Border country
Editorial, The Guardian, July 2, 2003
Israel must not fence Palestine in -- After 1,000 days of violence, and the deaths of more than 3,000 people, the two traumatised societies of Israel and Palestine can draw some hope from the political dialogue under way between their leaders and from a fragile ceasefire. The military occupation and the armed intifada have killed, to be precise, some 2,400 Palestinians and 700 Israelis, and have left more than 23,000 Palestinians and 4,800 Israelis wounded. The knock-on cost has also been far greater on the Palestinian than on the Israeli side, as the Gaza inhabitants who are now returning to their shattered homes and uprooted citrus groves have discovered. However the sense of confidence and security of ordinary Israelis has also been shattered by the self-inflicted blows of Ariel Sharon's hard line. There has been some hopeful movement in the past month, on Mr Sharon's part as well as by the armed Palestinian organisations, and it is important to understand why this modest shift has occurred. The conventional explanation (repeated this week by Jack Straw) is that this is a byproduct of the Iraq war. This is true, but not because Saddam Hussein had any influence on Hamas or because there is now a "backlash against terrorism". It is simply because President Bush, having made war, is now delivering, to some degree, on his promise to promote peace. It is doubtful whether he really tilted as significantly against Israel at the Aqaba summit a month ago as the Palestinian leadership, desperate for outside support, has claimed. Yet during her visit to Israel his national security adviser Condoleezza Rice has put down a significant marker on one of the most fundamental issues of the dispute. Ms Rice has criticised the construction of Israel's so-called "security fence" as problematic, creating political facts on the ground which will prejudice any eventual agreement. The 350 kilometre-long fence - often a six-metre high wall - which is described as following the 1967 border, actually encloses an extra 7% of West Bank territory, entrenching the most important Israeli settlers' enclaves. In March this year Mr Sharon, after making a secret tour of the wall, announced a further extension to run the full length of the Jordan valley which will encroach much further. Yet the road map to which Mr Sharon signed up at Aqaba commits Israel to a final settlement which will, without qualification, "end the occupation that began in 1967": his own "reservations" about the road map do not challenge this point, even though they seek to postpone all discussion of Jewish settlements in the occupied areas until the final stage.

The Wall: Its Implications And Dangers
By Azmi Bishara, Al-Hayat, July 3, 2003
Those who want to demonstrate how easy it is to manipulate the lives of people need only to examine what is taking place in Palestine today, where the route of a wall decides the fate of an entire population. While the psychological wall between the occupier and the occupied is all too evident to Palestinian children, the building of the actual wall is an Israeli trademark that is goes far beyond the character of the apartheid regime of South Africa. The wall will be 148 kms-long in its first stage, and 8-meters tall. Work on it started on July 23, 2002 after it was approved by the Israeli cabinet following the invasion in May 2001. It turned the occupation into an absolute state. It is an absolute barrier, which impact will not be tapered by the establishment of a Palestinian state. Even the truce of 1949, which failed to produce a peaceful settlement, did not cause a wall or a fence. The wall will change any Palestinian entity into a canton, to which Israel can shut its door any time. Security experts see the situation of the closed Gaza area as a successful security experience that needs to be emulated in the West Bank. The wall will disrupt the lives of 67 Palestinian communities and it will directly impact their relations with their agricultural land. Fifteen villages whose agricultural land will remain to the west of the wall will lose access to their property. The Israelis have promised to maintain "agricultural gates," to allow the Palestinian farmers to reach and cultivate their land. But the process will certainly turn into an agonizing experience as the access to those lands will be subject to permits which the Israelis will issue or deny at will. The idea is to make it difficult for the Palestinians to reach their land, and to confiscate it later. The wall will keep 96,500 acres to its west side, thus separating it from the West Bank. Moreover, the twists and curves of the wall will include 6550 acres more, while 11,400 acres will be lost in building the wall itself. In addition, 18 Palestinian population centers will remain to its west; while 19 more will be squeezed by its curves, restricting totally the movements of their inhabitants. Unlike the citizens of Jerusalem, they do not carry Israeli ID cards allowing them to move freely within the Green Line, nor can they reach the West Bank. And if they do, they cannot return to their homes. So far, the wall has uprooted 83,000 trees and demolished 35,000 meters of irrigation pipelines and destroyed 11,400 acres of agricultural land. Also, the wall has practically annexed into Israel 31 water wells, thus denying the Palestinians 4 million square meters of their water a year.

