The Barrier to Peace
By Baha Abushaqra, Palestine Chronicle 8/22/2003
It is being referred to as apartheid wall, transfer wall, separation wall and security fence. It is the physical barricade Israel began constructing in earnest in June 2002 to separate Jews and Palestinians in the West Bank, creating new "realities" on the ground --very disconcerting ones. This barricade, which we shall call barrier, comprised of concrete wall, electric fences, razor wire, trenches and security patrols and expected to cost $2 billion (roughly $2 million per km) [1], is being widely criticized by the worldwide media, world leaders, government spokespersons, human rights organizations, Jewish peace activists and even US President George Bush. There must be a good reason. Israel’s justification is "security." The idea is, by barricading the West Bank, like Gaza, Israel would be safer. Never mind that Gaza’s "security fence" seems incapable of stopping even Hamas’ homemade Qassam missiles. Israel’s "security fence" and other "security measures," such as "preemptive" assassinations, arbitrary detentions, settlement expansion policies, disproportionate allocation of natural resources, etc. has turned Gaza, a city much revered in Jewish tradition, into a forbidden land for Jews, lest they be targeted for vengeance.The Gaza model: Widely ignored by mainstream media is the tragedy the barricading of Gaza is inflicting on the "contained" Palestinians. According to various UNSCO [2] reports issued in 2002, one of the impacts of Israel’s "security" measures in Gaza is 50% unemployment. In general, throughout the occupied territories, Palestinian income losses stand at $7.6 million per day. UNSCO notes that "loss of income as a result of closures and restrictions far exceeds anything that the international aid community can provide." Consequently, the poverty level in Gaza is now at 70% (and 55% in the West Bank), based on two dollars or less consumption per day. This leaves approximately 42% of Gazans entirely dependent on food aid. One report concludes that "13% of children in Gaza exhibit moderate to severe acute malnutrition and 18% exhibit chronic malnourishment" putting them "on par with children in countries such as Nigeria and Chad," according to Care International’s Nutritional Assessment.
Facing Down the Wall
By Shareef Omar, AlterNet 8/22/2003
JAYYOUS, West Bank – When Prime Minister Ariel Sharon describes the wall Israel is building, he makes it sound harmless. But President Bush deftly cut through that façade when he noted that "the fence ... kind of meanders around the West Bank, which makes it awfully hard to develop a contiguous state." So did Secretary of State Colin Powell when he recently told the Israeli newspaper Maariv that he fears "the fence is developing in a way that will make it very difficult to reach the next stage of the road map." In Jayyous, the Palestinian village on the West Bank that is my home, we began living with this problem last September, when a shepherd found a paper hanging from an olive tree. It was a military order instructing us to meet an Israeli army officer to tour the "separation" wall's path. Hundreds of area Palestinians turned out. Most farmers expected that the wall would be near the Green Line, Israel's pre-1967 border with the West Bank. But we learned that the wall would be built almost four miles east of the Green Line, as close as 90 feet from Jayyous' homes, separating our residential area from our farmland. People burst into tears. Some fainted. With the wall, Israel is taking 75 percent of Jayyous' most fertile land, including all our irrigated farmland, seven wells and 12,000 olive trees. Jayyous' 3,000 residents depend almost entirely on agricultural income. So this means a loss of our livelihoods, dreams, hopes, future and heritage.
