Abu Mazen the Main Victim of the Israeli Attacks
By Conal Urquhart, Arab News/The Guardian 9/1/2003
GAZA CITY, 1 September 2003 — Gaza is living on its nerves. People scan the skies for Israeli jets and helicopters and rumors of an imminent Israeli invasion ebb and flow. On seeing an aircraft, drivers race off the main streets or ditch their cars in traffic jams — the car next to yours might be its target.
Israel’s open season on Hamas militants, following the Jerusalem suicide bomb which killed 21 people, has forced the Islamic group in Gaza underground for the first time since the Palestinian Authority’s 1996 crackdown on it. Over the past ten days, Israel has killed Ismail Abu Shenab, the most moderate Hamas leader, seven activists and two bystanders; Hamas has declared its cease-fire, kept since June, over; and Israeli officials have declared all Hamas members to be assassination targets.
Hamas has decided to lie low. Last week a seven-point survival leaflet was distributed, telling Hamas “brothers” that they are targets and should assume all telephone conversations are monitored, and that Israeli spies are all around. Vehicles should be used only in an emergency, and then only in alleyways and not main roads.
The death of Abu Shenab has radicalized Hamas, ironically suppressing the ideas for which he stood, and put Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas — known as Abu Mazen and recently regarded as the man to carry forward the US-backed road map — in a position described on Friday as “clinically dead”.
Throwing a bone to the Arab sector
By Uzi Benziman, Ha'aretz 8/31/2003
As we await tomorrow's release of conclusions reached by the Or Commission regarding the causes of violence in the Arab sector in October 2000 and the behavior of police and authorities, it's enlightening to consider decisions announced last week by the ministerial panel that deals with Israel's non-Jewish sector. This ministerial committee said its decisions represent a "comprehensive plan designed to improve the circumstances of Arab citizens of the country, and to advance their status and integration in society."
Of the program's six sections, five are entirely declarative or technical-bureaucratic: standards are to be set (what a revolutionary breakthrough!) for the conferral of appropriate representation to the Arab population in state service, and for the appointment of Arab citizens to managerial boards of government companies; a department is to be established (what an astonishing surprise!) in the Prime Minister's Office to handle requests forwarded by Arab citizens; a public advisory board, which will be subordinate to the National Security Council (really!), will address the needs of Israeli Arabs, and relations between them and the country's Jewish citizens; a number of government ministers (education, culture and sport; interior; industry and trade), as well as the National Security Council, will devise a detailed plan, one that includes a timetable and an apparatus for policy implementation (how impressive!), to handle major problems faced by the Arab sector; and local Arab councils will be fused (can you believe it!) to administrative boards which run various industrial zones located next to Arab villages and towns.
One section of this revolutionary plan has some potential to bring about actual results. This involves a multi-year plan to develop communities in the Arab sector, which was originally scheduled to end in 2004, but is to be extended through 2005-2006; during this final period, "projects which were supposed to be canceled because of budgetary cutbacks are to be carried out."
In other words, on the eve of the publication of the Or Commission's findings - conclusions likely to point to the fundamental causes of alienation and Jewish-Arab tension within the Green Line - the prime minister is making a mockery of work that needs to be done in the Arab sector.
Efforts to negate right of return have long, ignoble history
By Issam Nashashibi, Electronic Intifada 8/29/2003
On August 15, Palestinian Minister for Planning and International Cooperation, Nabil Shaath, told reporters in Beirut that "politically, the only solution is through the right to return," and that "there is place for all the Palestinians of Lebanon in Gaza, Tulkarm or Qalqilya, but their homes are elsewhere."
Shaath's statement may mollify his Lebanese and Palestinian audience by saying what they wanted to hear.
That brought out Israel's ire and an almost immediate reaction to it by Nabil Amr, Palestinian Information Minister that a 'pragmatic solution' in negotiations with Israel will have to be found. "The right of return issue will be solved only in agreement with Israel. We will not harm the Jewish character of the state of Israel and the solution will therefore be pragmatic," Amr said to Israeli Army radio.
What Amr may be referring to is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) solution for the Palestinian refugees which was developed by Donna Arzt in her 1996 CFR-published book "Refugees into Citizens: Palestinians and the End of the Arab-Israeli Conflict." In it, Ms. Arzt proposes that Palestinians be "absorbed" by the states in which they reside, except for a maximum of 75,000 refugees from Lebanon to return to Israel if they can prove that they resided there before 1948, still have close relatives living in Israel and agree to live there in peace: i.e. a few senior citizen who would not reproduce and die within twenty years.
The book claims that Israel would accept this "symbolic" return without having to admit responsibility for the refugee problem because it will be positioned as part of a "regional absorption" effort while giving the Arab states the political cover to assert that Israel has already complied with UN resolution 194.
