Sharon Playing With Ceasefire
By Walid Choucair, Al-Hayat 2003-07-25
Between U.S. President George Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who is best at diverting the attention of the public and the international and regional forces? There is no doubt that the officials in the U.S. administration, the Pentagon and the White House are cleverly exploiting the death of Udai and Qusai Hussein to turn the attention away from the mounting domestic scandal regarding the false accusations and exaggerations that Iraq was seeking a nuclear weapons capability, as well as the Democrats' attacks on Bush's policy in Iraq and the increasing calls for a serious cooperation with the UN. With the killing of Udai and Qusai, the U.S. can re-focus the attention on the atrocities the former Iraqi regime, thus absorbing the negative repercussions of the situation reached by the U.S. and the UK in Iraq. But Sharon could be forced to be more cunning than Bush. Part of his maneuvers aim at benefiting from the American impasse in Iraq, so he can eschew the commitments he is supposed to fulfill towards his friend Bush. Sharon is also trying to divert the attention away from the internal scandal having to do with financial allegations about his electoral campaign for the leadership of Likud. He is also trying to cover for all his efforts to obstruct moving towards the political part of the Roadmap. To that end, he is resorting to all means available, and in this respect, he fares much better than Bush in the latter's attempt to divert attention away from his internal and foreign difficulties.
The Ugly Truth Of America's Camp Cropper, A Story To Shame Us All
By Robert Fisk, Dissident Voice 2003-07-25
Now here's a story to shame us all. It's about America's shameful prison camps in Iraq. It's about the beating of prisoners during interrogation. "Sources" may be a dubious word in journalism right now, but the sources for the beatings in Iraq are impeccable. This story is also about the gunning down of three prisoners in Baghdad, two of them "while trying to escape". But most of all, it's about Qais Mohamed al-Salman. Qais al-Salman is just the sort of guy the US ambassador Paul Bremer and his dead-end assistants need now. He hated Saddam, fled Iraq in 1976, then returned after the "liberation" with a briefcase literally full of plans to help in the restoration of his country's infrastructure and water purification system. He's an engineer who has worked in Africa, Asia and Europe. He is a Danish citizen. He speaks good English. He even likes America. Or did until 6 June this year. That day he was travelling in Abu Nawas Street when his car came under American fire. He says he never saw a checkpoint. Bullets hit the tyres and his driver and another passenger ran for their lives. Qais al-Salman stood meekly beside the vehicle. He was carrying his Danish passport, Danish driving licence and medical records. But let him tell his own story. "A civilian car came up with American soldiers in it. Then more soldiers in military vehicles. I told them I didn't understand what had happened, that I was a scientific researcher. But they made me lie down in the street, tied my arms behind me with plastic-and-steel cuffs and tied up my feet and put me in one of their vehicles." The next bit of his story carries implications for our own journalistic profession. "After 10 minutes in the vehicle, I was taken out again. There were journalists with cameras. The Americans untied me, then made me lie on the road again. Then, in front of the cameras, they tied my hands and feet all over again and put me back in the vehicle." If this wasn't a common story in Baghdad today - if the gross injustices meted out to ordinary Iraqis and the equally gross mistreatment in America's prison camps here was not so common - then Qais al-Salman's story would not be so important.
Mid-Eastern Terms
By Ran HaCohen, Palestine Chronicle 2003-07-25
"Within days, contrary to all tangible evidence, they all propagated the absurd idea that Sharon had experienced a spiritual conversion, turning from the blood-thirsty warrior he had been all his life into a peace-loving leader embraced by Peace Now .." -- Commenting on the Aqaba Summit, in an atmosphere of peace and reconciliation, a senior member of Israel's ruling junta said it all. Major General Amos Gilad – the Government Coordinator in the [Occupied] Territories – told Yedioth Achronoth (5.6.03): "In Mid-Eastern terms, we have not inflicted any suffering on the Palestinians". Yes: Merely 2.500 Palestinians killed in two and a half years, only tens of thousands injured, just 12.000 made homeless by house demolitions, nothing but economic plight on the verge of starvation, continuous siege, regular orderly humiliation and countless "exceptional" abuses (from theft to murder) – and no suffering whatsoever. "In Mid-Eastern terms", that is. All the colonialist arrogance, malicious gloating and bestial savageness of the Israeli junta in a single phrase. How about the 700 Israelis killed by Palestinians in the same period? What are they "in Mid-Eastern terms"? A petty trifle? A token of love? Imagine a Palestinian official saying that at a peace conference. Mid-Eastern Reality: Journalist Meron Rapoport of Yedioth Achronoth (23.5) published an extensive, horrifying research on the Israeli Apartheid Wall. My own column on the subject had underestimated the extent of the atrocity: not only for the Palestinians sealed off behind the Wall, but for those squeezed between the Wall and the Green Line, denied access to Israel and cut off from the Palestinians behind the fence – clearly a target to a "soft", economic ethnic cleansing.
