Playing with cease-fire
By Akiva Eldar, Haaretz, June 30, 2003
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has nothing to lose from the cease-fire. If all is smooth sailing it will prove that his demand to replace the Palestinian leadership was correct. If it runs aground, it will prove that Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat is still at the helm. If the shooting stops, personal security will improve and the economy will recover. If the shooting continues, the public will realize that there is no one to talk to and will accept more economic decrees submissively. In either case, the expansion of Jewish settlements in the territories and more work on the separation fence will determine the borders of the Palestinian Bantustan, Sharon's revised version of apartheid South Africa's puppet states. Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, on the other hand, has quite a lot to lose from the cease-fire, either from its success or its failure. Key Fatah activists are saying they are giving him and the hated Muhammad Dahlan, his security chief, a long rope. If the cease-fire fails, they will hang the rope from the Israeli partners and slip the noose around the necks of those who led others astray. And if the weapons are collected, the wanted men are arrested and the violence wanes, Abbas and Dahlan will be required to supply the merchandise - the end of closures and of assassinations are nothing but packaging. The real merchandise is a Palestinian state within 1967 borders, with exchanges of territories, and Jerusalem as its capital. However, when U.S. President George Bush wondered in Aqaba how essential is Netzarim, Sharon pretended not to hear. As far as he is concerned, evacuating settlements, if ever, is an issue for 10 years time, if not more. The times are long gone by when the Israeli public, including many who defined themselves as "leftists" less than three years ago, believed that peace is the key to security.

Hamas’ moderate background – and the way forward – are linked
By Jamal A. Khashoggi, Daily Star, June 30, 2003
After the criminal attack in Riyadh, the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) did not hesitate, like some other groups, to condemn the event in the strongest of terms. Khaled Mishal, the head of its political bureau, seemed very disturbed when he called me to transmit the message of regret to be published in my newspaper, Al-Watan, and in particular the attempt by some to link Hamas’ martyrdom operations with Riyadh’s suicide attacks. It is actually very easy for any Western commentator working for a television station like Fox or a pro-Israeli magazine like The National Review to link the two operations to discredit Hamas’ resistance activities. This demarche by Hamas comes naturally and in tune with its religious and political background, for it belongs to the “mainstream and middle of the road Islamic trend.” Its tenets are at the core of the legitimate Islamic movement and have nothing to do with irreverent and angry movements. It seeks to liberate a nation and build a state, while the nonbelievers want to destroy a nation, unravel a legitimate state, and create discord between them....The movement has embarked on a state-building project and not on an angry and suicidal reaction that says “I will do what I will and damn the consequences.” It is therefore strange o witness the absence from the scene of the wise men of the Islamic movement to guide and advise their brothers at a time the whole world is at their throat. Fortunately, their absence did not deter others from doing their part, like the Egyptian intelligence services currently playing the role of adviser and counselor, with the approval of the movement. Their laudable role is both nationalistic and courageous, but the truth is that neither they, nor anyone else, holds the key to Hamas’ heart and mind. Those who do hold them are the esteemed sheikhs of the Islamic movement, like the brotherhood’s spiritual guide Mamoun al-Hudaibi and others like Yousef al-Qardawi, Rashed al-Ghannoushi, Najm al-Deen Arbican, Kamal al-Halbawi, Abdallah al-Matou and Jassem al-Yasseen. It is thus very important that a meeting bringing together the aforementioned men as well as various other key Hamas members take place in order to be able to face up to US pressure on the movement. The latter situation, compounded by the Oslo Accords, as represented by the Palestine National Authority, the presence of a popular majority willing to deal with it and its results, and the stubborn attempt by the US administration to arrive at a solution no matter what it takes, are good reasons to stop at this juncture and help Hamas find its way forward.

