A Trilogy of Dysfunction
By Hanan Ashrawi, Miftah 8/1/2003
When the Bully Whines: Whenever hard line Israelis and their American apologists decide to discredit and discount Palestinian suffering while exonerating the abuses and oppressive measures of the Israeli occupation, the first charge levied against Palestinian spokespersons is that of “whining.” How often have Palestinians seen Israeli and American officials alike sigh in obvious exasperation, roll their eyes in sheer ennui, and indulge in an obvious stage whisper: “The Palestinians are whining again.” Hence the people under occupation are not only supposed to “grin and bear it,” but also made to feel guilty and undeserving for seeking to give voice to their suffering. The opposite, however, is true of the Israeli occupation. As Israeli tanks roll through Palestinian villages, towns, and refugee camps; as Apache gunships shell homes and assassinate their human targets; as Palestinian land is stolen and Israeli settlements are expanding; as Israeli prisons swell with abducted Palestinians and the apartheid wall turns all Palestinian areas into prisons and isolation cells; Sharon whines incessantly. He pleads “self-defense” and runs to Washington with more demands: Iran after Iraq, Syria (and Libya, if possible) at any time, the Palestinian factions at all times, and more money, more settlements, more walls, more facts on the ground. When Sharon complains of Palestinian violence (“terrorism”), it is presented as an act of will and gratuitous cruelty, entirely unprovoked and totally unrelated to the fact and brutal policies of the Israeli occupation. When he addresses the requirements of the Roadmap, Israeli “security” becomes the sole objective and rationale of any initiative, while conditionality and forced sequencing are imposed on the Palestinians who are constantly on probation, constantly made to demonstrate “good behavior,” and constantly denied as worthy of any form of “security” or even human consideration. Yet nobody tells Sharon to “stop whining,” and nobody rolls his/her eyes in exasperation and exclaims in disgust: “here we go again!”
Photo Essay: Needs Assessment for Communities Affected by Colonization Barrier
By PARC, Miftah 8/1/2003
[Includes link to large PowerPoint presentation] -- Contrary to worldwide news reports, the Apartheid Wall (also referred to as the "fence" or "security fence"), which Israel is currently building in the northeast of the West Bank, will not mark the 1967 border, also known as the "Green Line". Rather, this latest offensive, occurring on some of the most fertile land in Palestine, is a further chapter in Israel's annexation of lands, destruction of agriculture and property. In the northern West Bank, the first phase of the Apartheid Wall is to be approximately 115km long and is to include electric fences, trenches, cameras, sensors, and security patrols, at a cost tens of millions of dollars. The height of the Apartheid Wall will average 8 meters (25 feet) and, in its entirety, it will cover at least 350km, somewhat encircling the West Bank. In this first phase, which will see the confiscation of close to 2% of the West Bank, at least 30 villages will loose parts or all of their lands. In an area 40 kilometers north of Qalqiliya, approximately 90,000 dunums (90 km square) will be lost as a consequence of the Apartheid Wall.
Mattress Diplomacy: The Long History of Israel’s “Take-and-Take” Policy
By Leila Saad, Miftah 8/1/2003
A recent New York Times news article featured an anecdote related by Samir al-Mashharawi, a Fatah leader, in which he describes how, during his imprisonment in an Israeli jail, the Palestinian inmates demanded tables and chairs. The Israeli prison authorities responded by taking away their mattresses, leaving their cells bare. The prisoners were then obliged to agitate for the reinstatement of their mattresses. “After a month, they returned the mattresses, and we felt very happy we achieved something,” said al-Mashharwi, observing that "Israeli diplomacy is based on this idea." Al-Mashharwi’s evaluation of Israeli diplomatic strategy is spot on. From its inception, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been marked by a consistent Israeli policy of “take-and-take.” The cycle has been drearily predictable: Every time the Palestinians concluded a concession to give up territory, the subsequent round of peace negotiations would be marked by an offer of even less land. Their original state destroyed, Palestinians today are left fighting for a mere 9 percent of their land, and being asked – nay, demanded – to accept this pitiful offer. This is how it happened: After receiving 55 percent of Palestine from the UN Partition Plan of 1947, Israel violently seized an additional 23 percent of the land. Less than twenty years later, Israel conquered the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem in its pre-emptive war of 1967 – that’s another 22 percent. This left the Palestinians with sovereignty over a grand total of 0 percent of their original land. As soon as Palestinians accepted Resolution 242 to return to the 1967 borders – thereby effectively rescinding their right to dispute the mammoth chunk of their land signed away without their consent in ’47 and confiscated in ‘48 – the criteria for peace changed. Ostensibly intending to create a viable state for the Palestinians, the Oslo peace accords in the 1990s denied them the chance to recover that 22 percent. Instead, Palestinian “control” was divided into 200 separate land areas, amounting to a paltry 9 percent of their original territory. Finally, in spring 2002 Israel re-occupied several cities under Palestinian control. Therefore today, with the advent of the road map, Palestinians find themselves negotiating simply to recover control of that 9 percent of their original land.