No Time for Emotionalism
Editorial, Arab News 8/23/2003
The decision by Hamas and Islamic Jihad to end their two-month-old truce following the killing of top Hamas official Ismail Abu Shanab in Gaza by the Israelis is understandable as an emotional response. But it is a bad response. The only way to a just peace in the Middle East is through negotiations and dialogue. Violence and armed struggle will produce nothing other than more violence and more deaths — both of Palestinians and Israelis. In fact, both Hamas and Islamic Jihad have been disingenuous as regards the cease-fire, which neither had wanted but had accepted as a result of massive Pan-Arab pressure on them to go along with the road map to a Middle East settlement. Within minutes of Thursday’s Gaza attack, both rushed to declare it over. But both had already claimed responsibility for Tuesday’s bomb attack in Jerusalem which killed 20 people and which prompted the Israeli attack. They cannot claim responsibility and at the same time say they are maintaining a cease-fire. The fact that both Hamas and Islamic Jihad did so suggests that a rogue group was responsible. In other words, neither organization — rather like President Yasser Arafat and hard-pressed Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas — is in control of its grass roots, or of events in general, if it ever was. By instantly declaring the truce over, both are responding to the public mood, a mood that is almost entirely emotional and random, instead of leading from the front, with a strategic objective in mind. Oppressed, occupied, seeing friends and relatives killed by a ruthless and infinitely more powerful Israeli military machine, the Palestinians prefer the message of destructive defiance preached by Hamas and Islamic Jihad, even though in terms of achieving results it is as impotent as the all-too-similar message peddled to the Israeli public by Ariel Sharon.....
Israel meets South Asia: A visit of import
By Stephen Blank , Asia Times 8/23/2003
On September 9, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon will begin a three day visit to India. This state visit has three immediate goals for Israel and India. First of all, it is expected that the formal agreement by Israel to sell India the Phalcon AWACS system will be signed. Second, it is also expected that there will be discussions, if not announcements, of other major Israeli arms sales to India. Third, the improvement of these two governments' bilateral relationship will also solidify ties among them and Washington, with important implications for future developments in the Middle East and South Asia. Certainly there is the expectation of further major arms sales, such as India's interest in the joint US-Israeli Arrow missile defense system. Israel has already sold it the accompanying Green Pine Radar system, which is in use along the border with Pakistan. Israel is also India's second-largest supplier of weapons and Sharon's entourage will include top Israeli defense executives, undoubtedly with an eye to future major deals. These defense deals will add to a bilateral trade that already exceeds US$1.5 billion and will probably top $2 billion in 2004. These lucrative defense and trade relations attest to similar threat perceptions, a high degree of respect for each other's technological capabilities and a shared desire to improve relations with each other as well as with Washington. Israel also hopes to solicit partners for its growing space and military satellite program, and India would also be a logical candidate for doing so.
Fundamentalists Being Disowned by Muslims
By Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid, Arab News 8/23/2003
For years we have tried to insist that there is a difference between normal Muslims and those who believe themselves to be more Muslim than the Muslims and are consequently at war with the whole world. We called them fundamentalists because they declared that the modern world in its entirety was evil and wanted it purified while returning to the fundamentals of the religion by any means, including force.This semantic distinction between peaceful Muslims and the fundamentalists was challenged in a war of words by people who rejected all categorization and attacked anyone who used such labels. “Brethren: fear God when you discredit these blessed mujahedeen by calling them fundamentalists.” This was the kind of objection to the label that could be heard in mosques and universities. In reality, of course “fundamentalist” is not a term of abuse. It is in fact a polite term for a group in the early days of Islam who were later called the Khawarij or heretics because they turned their backs on the Ummah. There were in any case many who defended fundamentalism and fundamentalists, and they did so with such enthusiasm that they managed to silence a great number of moderate Muslim thinkers who thought it might be safer to keep their opinions to themselves. The fundamentalists openly declared that they were behind most acts of violence in the last two decades. Whether they were in charge in the Sudan or in opposition in Algeria and Egypt, the atrocities these fundamentalists committed were a cause of great dismay for Muslims all over the world. They spent a great deal of money to lure young people from the Gulf into the terrorist networks and ideology. And they took over the Islamic resistance in Afghanistan.