Arab anger at US stems from long list of disappointments
By Ned Walker, Daily Star, June, 2003
After a brief trip to Egypt last week, a country in which I have lived for many years, I returned to the United States shaken. On each successive visit to the region since the collapse of the Camp David peace talks, I have observed an alarming trend: an almost exponential increase in the level of skepticism, acrimony and outright hostility that greets US policy in the region. At every level of Arab society ­ rich or poor ­ from Morocco to Bahrain, there is a pervasive sense that US President George W. Bush cannot be trusted to deliver on his promises. In short, as Bush’s administration embarks on efforts in peacemaking, he will find that the credibility gap dogs his every move, tainting initiative after initiative and undermining his authority. This gap is a greater threat to the progress of the “road map” than the cyclical violence that consumes Israel and the Occupied Territories. Photo-ops in Sharm el-Sheikh and Aqaba may be inspired gestures, but they fell far short of embattled Israeli and Palestinians expectations for two reasons. First, there was no European presence in support of the road map, which was itself the product of extensive “Quartet” (US, UN, EU and Russia) negotiations. Second, the Israeli-Palestinian bloodbath has gone on for so long that violence-weary people are understandably cynical about the road map’s chances for success. The anger directed at us is not due to some loathing of our values, or contempt for us as a people. Rather, it is because we are perceived to have bought into Israeli Premier Ariel Sharon’s policy for the future of the Middle East. It is for this reason that the Arab world turns away from us in despair. For my friends in the region, the problem with Bush’s approach to the conflict is not based on the breakdown of security cooperation. Instead, they fear that despite Sharon’s verbal embrace of the road map, and Washington’s revitalized approach to the issue, Bush has fallen into a Sharon trap. There is no great mystery to Israel’s prime minister. He is not an enigma, nor the Israeli version of the Sphinx. Quite the contrary, in my conversations with him over the years, he has never made a secret of his solution to the conflict. He is a firm believer in the elongated interim period, 15 years or longer, not a final settlement by May 2005 as Bush championed.

Blind, Deaf, Dumb, and Deluded: White America unfit for global role
Black Commentator, June 26, 2003
An exhaustive international survey shows conclusively that the planet has a great deal to fear from the people of the United States. By this we mean the majority of the white people of America, a group so alienated from the rest of humanity that they represent a collective threat to the survival of the species. Earthlings are awakening to the danger. In nearly every corner of the globe, perched or crouched in niches high and low, humanity hears the hounds barking and the master’s voice in the distance, shouting to the horizon, “This is all mine, and everybody in it!” It would be comforting to believe that Massa Bush’s men are tearing around the planet on a private spree, without the blessing of the good folks back home. But such is not the case. Between 70 and 80 percent of Americans heartily applaud the general military role played by the U.S. in the world. They are the living, breathing, popular mandate for, not just George Bush’s adventures, but also those of other Presidents who follow. Last week the BBC unveiled the results of “What the World Thinks of America,” a survey of 11,000 people in eleven countries, including Australia, Britain, Canada, Brazil, France, Indonesia, Israel, Jordan, Russia, South Korea, and the United States. The survey, conducted in May and June, provides both useful and ambiguous data on attitudes toward U.S. cultural, economic, political and military influence. At times maddeningly murky, involving questions and answers that require the reader to have some knowledge of conditions in the various nations, the survey does succeed in revealing the vast chasm that separates American public opinion from every other nation polled – with the dramatic exception of Israel. On key questions relating to world security, only Israel and three other nations can be considered part of the American political conversation: Britain, Canada, and Australia. One is the “mother country,” the other three began as European settler states. And, leaving aside the Israeli “special relationship,” even the English-speaking nations only barely agree with much of what they hear from the Americans.   On the question of whether the U.S. is a “force for good in the world,” positive responses were: U.S. 79 percent, Israel 44 percent, Canada 34 percent, and Australia and Britain, 20 percent. Public opinion in the other nations surveyed was negative. Is the U.S. a “beacon for hope for the world?” Positive answers: U.S. 85 percent, Israel 51 percent, Canada 46 percent, Britain 20 percent, Australia 14. Every other country registered negatively.

All the news not fit to print
By Danny Rubinstein, Haaretz, June 30, 2003
The media are by nature not cut out for routine reporting, and the bloody confrontations of the intifada provide plenty examples of this. In the Israeli press terror attacks are given very broad coverage, but it is rare for example to find reports of seaside hotels that continue to remain vacant because tourists are not coming. These things are known. We don't read daily reports about Israelis that are not traveling to Jerusalem or about immigrants that are not coming. We know security checks at the entrance of shopping malls and other crowded locations cause anxiety and considerably diminish the number of customers willing to enter. Similarly, we scarcely read about routine life on the Palestinian side. We can read daily reports about IDF activities on the West Bank and in Gaza, about raids and killings, the discovery of suicide bombers and their explosive devices and about arrests. But we will never see a news report stating something like: "The residents of Qalqilya were again unable to leave their town yesterday because of checkpoints, and consequently people were unable to go to work, patients did not receive medical care, and students were unable to attend school. At the height of the previous intifada (1988-1989), the Israeli military government gradually shut down the schools on the West Bank and in Gaza that became focal points of riots. At first, the media widely reported this - Israeli and Palestinian spokespeople reported that following an order by the military governor, high schools schools were closed in Nablus, Bir Zeit university, Abu Dis College, and so on. After all the schools in territories were closed down, there were no more reports. What is there to report?  The fact that hundreds of thousands of high schools and university students on the West Bank and in Gaza were not in school became routine and the media had nothing new to tell us, despite the fact that the daily plight of families that had to occupy their children at home all the time created a terrible social predicament, to say nothing of the damage to the education caused to an entire generation.