Refugee Poll Confusion
By Casey Patrick Reilly, Miftah 2003-07-25
Palestinian Academic Khalil Shikaki, in consultation with the Palestinian Authority (PA), set out to gauge Palestinian refugees' reactions to the solutions to the refugee problem offered at the Taba talks in 2001. The idea, most likely, was to give the PA a sense of their bargaining position. Unfortunately, many people have taken the results of this poll out of context, and deemed it the final judgement on what Palestinian refugees want. It is no such thing and was never meant to be. In Taba representatives of the PA and the Israeli government of Ehud Barak developed the idea of offering to Palestinian refugees a range of options from which they could choose in order to end their stateless existence and exercise their right of return. Since Barak cut short the negotiations to concentrate on the Israeli elections, and the Sharon government has never restarted them, the point reached by the negotiators at Taba, no matter how imperfect, is still the starting point for any subsequent talks. Shikaki began his survey by asking the refugee families - from Lebanon, Jordan and the Palestinian Territories - if they thought that the Israel of today would ever actually agree to the options offered at Taba. A majority said no. Nevertheless, the refugees were told to assume that the Taba options were offered to them and then select the one they would prefer. Already we can see that whatever answers are given, they will only represent a choice between several different options - options that those being polled don't even believe Israel would ever agree to. This is a far cry from a free and open poll of the refugees' opinions. Their choices were circumscribed, but nevertheless their preferences out of those meager and perhaps unsatisfactory options should be examined fully.
BADIL on the PRS Refugee Poll
Electronic Intifada 2003-07-25
SOME COMMENTS ON THE RESPONSES TO AND DEBATE OF THE RECENT SURVEY RELEASED BY DR. KHALIL SHEKAKI ON PALESTINIAN REFUGEES' CHOICE TO NOT RETURN -- These comments are triggered mainly by a piece of commentary written by Jehudith Harel (14 July), who touches on many important points: 1. It is very important to understand that the Palestinian demand for the right of return (and/or implementation of UN Resolution 194) is the demand that refugees must be offered a free and educated choice between three major durable solutions: return + property restitution + compensation; integration in current host countries + property restitution + compensation; re-settlement in a third country + property restitution + compensation. These are the choices recognized by international law (and UN Resolution 194), these choices are expressed in the official Palestinian negotiation position, and the fact that the right of return means the right to choose is generally understood by the refugees themselves. 2. Based on the above, it is clear to the refugees and their organizations and the Palestinian leadership that not all of the some five million 1948 refugees will return to Israel, if given a choice. It is extremely unfortunate therefore, that Israeli media and political spokespersons continue to confuse and frighten the Israeli public by claiming that the Palestinian demand for the right of return is a demand for the forced return of five million refugees (even against their will?)! It is vital for a rational debate about just and durable solutions to the refugee question that Israeli peace activists challenge this wrong interpretation of the Palestinian position....
Stop wasting time
Editorial, The Guardian 2003-07-22
Israel should get on with making peace -- Ariel Sharon, Israel's prime minister, may have been buoyed up by his recent fence-mending meeting with Tony Blair in London. Silvan Shalom, Israel's foreign minister, apparently enjoyed cordial talks yesterday in Brussels with EU counterparts who have often been critical of his government. But neither man, nor any other member of the Likud-led coalition, should be under any illusion that improving relations are not contingent on positive, timely Israeli steps towards peace. Any sign of Israeli foot-dragging over implementation of the "road map" with the Palestinians cannot be tolerated. Yet suspicion that Mr Sharon is again engaging in delaying tactics was strengthened by his bruising weekend meeting with Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian prime minister. Mr Sharon gave no ground on prisoner releases, further army withdrawals, Israel's new West Bank "security fence" and settlement closures - even though Israel concedes that terrorism and incitement have been sharply reduced and that Mr Abbas is making genuine progress. Mr Sharon is wasting valuable time. His latest, familiar excuse appears to be that he is waiting for a meeting in Washington next week with George Bush, who will also meet Mr Abbas on Friday. As in the past, it is to be feared that Mr Sharon will portray any new but limited Israeli "concessions" as a great and risky good-faith gesture, beyond which he cannot at this point safely go. In return, he will seek increased US pressure on the Palestinians, especially over disarming Hamas and Islamic Jihad, plus other, bilateral favours. This is an old game that Mr Bush should refuse to play. As ever, Israel holds most of the cards. It must do more, more quickly or risk, as Mr Sharon doubtless knows, losing Mr Abbas as a partner for peace. Beset by unfair accusations of collaboration and on bad terms with Yasser Arafat, Mr Abbas needs to show results. If he fails, and falls, so too probably will the current ceasefire. Is this what Mr Sharon wants?
