Our Situation Inside The Small Prison
By Nabil Amro, Al-Hayat 10/14/2003
We no longer think about what lies beyond our small prison, dubbed the internal conflict.
We no longer have our traditional gift, which is the capacity of balancing out the internal conflict with what was called for the longest time in our literature the neighboring challenges.
We fool ourselves, and fool our people, as we wrap our internal conflict with various colorful layers, to give it some sense of seriousness; but the truth is that what lies beneath the layers does not deserve more than mere mockery, for nothing from what is said is real, except the struggle over power… within the logic of division.
The logic of division works for those who feel that they have reached the end of a certain era. All they have before them are remnants of the plunder… And all they can do is pounce down on these remains, without even giving consideration to appearances when carrying out a despicable role… needless to get into details.
The First and Second Ministerial Births: Regardless of whether Abbas took the right decision or not to resign, and regardless of whether Qureih's approval to rush into trying what has already been experienced or his refusal to go through with it in the first place, and regardless of his giving up in the first steps of the road or of his return to the same experience; regardless of all this, the only lesson that keeps repeating itself, without us even taking note of it, is in short, that we all know that we are gradually losing our sense of respect, as we insist on pursuing our work in the same way exactly.
They Killed the Ambulance Drivers
By Laura, International Press Center 10/13/2003
Rafah, Gaza Strip -- Then the streets started screaming and we were running almost without thinking, down the edges of the street around the people who had lost their fear, around donkey carts loaded full, ran until we found a corner to turn into and then we ran past families and children, through narrow streets far enough from the main street not to know the worst, far enough that we were the ones spreading the news that the army had come back. Old men's eyes opened wide and mothers pulled their children inside, casting weary gazes in the direction from where we had come. We found Sea Street and a taxi and headed towards Block J. A machine fun fired from a tank as it entered Yibneh. It was maghreb time. The sun burning a hole in the sky as it fell behind the wall at the edge of town.
When we'd come to Yibneh the camp was already in exodus mode. Donkey carts piled high with furniture, men removing the doors of their homes from the hinges, children holding the keys to their homes on neon green keychains, the modern picture of a refugee descended from refugees, meeting exile every other generation.
The army had gone during the night leaving a city stripped bare, the broken bones of houses like twisted bodies reaching up to heaven. Trees and streets, power lines and water pipes, broken, twisted around each other, uprooted. A graveyard of life things. The real dead had been carried out on stretchers, mostly after lying on the street for hours between tanks and the frightened closed doors of curfew, while the ambulances negotiated with the army to gain access. It was a perfect autumn day, soft clouds dotting a sky blue as swimming pools.
The Weak And The Impotence Of The Strong
By Ghassan Charbel, Al-Hayat 10/14/2003
The picture is worrisome. It is not an exaggeration to say it is terrifying. Rarely have all these dark clouds gathered over one scene. The Middle East today looks like a lake in which old and new wars are crowded. Chronic crises and other new ones. Rights, which are impossible to give up, and a hostile power that is tough to rein in. Nuclear weapons and human bombs. Barrels of gunpowder and fires that are impossible to contain. Weak people unable to surrender due to their belief in the justice of their causes. Strong people unable to impose their victories. The picture is worrisome. It is enough to review the news. The American military machine crushed Saddam Hussein's regime. However, it is currently impotent in protecting its soldiers in Iraq. The returning coffins haunt George Bush, who is running for reelection. He has no solution. The decision is costly and impossible. Withdrawal is costly and out of the question, for now at least. It would take many more coffins to force the White House to actually concede to the United Nations.
Hence, a number of wars meet in Iraq. A heated frontline between those who reject the occupation and the forces that toppled the regime of mass graves. Another between the Americans and the seekers of any scene that allows direct confrontation with them. This how the world of post-9/11 and post-'war on terror' mixes with the post-Saddam world. Confusion leads to solutions that aggravate the disease. The entrance of Turkish forces will awaken regional fears. What does Syria say? What does Iran do? And the sleeping Kurdish coal under the ashes is threatening to wake up once again.