Tilting Democrats in the Presidential Race
By Norman Solomon, Arab News, July 3, 2003
Dean is already sending a message to his announced supporters among peace and social-justice advocates: Thanks, suckers. -- The corporate Democrats who greased Bill Clinton’s path to the White House are now a bit worried. Their influence on the party’s presidential nomination process has slipped. But the Democratic Leadership Council can count on plenty of assistance from mainstream news media. For several years leading up to 1992, the DLC curried favor with high-profile political journalists as they repeated the mantra that the Democratic Party needed to be centrist. Co-founded by Clinton in the mid-1980s, the DLC emphasized catering to “middle class” Americans — while the organization filled its coffers with funding from such non-middle-class bastions as the top echelons of corporate outfits like Arco, Prudential-Bache, Dow Chemical, Georgia Pacific and Martin Marietta. In a 1992 book, “Who Will Tell the People,” political analyst William Greider noted that the Democratic Leadership Council’s main objective was “an attack on the Democratic Party’s core constituencies — labor, schoolteachers, women’s rights groups, peace and disarmament activists, the racial minorities and supporters of affirmative action.” During the eight years that followed, President Clinton “moderately” shafted many of those constituencies. Clinton proved to be a political survivor. But his presidency led to the destruction of Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate. Now, the Los Angeles Times reported in late June, “the centrist ‘New Democrat’ movement is struggling to maintain its influence in the party as the 2004 presidential race accelerates.” DLC stalwart Sen. Joe Lieberman is getting nowhere. Other DLC-friendly candidates, such as Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards, are hardly catching fire. A recent memo by a pair of DLC honchos, Al From and Bruce Reed, linked the party’s progressive-leaning activists with “elitist, interest-group liberalism.” The salvo is laughable. It would be difficult to find any organization of Democrats more deserving of the “elitist, interest-group” tag than the DLC, which has long been funded by oil, chemical, insurance and military-contracting corporations — and has served their interests.

Educate Congress about the Rachel Corrie Resolution
Action Item, Electronic Intifada/Partners for Peace, July 3, 2003
The Rachel Corrie Resolution (House Concurrent Resolution 111) now has 42 co-sponsors. But the resolution will continue to languish in the House International Relations Committee without a continuing groundswell of grassroots support. Rachel Corrie was killed on March 16, 2003 in the Gaza Strip by an Israeli military bulldozer while she attempted, non-violently, to protect the home of a Palestinian civilian. Numerous eyewitnesses stated that the driver definitely knew she was there, but ran over her anyway. Then, at the end of June, the Israeli military advocate general closed the file on Rachel's case. In effect, Israel has now cleared Israel of wrongdoing. The Rachel Corrie Resolution, however, calls for an American investigation into what took place that day. Yet many members of the House International Relations Committee show every sign of wavering in their responsibility to support this courageous young American and her family. The Washington Wednesday coalition is urging calls to those members of Congress who have not yet co-sponsored the resolution. Your member of the House of Representatives can be reached at 202-224-2131 or 202-225-3121. TALKING POINTS: An Israeli military bulldozer killed Rachel Corrie on March 16, 2003. An American investigation is needed as there is ample evidence that the Israeli investigation whitewashed what happened that day. The Rachel Corrie Resolution, sponsored by Rep. Brian Baird, is likely to die in committee unless there is clear support for it from many members of Congress outside the House International Relations Committee. Some staffers may tell you that their office is prepared to support the resolution IF it comes to the House floor for a vote. If so, be prepared to tell the staffer there is a real possibility it will never even get to the floor without co-sponsorship from that congressional office.

Who’s afraid of the deficit?
By Avi Temkin, Globes, July 3, 2003
Here are four people who certainly should be. -- The following is a list of people who should be particularly concerned about the report published on Tuesday of a NIS 6.2 billion budget deficit in June. The first, of course, is Minister of Finance Benjamin Netanyahu. He’s been selling his economic plan all over the world as perfect solution for Israel’s economic troubles. He told the BBC that he would turn the Israeli economy around in 12-18 months. He was quoted in “Business Week” as saying he would cause a new and miraculous economic revolution in Israel. The only one left out of Netanyahu’s calculations is the Israeli consumer, who is unimpressed, at least for now, by his promise to achieve economic recovery within a short span of time. Private consumption is not recovering, and the resulting fall in tax revenues is enlarging the budget deficit. The Ministry of Finance is trying to excuse the exceptionally high June deficit by citing the particularly large interest payments (NIS 5 billion). Reading between the lines, however, it’s clear that the Ministry of Finance budgets division and accountant general staff will also have to cope with lower tax revenues and higher deficits in the coming months. High on the list should also be Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Moshe Yaalon and Minister of Defense Shaul Mofaz. It’s already obvious that in order to meet the deficit target commitments to the US, 2004 government spending will have to be cut substantially. The only candidate to supply the money needed to cover the gaping hole is the defense budget. Whether they like it or not, government ministers will have to decide in the next few months between the demands of the Ministry of Finance and those of the Ministry of Defense. As usual, the final decision will be left to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. So far, Sharon has usually sided with the Ministry of Defense, but it’s easy to see that with no other budgetary source available, any additional cut will have to come from the sources available to the army. Next on the list should be Governor of the Bank of Israel David Klein. He has been lowering the interest rate very gradually for several months, while keeping a watchful eye on the budget. If he sees that the budget deficit is larger than he had anticipated, or if the 2004 deficit shapes up as larger than planned, Klein will have to decide whether or not to continue cutting the interest rate.