The Shi'ite-Sunni divide
By Sultan Shahin , Asia Times 8/23/2003
Part 1 of a 2-part article: NEW DELHI -The majority Shi'ite backlash against the traditional dominance of the Sunni minority in Iraq that the United States hoped would bail it out of the Iraqi quagmire has not materialized. Instead, two of the main Shi'ite and Sunni leaders, known to have mass support in the post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, Muqtada al-Sadr and Ahmed Kubeisi respectively, have come together to oppose the US occupation. Expectations of a Sunni-Shi'ite showdown in Iraq take on some credibility when one looks at the situation in Pakistan, where the two groups have been involved in sectarian violence for many years, although in this case the Shi'ites constitute the minority. Only last month, the Muslim sectarian divide claimed scores of lives in several incidents in Pakistan. Afghanistan, too, has a history of sectarian troubles, with the Taliban in particular coming down hard on Shi'ites. On the other hand, in India, Muslims, the second largest Islamic community in the world after Indonesia, seldom quarrel on sectarian lines. Similarly, in other countries with Muslim communities, there is little evidence of Shi'ite-Sunni violence. Indeed, in recent years there has been significant cooperation between the two groups in Lebanon.
Iran: The road not taken
By Mohammad Ayatollahi Tabaar , Asia Times 8/20/2003
Fifty years ago on August 19, 1953, the Americans, with the help of the British, overthrew one of the few democratic governments in the Middle East. The Central Intelligence Agency carried out a coup against premier Mohammad Mossadegh of Iran and brought the Shah, who was in exile at the time, back to power. The success of this subversion emboldened the US for the coming decades to carry out similar actions in Guatemala, Chile, Cuba, Vietnam, and many other countries in the world (The Bay of Pigs fiasco in Cuba and the coup against Salvador Allende in Chile that led to the ascendance of Augusto Pinochet to power are just two examples). Although the whole operation in Iran cost the US less than US$1 million (including money given to mobs and looters to create chaos in the capital), the coup proved to be much more costly for Washington than anyone could have imagined at the time. Today, it is quite clear that that operation paved the way for the Islamic Revolution of 1979, which in turn inspired fundamentalist movements in the Muslim world for decades.
On the Right of Return - Part II
By Raja Halwani, Middle East Peace/Electronic Intifada 8/21/2003
In an earlier essay on the right of return of Palestinian refugees ("On the right of return" The Electronic Intifada, 23 June 2003), I concluded that it is one thing to recognize this right and another to implement it. I also stated that a number of arguments have been offered to deny the implementation of the right, that I believe that none of them succeeds, but that addressing this issue requires entering different territory. I will enter this new territory in this essay. Two preliminary points are in order. First there are arguments that not only deny the implementation of the right of return, but ones that do not recognize it. I will address both, focusing on the major ones that have been offered. Second, we should remind ourselves of what the right of return means. First, it is an individual right, possessed by every single Palestinian refugee, and not by the refugees as a group. Second, it means that each refugee has the option to return to where he or she came from. It does not mean that the refugee must return. Each refugee might instead settle for another form of compensation. To claim that the refugees must return or, worse, to force them to, is to misconstrue the nature of the right of return. Third, only the refugees themselves, acting individually, can give up their right. Moreover, to give up their right does not mean that they have opted for monetary compensation. It means that they have given up claiming the option to be allowed to return or given adequate compensation. The right entails the option. To give up the right is to give up the option, not one fork in the option.
Jenin and the Public Campaign for Peace and Democracy
By Issa Abdul-Hafieth, Jerusalem Times 8/21/2003
For the second time in two days, and for the second time since the initiative of the Public Campaign for Peace and Democracy, three newspapers published lists of signatories. The detail noticed immediately is the addition of "Democracy" to the name of the campaign, which suggests that perhaps the US program to enforce American democracy in the Arab world is taking its toll. Obviously the campaign is benefiting by the criticism published about it. The campaign has acquired a web site and telephone and fax numbers as well as verbal improvements. Words have been altered to satisfy the tastes of the people; for example, the word "threat" has been deleted. Also, the people are addressed as a group instead of singling out individuals, and honor was bestowed on Palestinian leadership when the campaign demanded lifting the siege off it after it had been neglected completely. And the solution of the issue of refugees has become either by returning to Palestinian territories or by settling refugees in a third country under international support and with Palestinian and Israeli support. Despite all the rhetoric, the campaign could not escape the original lines that define its function. The right of return is canceled and Israel is the only legitimate state for the Jews and exchange of land at a 1:1 ratio...etc. This is a quick preview of the proposal made by the campaign, and I'll leave it up to others to dive into it further so I can focus my attention on the list of signatories, which deserves contemplation.