Violence will end when occupation ends
By Hasan Abu Nimah, Electronic Intifada 8/29/2003
The two devastating bomb attacks in Baghdad and Jerusalem last week have further confirmed the fragile nature of measures taken so far to deal with the two complex issues of Palestine and Iraq. It was particularly shocking, and deeply agonising to realise that even the United Nations' Baghdad headquarters would not be spared the evil of those whose main interest, it seems, is only to spread death, destruction and total chaos. The United Nations, and the many noble people who fell victim in the senseless, horrendous attack had no reason to be there other than to help the Iraqis overcome the suffering of the war, and provide them with much needed assistance to rebuild their shattered country and battered society. By any standards, they, the lucky survivors, and the innocent souls whose lives were the price of their nobility, were the least deserving of such barbarity and inhumanity. But since when does logic apply to such acts of pure and indiscriminate evil? The attack on the UN came just two weeks after -- the Jordanian embassy in Baghdad was bombed in a similar fashion -- killing innocent Iraqis, injuring Jordanians and others.
The attack in Baghdad and gruesome bus bombing in Jerusalem, which killed 19 Israelis including six children, were strongly, widely, and rightly condemned, as was the case with every previous atrocity of this type. Equally and deservedly recognised were the heroic acts and the dedication of the UN personnel whose courage has always taken them into the most dangerous fields of conflict and war in order to alleviate the fear and the suffering of others. These people have often paid a very high price for their goodwill.
....Condemnation of the ongoing violence in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, and the ugly violence in Iraq has never been mild or wavering, but always issued in the strongest possible terms. Yet none of it has managed to reduce the level of violence. Neither did any of the denunciations by the world's greatest statesmen repeatedly describing the perpetrators of such evil as "enemies of peace," do anything to stop the flow of blood.
CAMERA's half-baked attack on Cook
By Nigel Parry, Electronic Intifada 8/30/2003
There has been considerable discussion over the years of the Zionist lobby's role in putting pressure on public figures, particularly American politicians, to ensure their support for Israel. What has been much less analysed is the insidious role of the lobby in intimidating journalists and media organisations in an attempt to silence dissident voices on the Middle East.
In the rare event of articles critical of Israel breaking into the mainstream US media, a flood of denunciations from letter writers and Zionist lobby groups usually follows. Editors insist that their coverage is not affected by such tactics. But the truth is that these well-financed groups believe it is worth investing huge amounts of time, energy, and money in organising these campaigns.
Here we look at one instance of the lobby in action. On 27 May 2003, a commentary piece by British journalist Jonathan Cook, entitled "A cage for Palestinians: A 1,000-kilometer fence preempts the road map", was published in the International Herald Tribune.
The article discussed the wall Israel is currently building around the West Bank. It was possibly the first time a mainstream American newspaper published a piece suggesting that the wall was being used by Israel to fatally undermine the Road Map -- a theme later taken up by several publications, including the New York Review of Books, which quoted Cook's article at length.
Yes, nonviolent methods work in Islam
By Mohammed Abu-Nimer, Daily Star 9/1/2003
The two primary questions that peace activists are asked in the Muslim world when introducing Islamic nonviolence resistance, are: Do nonviolence methods work in an Islamic context? And, Is Islam theologically compatible with the practice and philosophy of nonviolence?
To understand the compatibility of Islamic values and beliefs with nonviolence we have to first dispel the myth that nonviolence is a form of surrender in which the oppressed or victim waits to be slaughtered and accepts such a fate. This misperception of nonviolence has been mistakenly associated with peace work or peace groups. Khalid Kishtainy, Khalis Jalabi, Jawdat Said, and Imam Mohammad al-Shirazi (all pioneers of nonviolence in the Arab world) have used “civic jihad” as a term to avoid the term “non-violence,” which in Arabic has a negative connotation of surrender and passivity.
Nonviolence is about active rejection of violence and full engagement in resisting oppression through possible means that challenge domination and any other form of injustice, without inflicting injuries on the opponent. For example, when Palestinians in the early phase of the first intifada (1987-1989) adopted nonviolent resistance, they were rejecting the Israeli occupation and actively fighting its oppression, not surrendering.
There is a complete compatibility between such methods of nonviolence and Islamic values and beliefs that instruct the faithful to resist injustice and oppression and pursue justice and patience, protect the sacredness of human dignity and be willing to sacrifice their lives for the cause. To fulfill and follow these values, the Islamic approach to nonviolence can only be based on active rejection and resistance to aggression and injustice. If we accept the assumption and belief that Islam emphasizes resistance and the pursuit of justice, then the real question becomes: Can nonviolence be an effective tool for resistance?
