A diplomatic offensive is needed
By Hassan A. Barari, Jordan Times 8/12/2003
ONE OF the most effective ways to bring about a constructive change in Israel's foreign policy vis-a-vis the peace process is via a systematic and meticulous campaign directed at Israeli public opinion. Assuring the wary Israeli public remains an important prerequisite for peace in the Middle East. This has been an article of faith that has never wavered despite the fact that we are living in a conflict-riddled region. Fortunately, Jordanian officials have eventually begun to pay attention to this rather ignored factor in the making of Israeli foreign policy. In what amounts to a political offensive, His Majesty King Abdullah made a vigilant and prudent move by granting an interview to the Israeli daily Haaretz. In tandem with this move, Minister of Foreign Affairs Marwan Muasher also gave an interview to Haaretz last week. After a long time of paying no heed to addressing the Israeli public through the Hebrew media, these steps represent a sea change in Jordanian thinking. It would also be an excellent idea if Jordanian officials give interviews to Israeli TV and, given their mass circulation, to other dailies such as Yediot Ahronot and Maariv. Now if this is allowed to become the norm, Jordan will certainly be in a position to offer the Israeli public a rather different narrative and perspective from the one currently offered by the incumbent right wing government. Given Jordan's well-known moderate approach, the Kingdom is undoubtedly well placed to help catapult the Israeli pragmatic camp into prominence again. Of all the objectives of such interviews, explaining to the Israeli public Jordan's standpoint regarding the peace process should be the paramount goal. Many Israelis are still baffled about Jordan's position towards many of the burning issues in the peace process. This has caused such puzzlement among the Israelis that, if not dealt with by Jordanians, will be manipulated by anti-peace forces in Israel. One of these issues, for instance, is whether or not Jordan has an interest in the establishment of an independent Palestinian state and, if yes, what borders this state should have.
Peace in exchange for the Greek island
By Hannah Kim, Ha'aretz 8/12/2003
In 1993, a few weeks before he turned 70, when he was supposed to retire, then-attorney general Yosef Harish finished preparing the indictment of Aryeh Deri, and readied himself to appear at the Knesset House Committee session to discuss lifting the Shas MK's parliamentary immunity. He did not know that behind his back there was a plan in the works to replace him with a new attorney general. If the justice minister at the time, David Libai, ever writes his memoirs, that chapter will be one of the most fascinating. Libai was asked to inform the cabinet meeting about the appointment of a new attorney general. Why not wait two months, until Harish retires, he wondered. "For the sake of peace," he was told by two senior party members from Labor and Meretz who went to his home to answer his question. ....This week that same combination of words - "for the sake of peace" - was recycling itself, this time under the headline "Peace for Sharon," and "Peace for the Greek island." The spin coming out of the Prime Minster's Office is reminiscent of those days, with one major difference: This time the main suspect is the prime minister, on the apparent suspicions of allegedly taking bribes. "Worried about peace" is one of the answers offered to the question why not start another movement like the "we're sick and tired of the corruption" movement of the 1990s. The three scandals involving the Sharon family and the silence of the two sons, Omri and Gilad, in their interrogations, with the father pointing the finger of blame at them, are a precedent in the history of the state.
Hezbollah May Not Risk Major Confrontation With Israel
By Lin Noueihed, Arab News 8/12/2003
BEIRUT, 12 August 2003 — The killing of an Israeli teenager by Hezbollah anti-aircraft fire may not open up a new front on the Lebanese-Israeli border, but whether tensions sizzle or fade depends on the group’s next move.Israeli warplanes and troops blasted the outskirts of villages in South Lebanon on Sunday after anti-aircraft fire from the Shiite group killed a 16-year-old Israeli.The death was the first fatality from cross-border Hezbollah fire in Israel since the Jewish state withdrew its troops from south Lebanon in 2000 under pressure from guerrilla attacks. Hezbollah in the past has frequently fired on Israeli planes flying over Lebanese airspace. Israel has said it will continue such flights, calling them reconnaissance missions. “I don’t foresee a serious escalation. It depends on how Hezbollah will respond to the Israeli actions and whether they will escalate a new round,” said Magnus Ranstorp, a terrorism lecturer at St Andrews University in Scotland.“It depends on whether there will be more mysterious assassinations. That might make them more active,” he added.The border flareup followed the killing of a Hezbollah official in a bomb blast in Beirut on Aug. 2. Hezbollah blamed the attack on Israel and said it would not go unpunished.Six days later the group attacked Israeli positions in the disputed Shebaa Farms border area.