Heads in the Sand
By Erik Wemple, Washington City Paper August 22 - 28, 2003
Last winter, as the Bush administration rushed the country toward an invasion of Iraq, the editorial departments of some leading U.S. publications sounded a lot like Vice President Dick Cheney. Here's the Washington Post: "Unless unexpected change takes place in Baghdad, the United States should lead a force to remove Saddam Hussein's dictatorship and locate and destroy its chemical and biological weapons and its nuclear program." The New Republic: "Saddam's megalomaniacal aspirations and repeated pattern of aggression make him an even less attractive candidate to join the nuclear club than Kim Jong Il." The Wall Street Journal: "As a madman pursuing nuclear weapons, Saddam doesn't need al Qaeda ties to be dangerous." The Washington Times: "[T]here can be no reasonable doubt that Saddam Hussein is a menace who must be disarmed—by force, if necessary. Those who remain opposed to the use of force...simply have chosen to ignore the evidence."
Action Figures For Imbeciles
By Mark Morford, Common Dreams/San Francisco Chronicle 8/22/2003
It's the G.W. Bush "Aviator" Doll, Just in Time to Degrade Every Notion of Heroism, Ever -- Country's in shambles and economy's gutted and schools are shot and Iraq's a violent bloody mess and joblessness is rampant and it's a proud time indeed to be an American, and hence you might be asking yourself, what, pray what, can I give the hardcore lockstep pseudo-Christian homophobic Republican on my gift list? What can you give the one who just loves bogus wars and BushCo's lies and thinks SUVs are way bitchin' and believes every bile-filled opinion crammed down their throats via Fox News and Hannity/Coulter/Limbaugh et al., hates them damnable gays and libs and environmentalists and has one hand over his heart while the other gropes the cat? If you shouted out "a pile of Schwarzenegger DVDs!" or "Lifetime NRA/KKK membership!" or "The Complete Catholic Church Total Absolution/Multimillion Dollar Settlement/Home Enema Kit!" you're only about half right. Because now we have a new doll, this neat little prefab landfill thing, the George W. Bush "Elite Force Aviator" action figure, to stand proudly alongside your "We Will Rock You" Animated Soldier and your civilian-maulin' "Forward Command Post" toy set from JCPenney! That's right! Collect the whole set!
The Nusseibeh Controversy (Part II)
Editorial, Jerusalem Times 8/21/2003
The Right of Return is a Deed -- The demand that concerns the return of the Palestinian refugees to their homeland , including creating organized mechanisms and rehabilitation programs that requires an initial and precise planned operational systems to locate the major needs that must be available for the refugees, like the accommodation and housing needs, besides also the medical, educational, and infrastructure needs. One of the major necessities in the system of rehabilitation process is to locate the exact geographic territory that the Palestinian refugees shall return to.A statistical report shows that more than 80% of the Palestinian people who are still living at a distance of 100 km from their original birth place “ Palestine” inside the so called “Green Line” which Israel created in 1948, are Refugees.In special cases, like Jerusalem, some of the Palestinian refugees are living few steps away from their original homes and lands that they were uprooted from in 1948 and 1967. The refugees are still not allowed to return or enter their houses and lands. Israel keeps on refusing to admit to the UN resolution , the right of return of the Palestinian refugees’ principle , to keep the Jewish purity of the State of Israel existing for generations to come, Israel has created continuous excuses to the World refusing the right of return of the Palestinian refugees and considers it as a major demographic and security risk . These excuses are considered untrue and do not have any connection to the logic and actual events concerning the right of return.
|