Deep is the crisis
By Giden Samet, Ha'aretz 2003-07-25
The Israeli crisis is deeper than its seems. We're talking about a major-league mess which has been going on for years, eroding the basic principles of public and private behavior and bringing this light-unto-the-nations country very close to the style of a Third World state. Apart from a few years of relative economic and political relief, the national crisis has grown worse with every mismanaged government that has come to power. Things have gone downhill because of contempt for the law, in which our elected public officials now lead the way. How can Sharon look us in the face - this cocky man, who demanded that an MK step down for remaining silent under questioning, when his two sons are doing the very same thing in one of the most serious criminal investigations ever conducted against the family of a prime minister? The nature of such crises is that they are not limited to one sphere. Like locusts, they are multiplying all over the place. After years of rejecting a courageous agreement with the Palestinians, the economy is paying a stiff price, with the settlements attaining the status of a sub-state. This subjugation of our economy is, among other things, the reason why no budgets can be found for infrastructure, as in the relatively golden days of the Rabin administration, or for fundamental improvements in the job market. It's no coincidence that Yesha activist Israel Harel attacks the single mothers in his opinion pieces in Haaretz. He knows that investing in projects that create new jobs will come at the expense of wastefully pouring money into the settlements. The U.S. administration, as it awaits the Palestinian and Israeli prime ministers, is demanding that Sharon stop building the costly but questionable separation fence, or at least change its route. This fence is a quickie operation of the kind that only Sharon knows how to pull off. No constructive national enterprise has been pursued with such vigor over the past decade.
Infiltrating Jewish state’s justice system
By Jonathan Kuttab, Daily Star 2003-07-25
The issue of appealing to Israeli courts has been a controversial one in Palestinian circles since the beginning of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967. Some saw it as granting legitimacy to such courts, which were clearly Zionist in their orientation and decisions. Others saw a futile exercise in placing ourselves at the mercy of our oppressors. The local proverb was: “If your opponent is your judge, to whom can you bring your complaint?” This point of view had merit, particularly in light of the fact that Israeli jurisprudence followed positivist theory, built on following the literal texts of laws, in a country where there was no constitution allowing someone to challenge the constitutionality of a law or military order under superior notions of justice. The Israeli occupation authorities took full advantage of this by making sure that all their actions were covered by “military orders” over 1,000 in number, which contained broad language that gave commanders wide authority, and which the courts did nothing to restrict. For this and other reasons, Israeli courts had a bad reputation among Palestinians, although a number of Israeli lawyers (both Arabs and Jews) managed to extract important decisions from the Supreme Court. Peace and non-violence activists developed a strategy partly based on threats of appealing to the Supreme Court, and even appearing before it. The aim was to restrain some of the worst excesses of the occupation, gain time until political pressure could be brought to bear, or embarrass Israeli leaders and the Israeli legal system itself.
Arab-Americans and the 2004 Polls
By James J. Zogby, Arab News 2003-07-25
If the 2004 election were held today President George W. Bush would win the support of just one-third of Arab-American voters. Another one-third indicate that they would vote for whomever wins the Democratic nomination, while the remaining third of Arab-American voters are as yet undecided. This is but one of the findings in a recent poll conducted for the Arab-American Institute by Zogby International (ZI) of New York. Five hundred Arab Americans were surveyed nationwide in July 2003 with a margin of error of 4.5 percent. The results have been compared with five earlier polls done by AAI/ZI in 1996, 2000 and in October 2001, May 2002 and October 2002. The mere 33.5 percent of Arab-Americans who indicate support for the president’s re-election effort represent a significant drop in Arab-American support for Bush who, in November 2000, beat Democrat Al Gore by a margin of 45.5 percent to 38 percent. Green Party Candidate Ralph Nader won 13.5 percent of the Arab-American vote in 2000. The most significant decline in support for Bush occurred among the 20 percent of Arab-Americans who are Muslim. In 2000 they voted for Bush by a margin of 58.5 percent to 22.5 percent. The early 2004 poll indicates that this group would now support a Democrat by a 52 to 10 percent margin.