Between Pakistan and India
By Adar Primor, Ha'aretz 9/1/2003
During his visit last week to Japan, Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom told his hosts that "just as you are dealing with the North Korean threat, we must deal with the Iranian threat." Shalom spoke about the cooperation between the two "threats" - North Korea and Iran - two of the three members of the United States' "axis of evil." Several weeks before, the very same Silvan Shalom announced that "Pakistan is a very important country, with whom Israel is highly keen to establish diplomatic relations." His comment came in the wake of a declaration by Pakistan's president, General Pervez Musharraf, who said that his country should consider formal ties with Israel.
Since then, Indian officialdom has displayed indifference. New Delhi has no interest in getting involved in Israel's relations with a third country, especially not in the week before Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's historic visit to the subcontinent - the first such visit by an Israeli leader. In private conversations, however, the concern is palpable.
Is North Korea really cooperating with Iran on nuclear know-how? A senior Indian official says that Pakistan is also in on the act. All of Pakistan's nuclear program and its missiles are based on secret agreements, some of which put Israel at risk." The official added that, following last week's terror attacks in Mumbai (Bombay), Shalom called his Indian counterpart to express his grief. A week earlier, India did the same after the Jerusalem bus bombing. But within that feeling of a common destiny between the two peoples, the senior official is at pains to remind Israel that "Pakistan supports organizations linked to al-Qaida. The Taliban was created by Pakistan, which remains the headquarters of international and anti-Indian terrorism."
Find the differences
By Akiva Eldar, Ha'aretz 9/1/2003
It took awhile for the comparison to be made between Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein, but it finally happened. The leader of the National Religious Party and minister of housing and construction, Effi Eitam, suggested yesterday that we learn a lesson from the Americans on how to deal with "a mass murderer." If it were up to him, he declared, he would sentence Arafat to death. This sums up the comparison being drawn by Israeli policymakers between our bloody conflict and the war in Iraq. This one's a scoundrel and that one's a scoundrel. This one needs to be kicked out, and so does that one. The similarity cries out to the heavens - how could we have not noticed this until now? Like a half-truth that is sometimes worse than a lie, a selective comparison is also liable to lead to distorted perceptions and, consequently, to wrong decisions. Arafat does indeed regard terrorism against civilians as a legitimate means to attain political goals. It's true that a very problematic person stands at the head of the Palestinian Authority, and that he not only harms Israel but also acts to the detriment of his own people. But the question the decision makers should be considering is not whether or not to put Arafat on trial, as the Americans would do to Saddam. Instead, these decision makers should be asking themselves whether the Americans would still act against Saddam in the same way if the wanted Iraqi ruler were a venerated leader of his people, who had struggled for decades against foreign occupation.
Separation now
By Amram Mitzna, Ha'aretz 8/31/2003
It's hard to say that the liquidation of an arch-terrorist causes anyone in Israel to shed a tear. They are despicable, balking at nothing to murder innocent Israelis, and therefore they deserve to die. But that is not the question. The only question we should ask ourselves is, what is best for us. Is the government's campaign of assassinations now being waged against the terrorist organizations serving the Israeli interest and contributing to the enhancement of security?
Voicing the slogan we all remember, "Make it possible for the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] to win," Ariel Sharon assured the public that he was the only one capable of defeating terrorism. He won the elections but has not won against the terrorists. Nor has the IDF. On the contrary: Over the past three years, the security of Israel's citizens has deteriorated to a level that is without parallel in the country's history. This is the reality - but it doesn't have to be that way. Leaders are elected in order to change the reality, in order to lead, not to yield to the dictates of someone else, least of all terrorist organizations. But that is just what Sharon has done.
The national interest of the State of Israel - and there are now those on the right who admit this - is separation from the Palestinians. This is the only way to ensure that Israel will be able to remain a viable Jewish state. We are currently at a critical point that will decide whether Israel will continue to exist as a democratic Jewish state or become a binational state in which there will be an Arab majority within a few years.
The original sin of indecision can be traced to 1967. The Six-Day War was a tremendous military victory but a total political-security failure. The first person to grasp this was David Ben-Gurion. He, like many others, was thrilled and moved at the return to the lands of our forefathers. However, as a leader bearing national responsibility for the security of Israel and the future of the Zionist movement, Ben-Gurion was able - in contrast to all the leaders since - to look beyond the horizon, and called on the government of Israel to leave the new territories.
Modernization And Democracy
By Rashid Khashana, Al-Hayat 9/1/2003
Malaysia's Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad has decided to leave office next month, voluntarily - and not as a result of a civil coup or external pressure. After taking his country from being an underdeveloped state to an industrial modernized one, the man could have found a thousand excuses to remain at the head of the state until his death, especially since the king's role is only nominal in the Malaysian political system.
However, doctor Mahathir, who proved to be well educated and deeply concerned by issues related to the Islamic world, gives great importance to democracy in his vision for the rise of Islamic countries, and he believes that the people's assimilation of its principles is a primary and active basis to develop nations. He also believes that a gradual shift to democracy will make it become part of the society's social and intellectual development.