Hizbullah should hedge its bets
By Reinoud Leenders, Daily Star 8/12/2003
Few political actors in the Middle East have seen their environment as thoroughly affected by recent events in the region as Hizbullah. One after another, the party’s local and regional cards appear to have been lost: Israel’s May 2000 withdrawal from southern Lebanon deprived Hizbullah of its principal raison d’etre; America’s swift military success in Iraq reduced the immediate prospect of it being drawn into a costly confrontation; and international efforts to restore calm between Israelis and Palestinians, combined with intense pressure on radical Palestinian Islamist groups, have diminished Hizbullah’s ability to invoke the Palestinian struggle as a justification for armed action. Today, more than ever since its establishment in the mid-1980s, the organization’s fate hangs in the balance. There is little doubt that US pressure helped push Hizbullah into its relative passivity of late at least until the attack a few days ago following the assassination of a party militant. However, to be effective, a policy that targets countries and organizations that sponsor or engage in armed attacks ought to also offer a prospect of gain if they cease doing so. The US should be much clearer in presenting these potential gains. At the least, it should present to Syria a concept of a fair and lasting Israeli-Syrian peace, even if its implementation isn’t immediate and will require prior Syrian steps to boost Israeli confidence particularly with respect to Damascus’ support for radical groups. Iran, too, is entitled to hear the US recognizing its security concerns in Iraq and mentioning the trade-offs Washington is prepared to undertake to guarantee them.
Iran-Contra, amplified
By Jim Lobe, Asia Times 8/12/2003
WASHINGTON - A specter of the Iran-Contra affair is haunting Washington. Even some of the people and countries are the same. And the methods - particularly the pursuit by a network of well-placed individuals of a covert, parallel foreign policy that is at odds with official policy - are definitely the same. Boiled down to its essentials, the Iran-Contra affair was about a small group of officials based in the National Security Agency (NSC) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that ran an "off-the-books" operation to secretly sell arms to Iran in exchange for hostages held in Tehran after the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran. They used the proceeds over the following years to sustain the Nicaraguan Contras - US-sponsored rebels fighting Managua's left-wing government - in defiance of both a congressional ban and of official US policy as enunciated by the State Department and then president Ronald Reagan. It was never clear whether Reagan understood, let alone approved, the operation. The picture emerging from the latest reports about the manipulation of intelligence in the drive to war with Iraq, as well as efforts by administration hawks to deliberately aggravate tensions with Syria, Iran, and North Korea in defiance of official State Department and US policy, suggest a similar but much more ambitious scheme at work.
For Palestinians in Jerusalem, it is bitter Sixteen
By Daoud Kuttab, Media Monitors Network 8/12/2003
For most teenagers, the world over, the age of sixteen is supposed to be a happy one. This is supposed to be a year of care free fun and enjoyment as they celebrate their sweet pre- adult sixteenths birthday.Reaching 16, for Palestinians, especially those living in East Jerusalem, however, is not much fun. This is the age that they are supposed to start carrying the dreaded identification card and in turn the soldiers (not much older than them) can take pot shots at them without much concern or worry. Any young Palestinian that looks anywhere close to 16 better have an ID or a birth certificate showing that he/she are under this bitter/sweet age.My daughter Tamara who spent her 16th birthday as a senior in an Ohio High School, as an exchange student, came home for the summer to obtain her ID. Her cousin, Manuel Abu Ali, who just turned sixteen has been moving around Jerusalem with difficulties, using his mother's ID (which has his # listed) along with his school picture ID. For Jerusalem Palestinians getting a personal ID, which ought to be a simple affair, has become the new via de la Rosa. Unlike Israelis who get a 5 or ten year passport, Palestinians in Jerusalem can travel only on a laisser passier which can be issued for only year, thus adding to an already exasperated problem where 250,000 Palestinians are served by a single office of the Ministry of Interior and are denied the right to use any other office in order to get whatever official document they need.
