 collaterally damaged men, women, and children helped balance things out.  But Rantisi wasn’t down for long and on Wednesday, a suicide bomber sneaked into downtown Jerusalem, adding 17 more bodies to the count.  That evening did not find Sharon idle and, together with Thursday, he sent the boys back for 9 more killings (counting women and children) in various locations.  Hamas got in one more, too. Is this too confusing?  Let’s simplify and say that 42 Israelis and Palestinians were killed these past eight days.  It was a good week for the extremists and, as we speak, they are out there frothing at the mouth and fomenting hatred for each other.  (“Now it’s all-out war”, says Sharon.  “Now your women and babies are also targets”, says Rantisi.) But while the extremists are having a heyday, the rest of us – you won’t be surprised to hear – just want the flow of blood to stop: On the Palestinian side, there is broad support (63%) for the resumption of negotiations with Israel according to a poll conducted a few weeks ago by Bir Zeit University (http://home.birzeit.edu/dsp/DSPNEW/polls/poll_12/). While polls also show Palestinian support for armed conflict, this is always in the context of liberating themselves from Israeli rule.  In fact, an April poll by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research showed that 71% support the mutual cessation of violence (http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2003/p7a.html). In parallel, most Israelis are fed up with being occupiers.  A poll in today’s Yediot Aharonot, Israel’s most widely read newspaper (conducted by Dr. Mina Zemach) reveals that 67% of Israelis feel “the occupation is harmful to Israel”.  The same large majority (67%) wants to end the policy of assassinations.  In fact, an astonishing 40% believe that the attempt on Rantisi’s life was made to deliberately thwart implementation of the road map! Isn’t that an amazing allegation of disingenuousness attributed to Israeli leaders?

Talking About Hope in a Bloodbath
By Ramzy Baroud, Palestine Chronicle, June 13, 2003 
"When I spoke in Washington DC, I didn’t realize that Sharon opted to deliver so soon. Now Palestinians are calling on their Prime Minister Abu Mazen to resign, while Sharon’s primitive political tactics worked so well that most Israelis are supportive of the attacks on Gaza .." -- This past weekend I addressed a mostly Muslim audience in Washington DC. They gathered in a conference, aimed at empowering Muslim communities around the United States, in the wake of the anti-Muslim backlash in US media and government policies, internally and abroad. My panel also included a former CIA expert and two activists, and the discussion was dealing with contemporary Middle East politics. I spoke at length about the Road Map, reiterated the similarities between the newest US peace initiative and the no-longer applicable Oslo accords. I recalled the fact that Israel used the temporary calm generated by the Oslo agreement of 1993 to expand the illegal settlements and double the number of settlers in the Occupied Territories. I contested that only Palestinians are expected to implement the uneven-handed conditions enforced by the Road Map, while Israel’s part of the deal is exclusively dependent on Israel’s satisfaction with the Palestinian Authority’s performance, in cracking down on Palestinian resistance and suffocating the uprising. While I welcomed the release of a few Palestinian prisoners as a sign of good will by Israel, I protested the fact that the gesture was only aimed at convincing the media that Israel is living up to its part of the deal, while on the ground Israel has given every needed signal to show that it was little interested in addressing legitimate Palestinian concerns. Some of these concerns including the full withdrawal of the Israeli army to the pre-1967 war border, complete removal of illegal settlements, flagrant violations of the Forth Geneva Convention, in addition to the Palestinian refugees right of return, sovereignty and full-fledged economic and political independence.

Fall Guy?
By Eleanor Clift, Newsweek,  June 13, 2003
The White House is blaming George Tenet for faulty WMD intelligence. But forcing out the CIA director will not repair the damage to America’s credibility abroad. -- June 13 —  Republican leaders have for now headed off a full-blown investigation into the Bush administration’s prewar claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But unless inspection teams come up with something soon that President George W. Bush can call a smoking gun, a formal inquiry is inevitable. -- THE STAKES ARE too high to gloss over what got us to this point. Bush created the expectation that large stores of chemical and biological weapons would be found in Iraq and that Saddam had an active nuclear program. Nothing of consequence has yet been uncovered—suggesting either a colossal intelligence failure or the selective use and manipulation of the data that was available to suit the administration’s political aims. These are serious charges that go to both the administration’s candor and its competence. The only predicate to a policy of preemption is good intelligence, so you know what you’re preempting. If you don’t have that, the new Bush foreign policy has no merit. Democrats have so little credibility with the American public on national-security matters that the most outspoken critic of Bush is a Republican, former Nixon turncoat John Dean, who says that if it is proven that Bush misused the CIA to take the country to war, that would be worse than Watergate. The White House finds that comparison ludicrous. “That kind of language I love because it’s so over the top,” scoffs a White House aide. It’s not fair to jump to Watergate, but the administration is in a vulnerable position. There is so much uncontrolled information swirling around that the control freaks at the Bush White House are sucking air. At particular issue is an allegation that the Iraqis were trying to import uranium from Africa. When this piece of intelligence first surfaced, CIA director George Tenet dispatched a trusted former top official to Niger to investigate. He reported that the documents alleging the sale were forged. It wasn’t even hard to spot. The Niger government officials cited were no longer in office. Yet months later this phony evidence showed up in President Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address as part of the administration’s case for war.

Peace is a Long Way Off
By Nick Pretzlik, Islam Online, June 11, 2003
Beer Sheva, on the northern edge of the Negev desert in southern Israel, is a frontier town. It consists of a small old quarter and a larger, modern, high rise section dotted with building sites, interspersed with three lane ring roads – “Dallas by the Desert,” complete with McDonald’s golden arches and featureless plazas. The inhabitants – predominantly Jews from Russia and Eastern Europe – are dauntingly nationalistic. The Israeli flag flutters from rooftops, lampposts and cars and hangs on strings across the streets. Half the population carries a gun and wears a uniform of one sort or another. The surrounding country is more Texas cattle terrain – rolling savannah, big sky, huge horizons – than the desert traditionally home to the Bedouin. In this region the Bedouin are semi-nomadic. They live off the land farming and herding cattle, camels, sheep and goats. Their methods are sustainable and appropriate to the environment. Since 1948, when the state of Israel came into existence, the Bedouin have been forcibly removed from their land and replaced by Jews from around the globe. The Judaization of the Negev is well advanced. Khalil, his wife and five children are Bedouin. Over cups of tea and pieces of cake he explained how he was evicted from his farm a couple of years ago and resettled in one of the seven designated Bedouin ghettos around Beer Sheva. There was no work available, crime, drugs and alcoholism were rife and, for women in particular, there was absolutely nothing to do. Worse, there were costs associated with being in a town; expenses to be paid for the municipal services. After two years Khalil packed up his possessions and took his family “home.” Now they live in a simple abode with a zinc roof close to his fourteen brothers and sisters. His father and his father’s two wives share the Spartan accommodation. They have a few head of cattle, two camels and some chickens, cultivate a small plot of wheat for cattle feed and have a couple of olive trees and a strawberry tree. They have returned to their roots. He is under no illusions. Even though his family are farming their own land, he is “illegal.” Khalil is aware of Israel’s determination to eradicate the indigenous culture – he has seen too many communities destroyed, mosques and cemeteries bulldozed and knows what has happened to others. At any time the Green Patrol – the local Israeli militia – may demolish his home. The courts give him no protection.