A road to peace that's paved with the worst intentions
By Martin Woollacott, The Guardian 8/8/2003
If the cheaters can be cheated, a deal in the Middle East is possible -- The question of whether or not the road map for peace between Israelis and Palestinians will allow the two peoples to reach that destination is best investigated by asking another question. Can the cheaters be cheated? Or, to put it more moderately, can the cheaters be made to change? For the road map has been "accepted" by leaders who intend to subvert it, bend it to their purposes, turn it inside out and rewrite it as they go along. It has been proposed by outside powers whose real aims are far from clear, particularly in the case of the US, and the degree of whose resolve must be doubted. Rarely can so much bad faith have been invested in a single document. And yet it could nevertheless change the relationship between Israelis and Palestinians and help release the pent-up forces in favour of a fair settlement in both communities. Foremost among the cheaters is Ariel Sharon. No one seriously contends that the Israeli prime minister wants a Palestinian state worthy of the name to come into existence. Such a state, possessing all or nearly all of the pre-1967 lands and in full control of its own affairs and resources, is undoubtedly the destination pointed to on the third sheet of the road map. Sharon is instead almost certainly intent on halting on the second sheet, which covers the establishment of an interim state in parts of the West Bank and Gaza. This supposedly temporary stop would suit Sharon very well as a final destination, even if a desultory negotiation might have to continue for appearance's sake. The Palestinians would have a sort of state, but it would in reality consist of a collection of weak, dependent communities that would be neither a problem for, nor a threat to, Israel.

An Israeli Barrier That Could Have Reduced Conflict Is Increasing It
By Ethan Bronner, New York Times 8/8/2003
QALQILYA, West Bank— If you want to understand the dispute over the barrier that Israel is constructing to keep out Palestinian terrorists — a twisting mix of barbed-wire fencing, electronic sensors, guard towers and concrete walls — this economically depressed Palestinian town of 40,000 is worth a visit. Qalqilya sits next to the Israeli town of Kfar Sava. It was from here two years ago that a suicide bomber slipped into Israel and massacred 21 youngsters outside a seaside Tel Aviv discothèque. Hundreds more Israelis have been killed since then, and many of the murderers came from this part of the West Bank.Throughout history, walls have been built to keep out enemy armies, with some success. The Israelis have a more modest, yet equally urgent, goal — to stop fanatical, homicidal groups and individuals — and Israeli military officers say they are already finding the barrier useful. They say the constructed part of the fence is keeping terrorists out and point out that no suicide bomber has entered Israel from the Gaza Strip in recent years because Gaza's entire border is fenced off. Why not do the same along the West Bank? Since the only hope for the Middle East conflict is to divide this land into two states, creating a physical barrier that cleanly divides the two mistrustful peoples may seem like a reasonable idea for now.The problem is that is not what is happening. The fence is not being built on the likely border between two future states but is snaking into the West Bank in ways that make daily life, already burdensome, even harder for Palestinians. Qalqilya is not only blocked off from Israel to its west. It is entirely surrounded by the barrier so it will be isolated it from West Bank Jewish settlements to its east. The result for Qalqilya is that it has become — there is no other word for it — a ghetto, a term with chilling resonance for Jews whose forbears were restricted to such areas across Europe not many generations ago.

Central Issues Getting Lost in Peripherals
By Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid, Arab News 8/9/2003
The Palestinian negotiators are busy not with the momentous issues of land, refugees or the capital but with negotiating small obstacles that are capable of destroying everything. Everyone is trying to solve the issue of 20 people who sought refuge in President Arafat’s headquarters in Ramallah after an agreement with Israel that the Palestinian Authority would either imprison them in its own prison or in Jericho in return for their not being killed by Israeli forces.Imprisonment in Jericho or living with Arafat in his office in Ramallah, — the Palestinian issue is being squandered on solving relatively small problems. Dealing with the 20 people holds up the vastly more pressing concerns of five million Palestinians.Israel enjoys stirring up Palestinian dissent because it knows that the Palestinians have the attention of the White House, which wants to solve the greater issue peacefully — partly in order to manage the reverberations of both the Bin Laden and Saddam battles. Israel thinks the answer is to try and replace Washington’s enthusiasm with exasperation by riddling the road map with what it hopes will look like petty Palestinian complaints: The security wall, the checkpoints and the prisoners. With very little effort, they can take the Bush administration to the point of giving up — because the current Palestinian structure is a prime example of time wasting. No matter how hard Mahmoud Abbas tries to seem tenacious, the signs of despair resulting from the constant mutiny he faces from the Arafat camp and, more specifically, from those who have lost their authority, are difficult to conceal. A lot of time and energy have been squandered, and national unity has gone down the drain, and with them has gone the hope of a stronger negotiating position than the one that exists today. This is especially upsetting since, with the fall of Saddam’s regime, the Israeli position has weakened because it can no longer claim that a threat from that quarter forces it into belligerence. The current Palestinian model is regretfully incapable of neutralizing these internal disagreements and enabling all sides to coexist. Negotiations with Israel require exceptional collaboration from the opposition, whether inside the Palestinian Authority, where the struggle for power is ongoing, or from the outside — the various armed and unarmed Palestinian groups.

