Rafah Bleeds
Editorial, Miftah 10/12/2003
The Israeli army incursion into Rafah, codenamed “Operation Root Canal,” has left the refugee camp in a state of disaster. Despite civilian deaths, countless injuries and an estimated 1,500 people made homeless, Gazans can only expect more misery as Israel promises “the operation will continue.”
More than 50 Israeli tanks and other military vehicles backed by attack helicopters swept into a refugee camp in the southern Gaza Strip early Friday, in what is becoming the longest Israeli incursion on the coastal territory.
Eight Palestinians have been killed and some 80 injured, as hospitals struggled to treat the influx of wounded Palestinians overwhelming ill-equipped doctors and nurses. Among the dead was an eight-year-old boy who was shot in the chest outside his home by Israeli troops, as they arrived to demolish his house. Israeli soldiers also killed two teenagers, ages 15 and 18. 20 of the injured remain in critical condition.
Many of the casualties occurred when an Israeli AH-64 Apache attack helicopter fired a missile into a group of people on a street in the Brazil refugee camp near Rafah. Najar Hospital was pressed to cope with the casualties, as they were unable to transport the wounded to larger facilities because of new Israeli military roadblocks. Wounded Palestinians reportedly had to wait for hours for ambulances to reach them.
Altalena versus Altalena
By Akiva Eldar, Ha'aretz 10/13/2003
The face of the senior Civil Administration officer expressed sincere anger at the terrorist who blew himself up at the entrance to the liaison and coordination office in Tul Karm. The officer complained of the Palestinians' ingratitude in targeting the good will of "the State of Israel to provide them with solutions." In other words, taken from the lexicon of classical colonialism, the enlightened ruler is the solution and the naughty natives, who bite his kind hand, are the problem.
The "solutions" that the Israeli government is producing (very sparingly, it should be noted) for the Palestinians are aimed at overcoming problems that are created by the Israeli occupation. Where else does a cancer patient have to stand for many long hours in line and plead with a foreign soldier to give him a transit permit to a hospital in a neighboring city?
The remarks of the Civil Administration official express the Israeli approach, which, since September 11, has acquired currency in the White House as well: The terrorists are the root of the problem. Only after root-canal treatment of this problem will it be the turn of other problems, like the humiliation and the economic distress that derive from the Israeli occupation. Even the illegal outposts and the fence will have to wait until terror is eliminated.
The Middle East Policy Debate: U.S. Public Opinion
Media Monitors Network 10/13/2003
"Having witnessed the consequences of a unilateral preemptive foreign and military policy, the collapse of the Middle East peace process, and the decided tilt of the U.S. in support of Israel, American voters want a new approach." -- Presidential candidates supporting multilateralism over preemptive unilateralism and favoring a balanced approach to Middle East peace making will find strong support among U.S. voters. There were some of the conclusions from two recent polls conducted by Zogby International (ZI), a New York polling firm. Both studies surveyed over 1000 randomly selected voters nationwide, and had margins of error of ± 3.2 %.
The first poll, conducted for the Foreign Policy Association (FPA), asked voters for their views on a wide range of issues concerning the role of the U.S. in the world. When asked how they would characterize U.S. foreign policy, over 90% of the respondents agreed with the idea that "America is a good friend and ally of people who desire freedom and individual human rights." This is how they want to see America. However, almost 60% acknowledge the concern that "America is an imperial power that acts on its own, regardless of world opinion."
After The Detroit Convention
By Rashid Khashana, Al-Hayat 10/13/2003
As the number of Arab business executives, high-ranking civil servants and university cadres increases, the distance separating them from the decision-making center narrows down day after day. This situation is not specific to Arabs only, as Muslims, who represent a significant force if allied to the Arabs, now enjoy an increasing social and economic weight, leading the CEO of Hewlett Packard, speaking at the Detroit convention, to say that Muslim citizens in the U.S. are getting relatively higher salaries than their American counterparts, that they own fancier houses and get a better education.
Regardless of how accurate this information is, what really matters is that the right conditions for forming a force that could compete with the Jewish lobby are now available, more than ever before. Nevertheless, the disagreements that have paralyzed the Arab and Muslim organizations for decades need to be settled, and this supposes putting an end to all the efforts made to use them in Arab-Arab conflicts. In order to become effective players on the American scene, these associations need to relate to their surroundings.
From The Third Arab Media Forum
By Jihad Al Khazen, Al-Hayat 10/13/2003
I admit that I had never imagined myself saying that the Arab media has beaten the Western one in relating facts of a major event such as war on Iraq. -- Al-Hayat won the biggest share of awards at the Dubai Press Club, during its third meeting last week; my colleague Ghassan Charbel won the best press interview award, while Hazem Al Amin won the political press award, and I would be revealing a secret when I say that Ghassan is preparing a new press interview that shall be published and earn another prize.
