Suspicious Atmosphere
By Abdulwahab Badrakhan, Al-Hayat, July 5, 2003
The first steps of the Roadmap, from limited withdrawals to handing security over to the Palestinian police, are not enough to clear suspicions. Unfortunately, regardless of the discussions between government and factions, there is a widespread impression that something is being cooked behind the scenes. Israelis are known for not changing their intentions so quickly and easily, even for not changing them at all. They already believe the land is theirs. So if they return it, they will have certain conditions which, if they fail to obtain, they believe they'll have the 'right' to get them their own way. At this stage, the Palestinian security will still be required to handle the task Israelis were carrying out through assassinations, air strikes, invasions and planned destruction. The Americans view the success of this stage as the end of any armed Palestinian operation against the occupation. Although they might not actually be involved in triggering a Palestinian civil war, the Israelis are hoping it will happen. The challenge is for the Palestinians to prove their ability to avoid it. Yes, dialogue is good, and yes, truce is highly important, but no dialogue can succeed if the Americans and Israelis demand the dismantlement of certain parties representing a share of the Palestinian society. In fact, comparable incidents in other countries failed, and when they worked out, they cost a lot and their repercussions never ceased to affect the society. With this 'truce,' there is a risk of seeing a Palestinian problem erupt among the factions. The lack of mutual trust is likely to deepen. The same problems that existed under the "Authority" before it became a "government" seem to make another appearance. Some groups still insist on their stances in refusing any authority or government or any peace negotiations. And even if they do have convincing arguments, they seem to fail in suggesting a better substitute. No one refuses the right to fight the occupation, but the facts on the ground impose some compromises, considering that these groups have probably agreed on a truce based on that fact. Still, if there is no chance for dismantling some of them, then half solutions would be harmful.

A Beginning
Editorial, Arab News, June 30, 2003 
Washington’s recent re-engagement in the Middle East has apparently brought swift dividends. On the table are a pending withdrawal of Israeli troops from some Palestinian areas and an expected formal announcement of a truce by Palestinian activists, albeit not all groups, who have agreed to halt attacks against Israel, at least temporarily. President Bush’s National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice continued the United States’ Middle East peace effort yesterday in talks with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Rice already reviewed the peace process with Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas. Their talks on Saturday covered the final details of a troop pullout from parts of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank town of Bethlehem. Israel has agreed to stay out of those areas as long as the Palestinian Authority can maintain security and prevent attacks against Israelis. In return, Islamic Jihad and Hamas say they are about ready to announce a three-month truce on such attacks if Israeli halts its raids against activists. Whatever truce agreement eventually emerges from the discussions, all are aware that it will not endure without an Israeli withdrawal, an end to the assassinations of Palestinian political and military leaders, a genuine start to a halt in further settlement expansion and the release of Palestinian prisoners. Also, the cease-fire will not be unilateral. If Israel does not accept these Palestinian conditions, there will be no truce.

Stealing Territories In Times Of Truce
By Maher Othman, Al-Hayat, July 4, 2003
Is the ongoing peace process, known as the Roadmap, of any use to the Palestinians, if all Israel leaves for the Palestinian state mentioned in the map only the territories of the main cities that hinder the Jewish settlements, which are continuously expanding in Gaza Strip and the West Bank? One might risk saying that the withdrawal of the Israeli occupation forces from these cities is an advantage that will be secured thanks to the three-months truce announced by the Palestinians. But Sharon's government has made it clear that it does not want peace with the Palestinians, but is seeking to guarantee its surrender with an indirect American approval, veiled by soft words about a better future for the Palestinians if they "dismantle the terrorist organizations"! In other words, if they stop resisting the illegal occupation armed, financed and politically veiled by the U.S. It is to note that, although the Palestinians have declared a truce, Israel continues perpetrating war crimes in the occupied Palestinian territories, for it did not freeze the building of settlements, stopped stealing Palestinian land or destroying their houses, just as it did not stop controlling their moves. It also pursued its murders in the Balata refugee camp yesterday and Wednesday night in Qalqiliyah. In both attacks, two activists of Al Aqsa Brigades related to Fatah were killed. Yesterday, the occupation forces closed again the Northern-Southern road in Gaza Strip. However, Israel's most dangerous violation of the international laws and UN resolutions, especially under Sharon, is the building of the separation wall, which it pretended was for security purposes, even though it is confiscating thousands of square meters of fertile Palestinian land. When the U.S. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice discussed with Sharon the issue of the wall upon a Palestinian request, he was very clear that he was not ready to stop building it, "even though this will cause a conflict with Washington!" Israel's expansion reached Jerusalem and the Jordan River it wants to steal its territories.