Walking into Israel’s trap
By Michael Young, Daily Star 8/9/2003
In retrospect, the fighting between Hizbullah and Israeli forces in the Shebaa Farms Friday was a fairly predictable outcome of the assassination last Saturday of Hizbullah member Ali Hassan Saleh, which was almost certainly an Israeli operation. However, why did the government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon risk reviving an overt and covert war with Hizbullah that Israel has rarely showed signs of winning? When entering the dark corners of the Hizbullah-Israeli relationship, one can only speculate. Still, the political context in the region and in Washington allows for fairly educated guesses. When Israel kills a Hizbullah member, it provokes pleasure or, at best, indifference in the US. In contrast, when Hizbullah retaliates in kind, the Bush administration feigns outrage. That line of reasoning surely guided Israel in Saleh’s killing. With Hizbullah chafing because of its previously enforced quietude in the Shebaa Farms, the Israelis calculated the party would retaliate and, so, provoke renewed US hostility. Hizbullah did retaliate ­ it had to in order to preserve its deterrent capabilities vis-a-vis Israel ­ and now appears to have walked into an Israeli trap. The killing of Saleh most probably had two other aims. First, it had to be seen in light of Hizbullah secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah’s effort 10 days ago to revive negotiations on an exchange of Israeli and Lebanese prisoners, or their remains. By bombing Saleh’s car, Israel warned Nasrallah to avoid kidnapping more Israelis as bargaining chips, as he had threatened to do if a prisoner exchange wasn’t concluded.

Washington is being toothless on Israel
By Ali Abunimah, Electronic Intifada 8/9/2003
US President George W. Bush's administration is considering economic measures to prevent Israel from building its separation wall in the occupied West Bank. The proposed punishment is to subtract from US loan guarantees for Israel $1 for every dollar Israel spends on building the barrier inside the West Bank. AIPAC, the main pro-Israel lobbying organization in Washington, estimates the cost of the barrier at $1 million per kilometer, and much of the 640-kilometer barrier has been or will be built inside the occupied areas.Such a move would reflect concerns expressed by Bush and US Secretary of State Colin Powell that the wall makes achieving a two-state solution more difficult. However, the administration appears to be split. Bush embodied this ambivalence recently at the White House by criticizing the wall when standing next to Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas one day, and saying nothing the next when Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon openly defied him, insisting the wall would be built.Powell, meanwhile, has been the subject of press speculation that he and his deputy, Richard Armitage, would not serve in a second Bush administration. Powell dismissed the reports as "nonsense" and "rumor," but on 6 August, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd saw in the story an attempt by Powell's neoconservative rivals to dislodge him in favor of one of their own. Dowd observed: "Just as the neocons made their move on Powell, pro-Israel hawks scorned the secretary for not being on their team in the peace process. Israel's supporters scoffed at the new threat to cut loan guarantees as a State Department policy, not a White House policy."Such infighting does nothing to convince Israel or anyone else that Washington is serious and determined to pursue the "road map."

Israel and the Gates of Mah'sa
By Eric Monse, Media Monitors Network 8/9/2003
Mah'sa Peace Camp (West Bank) - The Israeli settlements in the West Bank aren't so bad. Or so it would seem, judging by the brightly-colored settlement advertising signs on the Israeli roadside depicting cartoon suburban houses on bright-green hilltops.At the Mah'sa peace camp, Nazeh Shalabi sits under a tent and speaks to us about the settlements. With every word that comes out of his mouth, a fence is being built.The Mah'sa peace camp was erected by the villagers of Mah'sa. The peace camp is erected on their farmland and is a last attempt to keep their land from being confiscated. Palestinian, Israeli, and International Peace activists keep a round-the-clock presence here in solidarity with the villagers.The peace camp lies to the West of a massive fence Israel is building on Palestinian land. If you look to the horizon, you'll see a 60-meter-wide gravel-laden construction that slices through the land, winding like a river, leaving the olive tree covered hilltops of the farmers' fields to the West and the agriculture-based Palestinian village of Mah'sa to the East.Of the 1,500 acres of farmland owned by the villagers, 1,375 will be to the West of the wall. Nazeh Shalabi, a Palestinian olive tree farmer from Mah'sa, has 32 acres and 30 will be locked behind the fence.