Plight of Iraqi Jews merits urgent attention
Editorial, Daily Star, July 3, 2003
Among Iraq’s myriad other problems, the country’s tiny Jewish community is living in fear. The anarchy engendered by the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime has robbed all Iraqis of whatever sense of security they had previously, and the Jews’ infinitesimal numbers make them especially vulnerable. This state of affairs is unacceptable, and it is not for the US-led occupation authorities to remedy it. It is for Iraqis themselves to disprove notions of Muslim intolerance by treating the Jews among them as what they are: citizens of Iraq who happen to practice a minority faith. Primary moral responsibility for the welfare of Iraqi Jewry rests with the influential figures who lead the country’s majority Islamic communities and nascent political parties. By both word and deed they should leave no doubt in the minds of their followers and supporters that their Jewish compatriots deserve the same rights and responsibilities as anyone else. Friction is inevitable in even homogeneous societies, so the many religions present in Iraq figure to result in disputes of all sorts. The way to resolve them in a manner that serves the national interest is to stress the importance of coexistence over rivalry and refer disagreements to objective adjudication rather than communal pride. The protection of Judaism and those who practice it should be an immediate priority because the last 50 years demonstrate vividly the extent to which the Zionist lobby in Washington and elsewhere is willing to profit from ­ and even to help foment ­ mistreatment of Jews in any form in order to further its extremist agenda. In no way would such a policy be a break with Islamic history. Wherever and whenever Muslim civilizations have experienced “golden ages,” the common denominator has been an emphasis on justice that served to protect minorities and therefore to help them contribute to the greater good. No objective reading of Islam can fail to acknowledge the respect it accords to all human life, the high regard with which it views freedom from fear, the care with which it recognizes the right to privacy, and the importance it attaches to the inviolability of property.

The High Court and fear of return
By Meron Benvenisti, Haaretz, July 3, 2003
A few days ago, yet another round came to an end in the struggle of the people of Ikrit, who have been fighting for more than half a century to return to their demolished village. The High Court turned down their petition and ruled that the state's position, which rejects their return, touches on affairs in which the government has great latitude "and the arena of reasonableness granted to it is very broad." The government's position was expressed in October 2001: "The issue of the refugees and the Arab demand to return the refugees came up intensively at the Camp David talks, at Taba, and in the violent wave that followed, and sharpened the ramifications that could result from a decision on this issue. The  precedent of returning the uprooted to their village will be used for propaganda and political purposes by the Palestinian Authority ... [and] invite a considerable number of suits from all those who want to `reopen' the War of Independence and its results." The High Court therefore relied on reasons of state - or, in the words of the government, its "broad political considerations" - to reject the petition. The court even emphasized that, saying "it would be appropriate - if there is a change in the political situation - to consider another solution that would allow the petitioners to settle in the same area [as their village]."  What is the connection between the petition by the people of Ikrit and the "right of return?" The people from Ikrit, by rejecting every offer for compensation or alternative land and by insisting on the principle of returning to their land, have turned the matter into a symbol. Thus, they strengthen the government position, which refers to a precedent that will be followed by more communities of "absent present" ("internal refugees"), who will make similar demands. But the problem of some 200,000 internal refugees, who are citizens of Israel and were uprooted from their homes between 1947-1952 and remained inside the country, is not about the right of return, which is presented as a conspiratorial plot to change the demographic balance and turn the Jewish people into a minority in their homeland. The internal refugees - including the people of Ikrit - are already Israeli citizens. There is nothing in the return to their land that would strengthen the demand for a right of return for Palestinians overseas.