What will it cost?
By Avi Temkin, Globes, June 30, 2003
The EU is offering Israel a degree of inclusion in the continent’s open economy, but the price might be too high.  -- Many people have doubtlessly noticed the unceasing stream of senior US administration officials visiting to make sure that Israel and the Palestinians understand that the US has an interest right now in preserving regional peace. At the same time, however, sandwiched in between the diplomatic visits by US Secretary of State Colin Powell and US National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice were a number of visits by senior European Commission officials trying to open a new chapter in relations between Israel and the European Union (EU). The message borne by the European officials is called an inclusive Europe, based mostly on a new start in political, but mostly economic, relations between Israel and the EU. The EU is due absorb 10 new countries in another 10 months, creating new neighbors on its borders, such as Israel, which is near Cyprus. The Europeans know that their new neighbors in the Middle East and Eastern Europe are not always careful about preserving peace and quiet, don’t always manage their quarrels civilly, and don’t always keep the neighborhood clean. The European Commission therefore decided that it was about time to do something to convert its new neighbors more friendly, so that their troubles don’t spill over into the EU. A few weeks ago, the Commission produced a document outlining the EU goals for its new neighbors, including Israel. The document stated that if the neighbors adopt European economic and social legislation and regulations, the EU would be willing to reward them with a greater degree of access to the EU internal market.

Identical U.S. And Israeli Attitude Toward Hamas
Khaled Al Haroub , Al-Hayat, July 5, 2003
According to the International Herald Tribune, the current attitude of the U.S. administration toward Hamas is identical to that of Israel. Previous American administrations had kept a distance from the traditional Israeli position, which regarded Hamas as a terrorist organization. There used to be a distinction between the military wing of Hamas and the political and civilian wing, which provided social services to the population (which was also the position of the European countries). Israel used to exert pressure on the American administrations to have them endorse its attitude, and to place Hamas on the list of terrorist organizations. As many analysts maintain, the Bush administration is the "unprecedented Likudist American copy of the Israeli policy." Over the past years, the American administration used to press the Palestinian Authority and neighboring Arab countries to exercise pressure over Hamas to achieve a truce that would give the peace process a chance. This truce was considered important in order to deny Israel the justification to carry out oppressive practices against the Palestinian people. As such, the recent decision by Hamas and Jihad to suspend their operations meant removing such justifications, and confronting Israel with two options: either to have it take steps as stipulated in the Roadmap, or create excuses to escape such moves. Israel chose the second alternative and was immediately supported by the U.S. Both Israel and the U.S. demanded more than a declaration of truce. They wanted the disarming and dismantling of Hamas and other opposition Palestinian groups as a necessary first step in order to proceed with the Roadmap. Yet the Palestinian organizations will never accept such a demand, and it is unlikely that the Palestinian Authority will be prepared to enter a military confrontation with them unless there is a substantial change on the ground that convinces the majority of the Palestinians. The second major shift in position was the emphasis over the past few days on the need to dismantle Hamas, and not only to disarm it. The American position here is most serious because it provides a diplomatic and political cover to that of Ariel Sharon in rejecting any temporary truce. Three days before Israel announced its refusal of the Hamas truce, George Bush went as far as blaming European leaders who had gathered in Washington because of their 'lax' attitude toward Hamas, and described it as a terrorist organization making no distinction among its separate wings. More important is that he mentioned twice "dismantling Hamas is vital for the success of the Roadmap."

Isolating Jerusalem
By Jonathan Cook, Al-Ahram Weekly On-line, 3 - 9 July 2003
In this third of a four-part series addressing the main points of the Mideast roadmap, Jonathan Cook focusses on Israel's demographic war over Jerusalem -- History was made last month in Jerusalem's municipal elections when the city elected its first ultra-Orthodox mayor, Uri Lupolianski, backed by a majority bloc of religious representatives on the city council. It was an outcome that reflected two of the key demographic factors that have been shaping life in the city since the war of 1967, when Israel conquered the West Bank, including the eastern half of Jerusalem, and began "unifying" the city as its capital. The first was the decision taken by the Israeli leadership in the aftermath of the war to tighten its hold on Jerusalem, and the surrounding area, by transforming the city from a historic and religious symbol for the Jewish people into the concrete heart of the modern Jewish state, pumping the settlement project deep into the occupied West Bank. By creating an enlarged "Jewish" Jerusalem that effectively severed the West Bank in two, Israel was also able to achieve a related goal: to make dreams of Palestinian statehood unrealisable. The city's gradual metamorphosis has been effected over decades by encouraging Jewish migration -- particularly by the ultra-Orthodox -- to the city, including to illegal settlements in occupied East Jerusalem. The ultra-Orthodox were seen as a powerful tool in this demographic battle against the Palestinian population, both because of their religious zealotry and their high birth rates, which closely match those of the Palestinians. To reinforce this trend, the popular Israeli discourse about Jerusalem concentrated ever more on the importance of the holy sites being in Jewish hands. The second demographic factor has been the absence of Jerusalem's Palestinian population from policy-making in the city. Although a third of potential voters in the municipal area are Palestinian, they have no representation in the city council and their voice is silent on decisions made in their name. This impotence is at least partly self-inflicted: the Palestinian population has refused to legitimise Israel's illegal annexation of East Jerusalem, or its continuing rule over their lives, by voting in elections or taking Israeli citizenship. In last month's election only one Arab candidate stood, though he failed to win enough votes to be elected.