Israel does not want peace
By Ahmad Y. Majdoubeh, Jordan Times 8/8/2003
The problem in the Middle East — at the level of the Arab-Israeli conflict, that is, especially between Israel and the Palestinians — goes beyond the matters of so-called security walls, securing arrangements, illegal Israeli settlements (all settlements, that is), an inch here, a kilometre there. The problem, it has become obvious now, lies in the fact that Israel does not want peace. Of course, there are Israelis — ordinary citizens, peace activists, intellectuals, writers, politicians, etc. — who are truly desirous of peace. Some of them, in fact, are willing to die for it. We cannot, and ought not, deny this fact. But we cannot, and ought not, deny the fact that the collective will of Israel, Israel in its totality — represented at this point in time by the words and acts of the present Israeli government, a government freely and democratically elected by the Israeli people — is not only not pro-peace, but is in fact against peace. It shows, and very clearly and tangibly so, when one wants peace, and when one does not. If one wants peace, one does not do all one can (as the Israeli government does at present) to ignore all peace agreements, reoccupy land from which one withdrew not long ago, build new illegal settlements over and above the illegal settlements that have been built for years, make the daily lives of one's partners as difficult as one can, inflict suffering of all kinds on them, confiscate their land by all means possible, and destroy the little confidence that was built between one and one's peace partners during the few moments when peace sounded possible. All the acts of the present Israeli government, which speak louder than words, indicate that it does not want peace. And this is a problem — the problem, I would say.

A Palestinian discourse
By Mazin Qumsiyeh, Jordan Times 8/8/2003
The past week in the saga of the Palestinian struggle for freedom was little discussed in the news. The unilateral ceasefire by Palestinians continues but the 3 month clock is ticking. But, in the meanwhile, nonviolent direct action initiated by Palestinians with international support was met with Israeli violent attacks on Monday and Friday. On Monday six peace activists were injured (two Palestinians, two Americans, one Scottish, one British, and one Israeli). On Friday, three Palestinians and eight Internationals were wounded when Israeli forces opened fire on them with rubber coated steel bullets. Scores of Palestinians were arrested in various parts of the West Bank as Israel intensified its occupation. Hundreds of Palestinian political prisoners went on a hunger strike and in one prison, prisoners rebelled and were put down brutally, injuring several. The first phase of the so-called roadmap calls for an Israeli settlement freeze. Yet, only yesterday Israel announced new housing units to be built in settlements in Gaza and an Israeli Zionist group calling itself Peace Now reported that the more settlement `outposts' were built than dismantled in front of the foreign cameras. Building continued in colonial settlements and bypass roads throughout the occupied areas. Currently 400,000 settlers live in the areas illegally occupied in 1967. The Israeli government also just approved $170 million for expansion of the apartheid wall that surrounds Palestinian towns and cities and separates people from their farms and lands and from the Jewish colonies built on confiscated Palestinian lands. At 650 kilometres, it is nearly five times longer and has much more concrete and height than the Berlin Wall.

What It Feels Like to Be Palestinian
By Leila Saad, Miftah 8/9/2003
This week I learned what it feels like to be a Palestinian. We set out on a research trip to Nablus and found that nearly every step of the way was punctuated by the deliberate harassment that Palestinians live with every day. At first, our trip was almost thwarted when a bad-tempered Israeli soldier decided to deny me and a friend access to the city at the Huwwara checkpoint. Aptly dubbed by Palestinians as the “Humiliation Place,” the Huwwara checkpoint at the edge of Nablus is known for its aggressive soldiers with nasty manners and tempers to match. It was not a surprise, then, that it was here that a traveler carrying an American passport like myself would get a true taste of how Israeli soldiers of the occupation treat Palestinian civilians. When we reached Huwwara, the soldier in charge, hardly more than a teenager, arbitrarily decided he would not let us through the checkpoint. He gave no plausible reason. Perhaps he was simply “in a mood.” Perhaps it is a deliberate form of psychological warfare. Palestinians suffer regularly from the unanticipated disposition swings of Israeli soldiers who patrol their streets and block their roads. And this week, I did too. After a lengthy verbal exchange with the soldier, we retreated reluctantly. An hour later, we returned with our own kind of improvised armor. Ironically, the only way we could get by the checkpoint and its foul-tempered guardians was as passengers in an Israeli taxi, in which we passed without a second glance from the soldiers. The stark difference in treatment reminded us once again that, even though we could step briefly into Palestinian shoes, we would never know what it is like to inhabit them permanently. We were American citizens again – albeit Americans slipping through the mountains to a city to which we had just been denied entry by an M-16-bearing military officer – and as such were privileged with much broader rights.