Likud's Leftwing Mouthpiece
By E. Taylor, Palestine Chronicle 8/8/2003
If the New York Times becomes a mouthpiece for Likudnik policies, American understanding can plummet only further -- It's depressing what the New York Times accepts for its op-eds these days. Last week, in the place of analysis or argument, William Safire, one of the paper's preeminent columnists, reproduced a string of quotes from a conversation he shared, enjoyed even, with Ariel Sharon during the Israeli PM's recent trip to Washington. Under the preemptive headline "Do Fence Me In", Safire confirmed moderate America's growing acceptance of the apartheid wall - it's not only a very good idea for Israel's security, he chimed, but really no more than the Palestinians deserve. In such an influential paper, it was another nail in the coffin of reasoned public discourse on Israel's latest colonial device. Much of the piece was simply a regurgitation of "veteran leader" Sharon's wisdom, shorn of comment, scrutiny or even context. It trumpeted Israel's mythical status as the lone Middle-Eastern democracy (and on the day the Knesset passed a law banning Arabs citizenship even if they marry an Israeli), Iran's imminent nuclear threat to Tel Aviv, the reemergence of Libya as an aggressive regime - so look out for the latest target in "America's" War on Terror - and the refusal of Israel to return to its 1967 borders. So far, so predictable. Then Safire recycled the Likud's tiresome complaints about Arafat's continued use of terror as a negotiating tool - unlike, say, house demolitions, the shelling of schools or the assassination of journalists and aid workers? - and that illegal immigration from the West Bank is the principal threat to Israel's citizens. Achieving peace, he claimed, is therefore a mere 170 mile snake of concrete, electrified wire and ditches away. After all, post-1961 Berlin had never been more harmonious.
Why Middle East Violence is Likely to Erupt Soon
By Ramzy Baroud, Palestine Chronicle 8/9/2003
How long can the ceasefire hold if Israel doesn’t satisfy even a fragment of Palestinian aspirations? How long can Abbas stand his ground with very little to show for? And will the U.S. continue to pressure Palestinians and hesitate to lock horns with Israel?" -- Despite the positive spin that optimistic politicians put on the current developments in the Arab-Israeli conflict, a crashing storm looms over the shores of the Mediterranean. Such a prediction can easily be read over the events surrounding the Middle East peace process in the last month alone. Palestinian factions just concluded a meeting with Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas in Gaza. The meeting, held on August 6th, although described as “positive” by various Palestinian media, was crammed with grievances held by Hamas, the Islamic Jihad and others. These groups agreed to a three-month Hudna, or ceasefire, starting June 29, as requested by Abbas, on the condition that Israel would too cease any violent activities in the Occupied Territories. The Hudna is not over yet, but a list of reported Israeli violations of the ceasefire, presented to Prime Minister Abbas was too long to ignore, including assassinations, land confiscation, arrests and incitement. The Israeli government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon didn’t march behind the U.S. initiative without receiving the administration’s assurances that a list of 14 conditions presented to Secretary of State Collin Powell would be honored. Powell pacified the Israeli concerns when he promised to study them “seriously.” But Israel says that the ceasefire agreement, struck between Palestinian factions and the new Palestinian Prime Minister is by no means obligatory to Sharon’s government. In fact, Israel is pushing Abbas and his men to go after these groups, which are collectively far more popular than the Palestinian Authority (PA) and its discredited political apparatus.
Myth and Denial in the War on Terrorism
By William Blum, CounterPunch 8/12/2003
It dies hard. It dies very hard. The notion that terrorist acts against the United States can be explained by envy and irrational hatred, and not by what the United States does in and to the world -- i.e., US foreign policy -- is alive and well. The fires were still burning intensely at Ground Zero when Colin Powell declared: "Once again, we see terrorism, we see terrorists, people who don't believe in democracy ..." [1]George W. picked up on that theme and ran with it. He's been its leading proponent ever since September 11 with his repeated insistence, in one wording or another, that "those people hate America, they hate all that it stands for, they hate our democracy, our freedom, our wealth, our secular government." (Ironically, the president and John Ashcroft probably hate our secular government as much as anyone.)One of Bush's many subsequent versions of this incantation, delivered more than a year after 9-11, was: "The threats we face are global terrorist attacks. That's the threat. And the more you love freedom, the more likely it is you'll be attacked."[2] In September 2002, the White House released the "National Security Strategy", purported to be chiefly the handiwork of Condoleezza Rice, which speaks of the "rogue states" which "sponsor terrorism around the globe; and reject basic human values and hate the United States and everything for which it stands.
|