In this context, the peaceful transition of rulers appears to be a basic principle of democracy, if not its core principle, even if Mahathir coupled it with two other factors, which are stability and economic development. He is right, for how is it possible to organize a transition in an environment that lacks stability and could dwindle into a civil war, with the revival of power ambitions? And how could a peaceful transition be achieved when the majority of the people are hungry and only the minority is replete?
What matters is that this leader, who was elected to power and won in the parliamentary elections, then failed then won again, did not squander his country's average wealth on delusional, pompous projects nor did he spend it on his family or tribe. Instead, he led a broad industrial movement that started when he took over the Ministry of Industry and Commerce in the late seventies, leading the share of industrial products to form 80 percent of the Malaysian exports' revenues today, which is a huge accomplishment for an Islamic country that was suffering from underdevelopment.
Nonviolence In The Israeli Women’s Peace Movement
By Gila Svirsky, Al-Hayat 9/1/2003
Nonviolence as a strategy has been practiced throughout the Israeli women's peace movement since the founding of Women in Black in early, 1988 one month after the first Palestinian Intifada broke out. The Women in Black movement began as a small group of Israeli women carrying out a simple form of protest: Once a week at the same hour and in the same location? A major traffic intersection in Jerusalem? They donned black clothing and raised a black sign in the shape of a hand with white lettering that read, "End the Occupation".
From this modest beginning, women throughout Israel heard of this protest, and launched similar vigils. Throughout the north of Israel, where many Palestinian citizens of Israel reside, the vigils had Arab and Jewish women standing side by side. From Israel, it spread to dozens of other countries. The strength of this movement is its clear and unchanging message presented in a nonviolent manner: End the Occupation. The target audience for this message is the Israeli public and leadership, the international public and leadership, and the Palestinian people. The intent is to magnify the voice of those who object to the occupation, but do not have political clout as individuals. Because of the persistence of these women and the growing number of vigils, this movement seems to have had widespread impact.
`Independence' will topple Abbas
Ha'aretz 9/1/2003
The Palestinian public is no longer asking if the government of Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas is going to fall, but when it will happen. Its very raison d'etre was to achieve a cease-fire. During the weeks of cease-fire, the government was supposed to reorganize the Palestinian security services, conduct reforms in the government and start implementing the road map. If there is no hudna, the government doesn't have much to do. But it was not the collapse of the cease-fire that will bring the Abbas government to an end. The public opinion polls in the territories show that a large majority favors the calm and cease-fire. Abbas' policy, which called for an end to the "military intifada" and promoted a non-violent struggle against the occupation, won adherents in the broader population that has been exhausted by the last three years of closures, checkpoints and unemployment.
Abbas' government was weakened most not by its policy but by the growing feeling in the public that the government was not 100 percent loyal to the interests of the Palestinian people. Yasser Arafat helped quite a bit to strengthen that feeling.
The question of which Palestinian leadership is loyal to the interests of their people has been a theme throughout the history of the Palestinian national movement. During the 1948 war, and after it, Arab states nurtured Palestinian leaderships of their own that claimed to represent Palestinian interests but in effect used the Palestinian issue for their own purposes. The PLO in its first incarnation, in 1964, was established by the Egypt of Gamal Abdul Nasser. Syria established Saika in 1966, Iraq set up the Liberation Front in 1969, and there were other small Palestinian organizations. The Fatah established by Arafat and a small group of young men in Kuwait was known in the early 1970s for its slogan: `independence of decisions.' The early Fatah leaders explained the slogan in simple terms: they do not accept external interests intervening in the Palestinian problem and demanded that the Palestinians alone decide what is good and correct for them. In other words, the Palestinians have to make independent decisions about their destiny, without being pawns in the hands of other political actors.
Eye on ISM… Activities and Obstacles
Editorial, International Press Center 9/1/2003
The International Solidarity Movement (ISM) has become a very well-known name and has been directly associated with the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Israeli occupation. Many media outlets, mainly Israeli and US, have made efforts to smear this movement and distort their true goals.
They spread lies about its members, exploiting the weak support ISM has and the media blackout Israel is imposing in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
What is the ISM? The ISM, in its own words published on its website (www.palsolidarity.org) ".. a movement of Palestinian and International activists working to raise awareness of the struggle for Palestinian freedom and an end to Israeli occupation, utilizing nonviolent, direct-action methods of resistance to confront and challenge illegal Israeli occupation forces and policies."
The nonviolent methods include protests against Israeli troops, standing in the face of bulldozers that try to demolish Palestinian homes. ISM members sometimes spend nights in a house marked for destruction, as well as escorting Palestinian municipal workers who fix infrastructures wrecked by the Israeli war machine. All these actions can be summarized in being "human shields".
|