Painting too rosy an economic picture  
By Avraham Tal, Haaretz, June 30, 2003
Finance ministers tend to portray the economy in rosy hues, and if the current figures are dismal, they are at least said to indicate the most promising of futures. Benjamin Netanyahu is no different than his predecessors, except in one regard - no one can compete with his ability to market an idea. When Netanyahu is selling he does so with the assertiveness of a veteran and passionate practitioner of the craft. At a conference of financial directors last week, Netanyahu did not conceal the fact that an extremely difficult initial period could be expected, but he said that it would lead to "rapid and strong" growth. Developments in the money markets seem to bear this out, mainly the change in the flow of money - instead of outward, capital is flowing toward investments in Israel. What has caused the shift? The economic program. "There isn't another country in the world that has done what we did here," said the finance minister. He let it be known that U.S. Secretary of the Treasury John Snow has even been recommending "to many countries around the world" that they follow Israel's example. That isn't all. Construction of the Green Line separation fence, the continued war on terror and the agreements to be signed with the Palestinians will substantially reduce terrorism and being some security calm. "The markets haven't yet absorbed the coming sharp decline in terrorism," so the situation will continue to improve. But even at the current level of terror, yields on bonds issued by the state have sharply declined, opening up the opportunity to raise capital abroad.....In late 2001, the governor of the Bank of Israel sharply reduced interest rates to a level below those in the U.S. and the euro zone, and the shekel slid to an all-time low. To stem the flight of capital abroad, the governor sharply raised interest rates in the second half of 2002, from 3.8 percent to 9.1 percent, inducing the flow of hundreds of millions of dollars that were temporarily "invested" in Israel government bonds and other short-term financial instruments. Israel became a speculator's paradise.

Lifeless water
By Salama A Salama, Al-Ahram Weekly On-line,  26 June - 2 July 2003
After three consecutive, carefully organised summits, beginning with Sharm El-Sheikh to Aqaba to the Dead Sea, talk has been non-stop about US President George W Bush's brainchild, the roadmap. Yet despite the convergence of opinion that the plan represents a means to reach a just solution to the Palestinian- Israeli conflict not one step has been taken towards furthering peace in the region. Israel has been the sole beneficiary of the promises and illusions spun by the roadmap. It has attacked the Palestinian factions, and used talk of the roadmap as a screen behind which to implement its plans. The World Economic Forum conference was purposely rescheduled to delude the region into thinking that an era of peace was about to begin once the war on Iraq was over, and that a new epoch of construction, trade, democracy and prosperity will start once the roadmap is implemented. Washington's much trailed promotion of a new free trade area is apparently going to turn desert sand into gold, and misery into bliss. Israel was busy manipulating the situation in an attempt to restore diplomatic relations with Egypt and Jordan. And while everyone was exchanging smiles, was equally busy with its siege, bloodletting and murder of Hamas officials. Sharon has not for a second halted his attempts to sabotage efforts undertaken to reach a truce. Sharon has clearly received a green light from the US to pursue the leaders of Hamas and liquidate its ranks: US Secretary of State Colin Powell, on his way to the Dead Sea conference, described Hamas as "the enemy of peace". His subsequent censure of Israel on the eve of the conference was, as a consequence, hollow. The Palestinian factions are correct in suspecting Israeli intentions which seek to embroil Abu Mazen in a power struggle. And the US, curiously, ignores this situation while at the same time encouraging Egypt to continue mediating for a dialogue among the factions to end the violence. Washington is trying to entangle Egypt in the internal Palestinian security situation while at the same time vehemently refusing any international peace-keeping forces to monitor the Palestinian-Israeli situation.