The Crackdown
By Robert Younes, Al-Ahram Weekly on-line 7 - 13 August 2003
John Ashcroft has deported more Arabs and Muslims in 2002 than all the foreigners deported in the infamous Palmer raids of 1919. -- The United States is moving to deport 13,000 Arabs and Muslims to the Middle East. These are men and woman who came to the US to seek a better life and were subsequently caught up in the wave of hysteria about Middle Easterners after the tragedy of 11 September 2001. Almost all of the people involved have either overstayed their visas, entered the US illegally, or have an infraction of US immigration laws. Armed with new legislation, it appears that the Bush administration is applying the laws without exception and without exercising any discretion when reviewing individual cases. One case in point is that of Malek Zaidan, a Syrian national who was arrested by chance and jailed when it was discovered that he had overstayed his six-month tourist visa by 14 years. Zaidan was a successful canary breeder living peacefully in New Jersey. Although a thorough investigation of his background revealed no involvement in illegal or terrorist activities, he faces deportation from the US based on his visa violation. Arabs and Muslims constitute a very small proportion of the estimated 3.2 to 3.6 million persons in the US who are "out of status", and the eight million who are undocumented, yet Arabs and Muslims are the prime target of this initiative. The majority of the more than 300,000 foreign nationals sought by the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS) -- a division of the newly formed Department of Home Land Security and formerly the Immigration and Naturalisation Services -- for ignoring deportation orders are Hispanic. Nonetheless, the Justice Department is choosing to target those who fit the "terrorist profile" first -- young men of Middle Eastern background. The number of persons who will actually be "removed" from the US as a result of this programme is uncertain, but US Attorney-General John Ashcroft has already removed more Arabs and Muslims, who were neither terrorists nor criminals, from the US in the past year than the total number of foreign nationals deported in the infamous Palmer raids of 1919.

Democracy, Rights and Islam: Theory, Epistemology and the Quest for Synthesis
By Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, Sala@m.co.uk 8/8/2003
Text of a paper presented at international conference on “Shari’ah Penal and Family Law in Nigeria and in the Muslim World: A Rights Based Approach” organized by the International Human Rights Law Group and held at Rockview Hotel, Abuja, Nigeria, August 5-7, 2003. -- I. Introduction: Prime Minister Tony Blair’s address before the joint session of the United States Houses of Congress on Thursday, July 17, 2003[1] will go down in history as a classic statement (or perhaps mis-statement) of the issues relating to Democracy, Rights and Islam. It is not that one would find much to question in the graphic portrayal of Muslim nations as a “dark shadow” in a corner of the world, where citizens are denied basic freedoms. One look at the monarchies in the Arabian Gulf and the authoritarian regimes in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Tunisia and Algeria, to give a few examples, is sufficient to convince any one of the correctness of such an averment. Even Iran, which is a relatively more democratic country than these, is firmly controlled by a religious establishment that clamps down on dissent. Blair’s speech was striking in its relative silence over other equally relevant abuses of Rights and Liberty: What is happening to the “Human Rights” of the Palestinian people, and why is Israel not part of this “dark shadow” for “distorting the teachings of the great and peaceful Jewish religion”? And the Rights of those “Muslim Fundamentalists” and “terrorists” who are constantly imprisoned and tortured and killed by “moderate” Arab states? And the people bombed out of existence in Afghanistan, and the mass graves? How about Russia and the crisis in Chechnya? And finally, Guantanamo Bay, that classic example of western double-standards. I raise these questions as the introduction to a philosophical critique of the attempt to present Islam or Shari’ah as the reason for the illiberality of the political systems of the Muslim world. In this paper I will expound two theses, the understanding of which is critical to any attempt at finding the much needed synthesis between Muslim thought and praxis, on the one hand, and the thought and praxis of modernity, including the principles of liberty, on the other.