Mistrust Growing in America
By Adrienne McPhail, Palestine Chronicle, July 4, 2003 
"Arab-Americans are a very successful segment of the country. Eighty-two percent have at least a high school diploma and their average incomes are 22 percent higher than the US national average .." -- What is it like to be an Arab-American in the current political and social climate of the United States? I asked that question of Richard Fawal, the national political director of the Arab-American Institute in Washington D.C. “The reaction to Sept. 11 has created a level of distrust between the Arab community and various government agencies,” he said. “We have received phone calls from Arab-Americans that express a real hesitation to contact these agencies. We hear comments like ‘I don’t know if I should go to the FBI with this information. Something could happen, I could get into trouble’.” He said after Sept. 11 the leadership of both the Arab and Muslim communities tried to reach out to the administration and were ignored. “In my opinion, this created this condition of mistrust. The FBI and other government agencies simply refuse to accept this and other organizations as having credibility.” The question is why? There are three million Arab-Americans living in the United States. Their original homelands are 22 Arab countries. The largest percentage of Arab-Americans are from Lebanon, then Syria, Egypt, Palestine, Iraq and Jordan. Arab-Americans are a very successful segment of the country. Eighty-two percent have at least a high school diploma and their average incomes are 22 percent higher than the US national average. They have different religious backgrounds too. Forty-two percent are Catholic, 12 percent Protestant, 23 percent Orthodox (Syrian, Greek, Coptic) and 23 percent Muslim. Although they share a common language, they have a multitude of different dialects that often make communication difficult unless they speak English to one another. Some have lived in this country all their lives, while others have only been in America for a few years. They are politically active voters and have a record for voting on the issues rather than by influence. They are split almost evenly between the Democratic and Republican parties. So why would they need institutions to protect and promote Arab-American interests, such as the Arab-American Institute and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee? The reason is that the current climate in the United States is decidedly anti-Arab. The Bush administration’s policies and appointments are an on-going declaration that Arabs and Muslims are being separated from the rest of American society and are being treated differently.

US ban on Siniora loses friends, wins enemies
By Adib F. Farha, Daily Star, July 5, 2003
Responding to news that [Lebanon's] Finance Minister Fouad Siniora is now a persona non grata in the US for allegedly supporting terrorism by making a donation to an Islamic charity that purportedly finances terrorism, the witty Speaker of the Parliament Nabih Berri reportedly quipped that he is sure that the charge is unfair and unfounded. Siniora, infamous for always being on the receiving end as the state’s tax collector, could not have been on the giving end, according to Berri, and is, therefore, innocent of the charges against him! However, joking aside, the charge is serious. Lebanon’s finance minister has actually been advised by a senior US Embassy official that he should not travel to the US, despite the fact that he is in possession of a valid US visa. The stated reason is that because Siniora donated LL1 million to Al-Mabarrat Islamic Charity Society during an iftar (the fast-breaking meal during the holy month of Ramadan) in 2000, he has effectively supported terrorism. Siniora’s new classification appears to be founded on the fact that the charity is headed by Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, whom the US press repeatedly describes as the “spiritual leader of Hizbullah.” The underlying “justification” is that Fadlallah is involved in financing terrorism through funds collected by the charity he heads. According to the American logic, a contributor to Fadlallah’s charity is, by definition, a co-financier of terrorism. It did not matter that the charity is reputed to be one of the most transparent charities in Lebanon, and runs various educational and social projects that serve thousands of orphans and other needy Lebanese. It did not matter either that Fadlallah is not on good terms with Hizbullah, whom the US considers to be a terrorist organization, or with Iran, who is on the US list of state-sponsors of terrorism. More significantly, it did not seem to matter to US authorities that Siniora is an ultra-moderate Lebanese official who espouses all of America’s traditional values. A graduate of the American University of Beirut and later a lecturer at the same American institution, he was for many years an executive of Citibank, a bastion of American capitalism. Since ascending to power as acting finance minister and later finance minister, he has promoted economic and political policies that exemplify America’s emphasis on free enterprise, the upholding of human rights, liberal economics, and espousing freedom.