Stop winks, nods on settlements
By G. Jefferson Price III, Baltimore Sun, June 29, 2003
If the United States were as adamant about pressuring Israel to get rid of its settlements in the West Bank and Gaza as it has been on the Palestinians to get rid of Yasser Arafat, the prospects for peace would be a lot better these days. The settlements -- many of which are huge towns occupied by some 200,000 Israelis in the West Bank and Gaza -- are as great an impediment to peace as Arafat is. Taking a genuine, forceful stand against them would not reflect a new policy of the United States. Every U.S. administration since that of Lyndon Johnson, who was president when Israel captured the West Bank and Gaza in the 1967 war, has made it clear that the United States opposes Israeli settlements in what it considers occupied territory. And every Israeli government since that of Levi Eshkol, who was prime minister in 1967, to the present government of Ariel Sharon -- without exception -- has built Jewish or expanded settlements in the occupied territories. The construction of these settlements, for a variety of stated reasons -- from security to biblical right -- has been carried out in defiance of the will of most states that are friendly to Israel and in defiance of the purported will of its greatest economic and military benefactor, the United States. Not a single American president has had the temerity to carry through on a threat to cut off money to the Israeli government for as long as Israel continues the settlement of what most of the world views as captured Arab land. While successive Israeli governments have received tens upon tens of billions of dollars in economic and military aid, they have persisted in defying the U.S. policy. Instead, for the past 35 years the relationship on this issue has been like it is on so many issues in the Middle East: winks and nods that make it clear to everyone else that the United States does not mean what it says, or certainly does not intend to put real force behind its position.

Israel’s Nuclear Capabilities
By Hassan Tahsin, Arab News, June 30, 2003 
Any discussion of Israel’s nuclear capabilities has to begin with a question that will clarify the aims and purposes behind Israel’s possession of such weapons of mass destruction and its insistence on taking this step without regard for the threat to peace and security in the region: Does Israel’s nuclear power correspond to its security needs in the region? The question leads us into a three-pronged discussion. First: Israel alleges that it has sought to produce nuclear weapons in order to confront powers hostile to it in the region — Arab countries and Iran — and that the presence of such strategic deterrence ensures its continued existence and averts attempts for a collective attack that might lead to its annihilation. These allegations are unfounded. There are major discrepancies in the balance of power in the Middle East because there is only one nuclear country in the region and that is Israel. Israel alone therefore can decide to use the nuclear weapon — thus making it an optional deterrent resting on the sole decision of the nuclear state. It is not based on a “system of deterrence” in which more than one party is involved. Second: Israel began its nuclear weapons program in order to become a regional nuclear power. Its military nuclear capability today though far exceeds what is required for it to defend itself. It is possible now to describe it as a regional nuclear power of a special kind. In 1986 a number of neutral and reliable reports indicated that Israel — at that time — possessed more than 200 nuclear warheads. Since then, the size of its nuclear arsenal has become the subject of debate. This debate aroused the issue of “necessary limits”, which is what concerns us here. A report by an Israeli academic mentions that Israel possesses between 20 and 40 strategic nuclear bombs with a destructive power somewhere between 20 and 60 kilotons, enough to destroy all Israel’s envisioned targets in Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Libya and Saudi Arabia and send them back to the Middle Ages. Consequently Israel’s exceeding the limits of necessity raises a number of concerns, the most important of which is Israel’s nuclear intentions. Nuclear deterrence in reality only needs a few strategic heads and no more! Third: Once Tel Aviv lost French-Israeli nuclear cooperation as well as cooperation with South Africa which got rid of its nuclear capabilities prior to power being transferred to the black majority, it turned to cooperation with the US. This cooperation soon matured into unlimited and full-fledged American support for Israel. Later Israel benefited from Russia’s advanced space technology in rounding out its nuclear structure.

Beyond the Gun
By MIFTAH, June 30, 2003
Sunday’s ceasefire declaration by Hamas, the Islamic Jihad, and Fatah, along with Israel’s partial troop withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, has echoed throughout the media with a clear sense of optimism and relief. After 33 months of Palestinian-Israeli violence, there now appears to be some hope for a gradual resumption of dialogue and the reestablishment of relative calm in the region. Intense diplomatic activity (and pressure) from Washington, epitomised by US National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice’s visit to the region, has facilitated the first crucial step in what is expected to be a tough road ahead. Despite the Israeli government’s arrogant refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of the Palestinian factions’ status, publicly claiming that it will ignore their declared hudna (ceasefire), the US-backed roadmap for peace is set on track. Palestinian factions have committed themselves to the cessation of military operations against Israel, and Israeli troops have begun their long-awaited withdrawal from parts of the Palestinian territories re-occupied by Israel since September 2000. However, while these initial steps are imperative in reversing current hostilities and creating an immediate framework for military security, the overall process of putting a complete end to violence, negotiating a viable solution to the conflict, and ultimately achieving a lasting peace will have to be based on a real assessment of the root causes of the conflict. Israeli and US decision-makers must transcend military considerations and move beyond their shallow interpretation of the Palestinian reality as a mere security issue; they must finally make a commitment to guarantee human security for both Palestinians and Israelis, by ending the injustices committed by Israel against the Palestinian people.