Earlier, my colleague George Semaan, editor-in-chief, had run the most exciting sessions of the forum, as it addressed the situation in Iraq and examined its case through the Arab media war coverage. Abdulbari Atwan stimulated the talks, while some of the Iraqi and Kuwaiti participants were voicing their opinions out loud, as one interrupted the other.
Among the attendants were colleagues of mine such as Mohamad Al Robhi, Jaber Obeid and Youssef Ibrahim. Dr. Mohamad asked calmly as if he were coming from abroad, to soothe the tension and discuss issues as objectively as possible. Then Salaheddine Hafez intervened and warned from the fact that the session was drifting away from its main topic, turning into a political and personal debate; hence, he asked to abide by objective standards and criteria during the discussion.
There because he has nowhere to go
By Danny Rubinstein, Ha'aretz 10/13/2003
For some now the Israeli public has been convinced that Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat is the progenitor of all our troubles. "I no longer need to convince anyone who has eyes in his head that it was Arafat who lit the fire - by giving orders," wrote television commentator Ehud Ya'ari almost two years ago). Journalist Nir Baram cites him (in a new book, `Lords of Culture', Am Oved Publishers), arguing that Ya'ari's commentary was an important factor in creating the Israeli perception that Arafat is the source of the problems of bloody hostilities.
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his government ministers have adopted this approach, in part because it is convenient diplomatically. It gives the clear address of a an enemy on whom all blame can be cast. It was former prime minister Ehud Barak who first started this, but under Sharon this has become a cornerstone of Israeli policy.
Yasser Arafat has been considerably weakened of late, both physically and politically. After he quarreled with Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), who had to resign from the post of prime minister, Arafat is now in the midst of a whole complex of quarrels with his colleagues in the leadership of his movement, the Fatah, first and foremost Ahmed Qureia (Abu Ala), and the members of the Palestinian Legislative Council (parliament).
Geneva Document, Can Pass Unnoticed, Trigger Diplomacy or Escalate Violence
By Ghassan Andoni, International Middle East Media Center 10/13/2003
Based on past experience, Arafat would only move, and publicly support the Geneva document, if it positively resonates in Israel and he is convinced that it stands a chance to be implemented. -- With the finalization of Geneva document, signs of opposition and support are signaled at both sides. The summery text of the agreement is provided at the end of this article, which attempts to analyze the possible impact at both sides.
Even when the document goes in line with former Israeli Prime Minister Ihud Barak's vision of "a package deal that ends all claims on both sides."
Barak was the first to criticize it. Israeli delegation member Haim Oron of Meretz commented on Barak's criticisms, saying that the document is a prove that Barak lied to the nation when he came back from Camp David claiming that Palestinians have rejected his "generous" offer and that Israel has no partner for peace making.
Apparently through realizing the danger of leaving any room for ambiguity and future disputes, the document came out precise and very detailed. Such level of clarity and precision triggered criticisms from the side of conservative Labor party leaders such as Aphrime Seneih, who said that while he encourages talks between both sides at any level, he considers a detailed agreement as dangerous for the interests of Israel.
The Commission Indeed Discriminated
By Marwan Dalal, Adalah 10/13/2003
Operative recommendations against Barak and Sharon are those that are missing from the Or Commission report -- In his article, "The Discrimination of the Or Commission," (Ha'aretz 5 October 2003), Amnon Rubenstein criticizes the Or Commission - pursuant to [former Prime Minister Ehud] Barak's critique of the Commission - for its failure to issue operative recommendations against the elected Arab leaders who received warnings from it.
The Or Commission was right in not issuing recommendations against these elected figures, and it was mistaken, from the beginning, when it issued warnings against them. An official commission of inquiry is an arm of the executive branch. Its purpose is to critically examine the government's conduct, actions or omissions that caused a loss of public trust. It is not supposed to examine political positions, or lawful political actions undertaken by political currents.
The discrimination committed by the Or Commission differs from that which Rubenstein characterized as between executive branch officials and elected Arab figures that were warned. Rather, the discrimination is between the latter and Jewish elected figures that were not summoned at all to testify before the Commission; at the top of this list is Ariel Sharon. Sharon's provocative visit to al-Aqsa mosque compound on 28 September 2000 received minimal attention in the Or Commission report because according to the Or Commission, this date did not fall within its mandate. On the other hand, the Commission examined political statements made by Arab public figures since 1998. The Or Commission's disregard for Sharon's conduct is also peculiar because police intelligence material in the Commission's possession warned of its danger.