Bridge travellers' solidarity group needed
By Daoud Kuttab, Jordan Times 8/1/2003
IF ANYONE doubts that the unilaterally declared Palestinian hudna is genuine, a simple visit to the Jordan River border crossing will be enough to erase any doubt. Records are being broken of the number of individuals trying to cross into Palestine this summer. Bridge officials, taxi drivers and regular travellers insist that the number of people crossing the King Hussein Bridge (also called Allenby Bridge by the Israelis and Karameh Crossing Point by the Palestinians) is higher than they have seen for years. Certainly it is a higher figure than those crossing the bridge since the eruption of Al Aqsa Intifada. The number of people crossing into Palestine (as well as those visiting Jordan and other Middle Eastern cities) is a reflection of the confidence most travellers have that the hudna will not be violated, at least not this summer, and that a short period of tranquillity is upon us. My sister, who normally lives in Brooklyn, says that this summer many of her fellow Arab American friends have decided to travel to the Middle East. In addition to their confidence in the hudna, she cited the end of the war in Iraq as yet another reason for the sudden surge in travel. It is as if people had been refraining from travelling for a few years and, all of a sudden, they feel that the time is ripe for a nice summer vacation. Unfortunately, however, once families begin their journeys, they are immediately confronted with a major obstacle, namely the conditions at the Jordan River crossing point. All three countries involved (Israel, Jordan and Palestine) bear a direct responsibility for the inhuman and unacceptable conditions that still exist on either side of the Jordan. Long delays, bureaucratic policies, understaffing and antiquated regulations, and lack of a consistent and effective supervision have resulted in the suffering of hundreds of vacationing families. Hundreds of families are spending days on end on either side of the bridge (on both sides of the Rafah crossing as well) waiting for a chance to cross to the other side. Political leaders might give a variety of excuses for the suffering and delays. None of them hold water, and the situation could be much better if everybody involved cared.
Reaching the Power Elite: The Muslim American Lobby
By Omer Bin Abdullah, Islam Online 8/2/2003
The Supreme Court judgment notwithstanding, many Muslim Americans were proudly proclaiming that Florida’s Muslim voters sent George W. Bush to the White House. Bush was the candidate who had nudged toward Muslims and had promised to repeal the despised Secret Evidence law enacted during the Clinton presidency. Muslim Americans had an agenda to get the law that violated American principles – enshrined in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution – repealed. On their part, the Republicans had also done their job by promoting an “Islamic Institute” headed by a Muslim Arab-American that espoused Republican causes and lobbied the Muslim vote. The euphoria of the Bush victory was immense, and so was the disillusionment. On February 12, the American Muslim Council (AMC) and the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID), two organizations with a deep interest in getting Muslims involved in the US political system, congratulated Bush and claimed that as many as 74% Muslim voters had supported him. However, many Muslims had started expressing their doubts even before the 43rd president’s inauguration.....Muslim lobbying will require closer cooperation with the minorities. However, with the convergence of Indian and Israeli interests, the fast growing Indian lobby is another threat for the Muslims. The Indians in the American technology sector are not only high earners but are gaining influence in the US. Thus this lobby is not only highly financed but also very well connected through government and industry contacts. A look through Indian American ethnic newspapers reveals the growing government appointments of Indians. As opposed to this, Muslims can hardly boast of any significant Muslims in government, except one or two Muslim names who are more loyal that the king, like Zalmay Khalilzad.
Sharon's Wall
By Hazem Saghieh, Al-Hayat 8/2/2003
In the early 1960s, the poorer and less democratic built a wall in the face of the richest and more democratic. This was in Germany. Four decades later, the richest and more democratic is building a wall in the face of the poorer and less democratic. This is taking place in Israel-Palestine. This difference is attributed to many changes in the regional and international, as well as in the political and economic, atmosphere. Ariel Sharon, (who last year was opposed to the wall and called it 'populist'), will most probably try to sum down these changes to a single factor: terror. George Bush may express his "understanding" to the point of view of Israel's prime minister, just as he did before (even though he criticized the wall). But the side that builds the wall, whether it is poor or rich, democratic or not, facilitates jumping into some generalizations: First, the idea championed by the wall builder has lost all attraction and appeal. It has lost all propensity for extending and export. (The image of democracy in the Middle East could end up like that of Soviet socialism in Europe). Second, the builder's mind is extremely mythical in the sense reminiscent of Middle Ages practices. And when this takes place in the era of globalization, and by a party that stands to gain from it, it provides a powerful argument to the opponents of globalization. Third, the builder has no room for adventures. And peace is an adventure. He is tightly linked to the narrowest geo-political givens. He is strongly linked to the past, which dictates his and our future. And, when all is said and done, the wall does not conceal its symbolic representation of a racist hierarchy: Inside there are citizens, and outside there are barbarians. But it does not conceal either its negative repercussion on U.S. policy: the consequences extend from where the wall is built to Iraq in the East, and to Egypt, and perhaps further in the West. That is why George Bush should not express his "understanding" when Sharon tries to make him do so.