Tel Aviv's Influence on American Institutions
By Joel Beinin, Miftah 2003-07-25
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (Winep) was established in 1985, and soon became the most influential thinktank with effects on the United States government's Middle East policy and US mass media reporting about the region. The institute's founding director, Martin Indyk, was previously research director of the leading pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac). In contrast to Aipac's partisan image (see Watch and tell ), Indyk successfully positioned Winep as an organisation that was "friendly to Israel but doing cred ible research on the Middle East in a realistic and balanced way" (1). While Aipac targets Congress through the massive election campaign contributions that it coordinates and directs, Winep concentrates on influencing the media and the executive branch. To this purpose it offers weekly lunches with guest speakers, written policy briefs, and "expert" guests for radio and television talk shows. Its director for policy and planning, Robert Satloff, its deputy director, Patrick Clawson, its senior fellow, Michael Eisenstadt, and other associates appear regularly on radio and television. Winep views prevail in two weekly news magazines, US News and World Report and The New Republic (whose editors-in-chief, Mortimer Zuckerman and Martin Peretz, sit on Winep's board of advisers). The views of Winep's Israeli associates, among them journalists Hirsh Goodman, David Makovsky, Ze'ev Schiff and Ehud Ya'ari, are spoon-fed to the American media. Winep has close links with both leading Democrats and Republicans. Its first major success was the publication of the report Building for Peace: An American Strategy for the Middle East on the eve of the 1988 presidential elections. The report urged the incoming administration to "resist pressures for a procedural breakthrough [on Palestinian-Israeli peace issues] until conditions have ripened" (2). Six members of the study group that produced the report joined the administration of President Bush Sr, which adopted this recipe: not to change until change was unavoidable. So the US acceded to Israel's refusal to negotiate directly with the Palestine Liberation Organisation during and after the 1991 Madrid conference despite the PLO's recognition of Israel at the November 1988 session of the Palestine National Council.
Weapons Of Mass Democracy!
By Salameh Nematt, Al-Hayat` 2003-07-24
Perhaps it would be better for Elizabeth Cheney to use the money destined to foster democracy in the Middle East towards reeducating the officials in the administration about the principles of democracy, before starting to impose them on others. -- As long as Washington, as its Israeli ally, is determined to deal with the Middle East from a military-security angle, it is unlikely that any results different from those obtained by Israel will ever be achieved. Security solutions, if separated from the political track, and considering the roots of violence that led to the 9/11 attacks, will only create further violence in Iraq, just like in Palestine. The U.S.' political solutions, both for Iraq and Palestine, are not actual solutions, because they don't present a clear vision for a political future. Indeed, according to the Roadmap, the Americans' solution for the Palestinian issue has maintained the final situation blurry and open to many possibilities. The Roadmap doesn't define clear borders for the planned Palestinian state, nor does it ensure consistency with the international resolutions, which are the only reference that can draw Arab and international approval. In light of the strategic alliance between the U.S. and Israel, it becomes difficult for the Palestinians to trust the U.S. as a mediator with good intentions. Regarding Iraq, Washington openly disregarded international law and the Geneva Convention concerning its occupation of Iraq before and after the war. This has left Iraq at the mercy of a group of people, which intentions to disregard the international community's will in dealing with nations is very clear, and doesn't even present an acceptable or convincing alternative. In other words, the American plan for Palestine and Iraq can't possibly succeed if it does not include a comprehensive vision taking into consideration the political givens. This requires putting an end to the two occupations, according to a set timeline and with international approval. If not, the situation on the ground will necessarily lead Washington to face in Iraq what Israel is facing in Palestine.
Sharon And Bush Facing A Test
By Maher Othman, Al-Hayat 2003-07-25
No doubt that the Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas is facing a harsh test. If he fails, his status will definitely weaken, and his political future will be jeopardized. This was never a secret, and was quite the contrary openly said by one of his closest persons, Minister of Information Nabil Amro. This harsh test is that he has to convince U.S. President Bush and his administration to see that the Palestinians' demands are met, especially since they are supposed to be part of the Israeli commitments stipulated in the Roadmap, and steps vital to achieving a peaceful settlement. These demands include the release of the detainees, freezing settlement building in the Palestinian territories, withdrawal from the West Bank and lifting the siege on the cities and on President Yasser Arafat, and stop the building of the racist separation wall, which the Sharon government claims is "a security wall," while it is in fact a savage means to deprive the Palestinians of large portions of their fertile land. Abbas can point to the three-month ceasefire announced by the Palestinian factions, and which could be extended if Israel pledges to take positive steps such as releasing the detainees indiscriminately and without delay, and executing its commitments as per the first stage of the map. But so far, Sharon's government doesn't seem to want Abbas to succeed, nor does it seem to want to implement its part of the Roadmap. Israel's Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom dismissed the dispute between the U.S. and Israel about the "separation wall" as a "misunderstanding" from the American side, which he claims was due to the Palestinians trying to convince the Americans that the wall was harming their interests and creating new facts on the ground! Israeli sources said that Sharon was preparing to notify President Bush of his intention to pursue the constructions.
|