Israel’s Nuclear Goliath
Special Folder, Islam Online, July 3, 2003
Nuclear weapons remain a key issue governing political rhetoric in the Middle East. They were the reason given by the United States for 12 year-long sanctions that suffocated Iraq, and for a war that eventually toppled an ailing regime. A fact that often escapes observers, however, is that a more pressing nuclear threat stemming from the Middle East does not come from Iraq or Iran, but from Israel. Experts worldwide have estimated that Israel possesses up to 200 nuclear warheads. Yet Israel has refused to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and has continually refused to allow international inspection of its nuclear facilities. It is one of the few, if not the only state that keeps its nuclear goliath in the closet. Contents of this special report: Israel’s Nuclear Objectives: Deterrence, Compellence & Hegemony, by Kareem Mahmoud Kamel, 01/08/2002 / Israel’s Nuclear Parade / The Deadly Arsenal of the Rogue State, By Ebrahim Mohamed, 26/12/2002 / America and Israel: You and Me Against the World, by Tarek Kapiel, 26/07/2002 / Israel Severs Ties With BBC Over 'Secret Weapon', news report, 6/30/03 / Israel And U.S. Remain Tight-Lipped On Israel's Nuclear Arsenal, news report, 3/13/2001 / More Israeli Nuclear Secrets Revealed, news report, 11/27/99 / Israel Dumps Chemical, Nuclear Waste In West Bank, news report, 3/17/02

Palestinian Christians ignored
By Sherri Muzher, Jordan Times, July 3, 2003
“YOU MEAN, there are Palestinian Christians?” I am often asked, incredulously and with a renewed sense of interest in the Middle East. I understand the confusion. All Arabs are Muslims and all Muslims are Arabs — isn't that the popular belief? So it's not surprising that many view the current Palestinian-Israeli conflict as Muslims vs Jews. Unfortunately, there are those who strategically exploit this lack of knowledge for political gain or to realise “prophecy,” like Christian Conservative Gary Bauer who organised a letter of warning to President George Bush. Twenty-two evangelical leaders stated in the May 19 letter that any attempt to be “evenhanded” between Israel and the Palestinians would be “morally reprehensible”. A few weeks ago, Rev. Pat Robertson accused Bush of imperilling Israel with the roadmap, citing the Bible “which speaks very harshly of those who divide the “Promised Land.” How many potential Americans believe this? “There are 70 million of us” Reverend Jerry Falwell explained to CBS' Bob Simon on June 8, 2003, in a segment called “Zion's Christian Soldiers:. “If there's one thing that brings us together quickly, it's whenever we begin to detect our government becoming a little anti-Israel.” Falwell certainly proved his allegiance to Israel when he promised Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu in 1998 that he and others would mobilise evangelical churches to oppose steps involving territorial concessions to the Palestinians. Palestinian evangelical pastors and theologians later responded to Falwell in a Feb. 1, 1998, letter: “Our task of sharing the love of Christ in this region is becoming increasingly difficult as our brothers and sisters in the West openly express sentiments and endorse policies that produce greater injustice and aggression against Palestinian Christians and Muslims. Ultimately, Falwell can't speak for all evangelical Christians, but many believe the Bible promised the Jews the entire Holy Land, including the occupied territories. And some evangelicals also believe the Second Coming of Christ is contingent upon the full return of Jews to Jerusalem. However, the fact that Palestinian Christians are united with Muslims in the goal for liberation proves that the conflict isn't so much religious as it is nationalistic and human. Palestinian Christians have been among the most fervent players in the battle against Israeli occupation.

The Demise of the Roadmap, Part II: Israeli Political Parties
By Brian Wood, Palestine Chronicle, July 2, 2003
It is common to wonder why the latest diplomatic initiative to resolve the Zionist-Palestinian problem, called the Roadmap, was doused in blood shortly after its release. The central interpretation of these events, like other initiatives, is that the extremists don’t want peace and whose only wish in life is to kill. Others see that the Palestinians really do want to drive the Israelis into the sea. Hamas specifically, but all Palestinian factions in general, are credited with the title “extremists” and increasingly, “terrorists.” Below is another interpretation of events and their significance. Listed are quotes from the official sites of the Israeli political parties, or from sympathetic sources, with representation in the current government. As the Roadmap has as its central goal the creation of a Palestinian state in undetermined areas West of the Jordan River and in the Gaza Strip, and the cessation of Israeli settlement construction, including ‘natural growth’, the following political platforms are essential, primary source material on both the creation of a Palestinian state and settlements in Gaza, West Bank, and East Jerusalem......Conclusion: Of all the parties listed, only Meretz is officially opposed to Israeli settlements built on Palestinian territory. Even the left-leaning party of Shinui, who implies favor towards limited Palestinian autonomy or even statehood built on isolated cantons, supports the settlements (most settlers live in what is called ‘settlement blocs’, which the Shinui party platform states they will not remove)....