The Theft of Your Vote Is Just a Chip Away
By Thom Hartmann, AlterNet 7/30/2003
Are computerized voting machines a wide-open back door to massive voting fraud? The discussion has moved from the Internet to CNN, to UK newspapers, and the pages of The New York Times. People are cautiously beginning to connect the dots, and the picture that seems to be emerging is troubling. "A defective computer chip in the county's optical scanner misread ballots Tuesday night and incorrectly tallied a landslide victory for Republicans," announced the Associated Press in a story on Nov. 7, just a few days after the 2002 election. The story added, "Democrats actually won by wide margins." Republicans would have carried the day had not poll workers become suspicious when the computerized vote-reading machines said the Republican candidate was trouncing his incumbent Democratic opponent in the race for County Commissioner. The poll workers were close enough to the electorate – they were part of the electorate – to know their county overwhelmingly favored the Democratic incumbent. A quick hand recount of the optical-scan ballots showed that the Democrat had indeed won, even though the computerized ballot-scanning machine kept giving the race to the Republican. The poll workers brought the discrepancy to the attention of the County Clerk, who notified the voting machine company.
An American Analysis Market
bY Salameh Nematt, Al-Hayat 8/2/2003
It would be naive to assume that the Policy Analysis Market, which was designed to speculate on events in the Middle East and was declared closed by Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, only a few hours after it was launched, was just a passing idea. This project was being planned for several months by the Pentagon's Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency, known as DARPA, as well as Net Exchange, a market technology company, and the Economist Intelligence Unit, affiliated to the Economist. The website was supposed to be launched yesterday, allowing investors and speculators to register on the site and bet on such events as the assassination of Palestinian President Yasser Arafat or the toppling of Jordan's King Abdullah. The Pentagon was obviously not expecting the White House or Congress, or any political American institution, to approve its project, since it would have allowed people to speculate on terrorist actions or possible destitutions, thus helping terrorists make big gains on the virtual market, by allowing them to place their bets on events they intend to carry out. But why was the project announced in the first place, only to be cancelled so fast? We don't know. But it is no coincidence that its planners chose the murder of Arafat and the toppling of Jordan's King to indicate what could happen in the Middle East. And if the idea is to send a message of some sort or to stir a debate over a certain subject, it brings to mind the project of the neo-conservatives that was declared many years ago. That project calls for ending the Palestinian Authority by eliminating its representatives in order to create a Palestinian state on the ruins of the Hashemite Kingdom.
Sharon Defies Bush, Powell And Rice
By Jihad Al Khazen, Al-Hayat 8/2/2003
The Israeli government's decision to release hundreds of Palestinian detainees next week could help in prolonging the truce, but this does not guarantee that it will last until the end of the three months that were agreed upon or to extend it after that date. The U.S. and Israel do admit that the truce has remarkably improved the security situation, but they also insist on dismantling the infrastructure of "terrorism," which means striking Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, which would lead to a Palestinian civil war that no Palestinian party would want to participate in or be held responsible for. Mahmoud Abbas heard positive things from the Americans, but the measures that could have helped him gain Palestinian popular support for his policy remain extremely limited. Israel has pledged to release a hundred prisoners, but any other decision it makes will be against the peace process. The Israeli government has decided to expand a settlement in Gaza, and the new Israeli Minister of Accommodation, Ivy Itan, announced that there have been some money transfers to build many houses in East Jerusalem to absorb thousands of new Jews there. President Bush was hosting Ariel Sharon when Israel finished the first stage of the security wall along 123 Km, in addition to 18 Km around Jerusalem, with a total cost of one billion Shekels. George W. Bush opposes the wall, and so did U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, as they all asked Sharon to stop the construction because it would destroy the peace process as long as it is built on Palestinian territory and separates villages from each other and farmers from their land. When it is finished, the wall will have actually divided almost 40 per cent of the West Bank, thus making it impossible to agree with the Palestinians.
|