Living Shield
International Middle East Media Center 10/13/2003
The most dramatic moment arrived in the evening after Yom Kippur. We were sitting in the courtyard of Arafat's Mukat'ah (compound); a group of Israeli peace activists and Palestinian friends, senior Palestinian Authority officials. A pleasant mild wind was blowing after a hot day.
We were chatting about the situation (what else?) and the latest gossip about the Palestinian leadership. From time to time a senior Palestinian joined us, before going up to see the President, or coming back from him.
The tall figure of Jibril Rajoub emerged from between the sand sacks that defend the entrance of the building. He had seen Arafat and joined our group for a few minutes. "We have heard that the Israeli cabinet is about to meet," he announced darkly.
We all understood the meaning of that. A meeting of the cabinet - what could that mean? What if not an attack on the Mukata'ah?
Rajoub entered his black car and sped off on his business. We exchanged some words about the possibility of an attack - and then, suddenly, all the lights in the compound went off. A dead silence ensued. From afar we heard the approaching drone of an airplane.
Reading Lewis, Remembering Said
By Dr. Salim Rashid, Arabic Media Internet Network 10/13/2003
The current vogue of Bernard Lewis is somewhat difficult to fathom. Consider the recent book What Went Wrong? ; the book has some very definite conclusions stated with urbane authority. If one asks how these conclusions are grounded in the previous chapters, one finds them to be virtually independent of each other. It is as though the early chapters are there to persuade us that here is someone who really does know something about Islam---and this suffices to lull us into accepting his conclusions as the product of accumulated wisdom rather than the political propaganda of an interested party. Normally one expects the intelligentia to ferret out such sloppy thinking. But the accolades received by the book show that the competence of academia is either limited in its critical capabilities or willfully silent when doctrines promise such comfortable political action. Even those who pretend to understand the connections between economic and political power keep quiet about the mediocrity of Lewis on this score. As one goes through his writings one keeps asking oneself "what does he know that is so worthwhile?". Since the answer is not obvious, one looks at the roster of people who praise Lewis and this contains not only journalists and politicians but also historians like Paul Kennedy. And he writes well. The prose is fluid, the literary allusions create an atmosphere of genteel elegance and the smoothness of the composition disguises all difficulties.
But this means that he understands current events---that he is a shrewd political observer and perceptive commentator. Why is he considered a scholar? How can a scholar publish at the rate he has? Two books on Islam within a year by someone in his eighties! Is he exceptionally brilliant, exceptionally hard-working or is he just an acute political hack?
The Arab World Is Not Impotent
By John V. WhitbecK, Miftah 10/13/2003
JEDDAH, 11 October 2003 — The feebleness, even on a rhetorical level, of the official Arab response to Israel’s bombing raid deep inside Syrian territory has given rise to renewed lamentations over the humiliating impotence of the Arab world. As an Arab News editorial said, “Impotence is a strong word, but impotence is precisely what Arabs on the street feel.” However, the impotence so widely perceived and felt in the region is not an objective fatality. It is a political choice.
While its leaders may not realize it, the Arab world is not impotent. Indeed, it has it within its power to achieve Middle East peace with some measure of justice — not in some distant future but soon and not through more violence but through the intelligent and responsible application of restrained but sustained economic pressure. A concerted, concrete and effective plan of action could take the form of a simple, easily understood and ethically unimpeachable “carrot-and-stick” approach, with both carrot and stick announced simultaneously.
Spoils of war
By Brian Whitaker, The Guardian 10/13/2003
US plans to sell off Iraqi businesses are simply the modern equivalent of pillage -- For centuries, pillage by invading armies was a normal part of warfare: a way in which to reward badly-paid or unpaid troops for risking their lives in battle.
Nowadays, at least in more civilised countries, we do not let armies rampage for booty. We leave the pillaging to men in suits, and we don't call it pillaging any more. We call it economic development.
Today, the men in suits are gathering at Olympia, in London, for a two-day conference and exhibition entitled Doing Business in Iraq. Protesters will be gathering outside.
The event, which is sponsored by the US-Iraq business council, is one of a series being held in different parts of the world over the coming 12 months (another will take place in Moscow in December), culminating in a grand spoils of war exhibition in Baghdad towards the end of next year.
According to the organisers, speakers at the London conference will include several US government officials as well as a representative from Trade Partners UK, the British government's export promotion department.
This fits in neatly with plans announced in June by Paul Bremer, the head of Iraq's provisional authority, to sell off the country's state-owned industries (excluding, for the time being, oil, gas and minerals) and turn it into a US-style capitalist wonderland.
Last month, Mr Bremer issued CPA order number 39, giving foreign investors unrestricted rights to establish businesses in Iraq and/or buy up Iraqi companies.
The order also allows foreign investors to repatriate profits, dividends, interest and royalties immediately and in full. In other words, they can make a fast buck if they want to, without putting anything back.
|