Finding realistic solutions without grabbing land
By Ron Pundak, The Independent 10/14/2003
It all began two years ago with two ex-ministers, Yossi Beilin from Israel and Yasser Abed Rabbo for the Palestinians. Unlike Oslo, it was no cloak-and-dagger exercise. We didn't cover our tracks. People knew that something was taking place, but until the final meeting in Jordan this week nobody took it too seriously. It meant we were not under pressure.
Mr Beilin and Mr Abed Rabbo recruited drafters and mapping people, then gradually enlarged the circle to 10 to 15 people in each side. Most of the meetings were sponsored by the Swiss foreign ministry, but one gathering near London was under Japanese auspices.
The atmosphere was always positive. At the start the gaps were very wide, but the principles were hammered out during a long process, with many ups and downs.
We were trying to do two things: to show that moderate and pragmatic forces on both sides could find a solution; and to work on a win-win strategy. We were not trying to score points or get something we didn't need from the other side. For instance, we were ready to relinquish the area of the West Bank settlement of Ariel, even though the Palestinians had been willing to concede it at Camp David and Taba in 2000.
Separate and sustainable existence
Editorial, Ha'aretz 10/14/2003
The document jointly formulated by Israeli and Palestinian public figures, which outlines the conditions for a permanent agreement between the two peoples, deserves praise, not the damnation to which it has been subjected by government spokespeople. The initiative is a positive one in principle, and the agreement's components should have the support of the public unless the details disclosed so far prove to be inaccurate.
In light of the government's harsh attacks on the very existence of Israeli-Palestinian talks, it should once again be emphasized that these talks are entirely legitimate and even essential, in view of the bloody vortex into which the two peoples are being drawn. The effort by the two teams, headed by Yossi Beilin and Yasser Abed Rabbo, to reach a permanent agreement is brainstorming with the goal of proving that compromise is possible. It doesn't have the slightest thing to do with a "secret and illegitimate relationship with the enemy," as government spokesmen call it in order to invest it with a negative connotation. There is also no truth to the claims that the initiative is an attempt to pull the rug out from under Israel's achievement, almost at hand, of a military resolution to terror and the removal of Yasser Arafat from the stage of history. Anyone who believes that scenario proves that he or she has learned nothing over the past three years. Palestinian terror nourishes itself on national aspirations; it cannot be overcome by military means.
Nuclear neighborhood bully
By Reuven Pedatzur, Ha'aretz 10/14/2003
The effectiveness and success of Israel's nuclear policy could be attributed to the high degree of responsibility and restraint exhibited by decision makers, even at times when the state faced threats that were deemed existential in nature.
Even at the start of the Yom Kippur War, when Moshe Dayan feared for Israel's fate and considered ordering the army to arm the doomsday systems, this was done modestly and without fanfare or proclamations. To Prime Minister Golda Meir's credit, she immediately ordered Dayan to "forget" the idea of activating the nuclear arsenal [this story is disputed - Ed.], which further contributed to the image of a nuclearly responsible Israel. Similarly, in the Gulf War, when, according to foreign sources, Israel weighed the idea of using nonconventional weapons, the prime minister and his senior ministers maintained restraint and did not issue any open threats.
....when Minister Avigdor Lieberman threatens to bomb the Aswan Dam and the prime minister fails to admonish him, Israel's image as a state with sensible leadership is further eroded. On the eve of the war in Iraq, thick hints were again leaked about Israel's nuclear potential. The intention was to strengthen Israel's deterrent capacity, but in essence it was an admission that the Israeli leadership is not able to withstand even the most minimal threat of Iraqi nonconventional warfare, even though the probability of their making good on the threat was practically nil. In the end, use of the nuclear threat did serious harm to Israel's image of deterrence, as it was obvious that its leadership lacked self-confidence and was not demonstrating the steadfastness that is the requisite basis for the success of any deterrence.
Living with reverse logic in the Mideast
By Adnan Abu Odeh, Daily Star 10/14/2003
When you are asked to disbelieve what your eyes see and believe what those far away tell you about your own backyard; when you thank your executioner when he offers you a hot meal before he ends your life, and when the aggressor becomes the victim and the freedom fighter is marked for assassination; when you are prevented from openly discussing delinquency for fear of being accused of being one, or asking for justice and equality for fear of being accused of terrorism, and when returning stolen money to its rightful owner becomes a degrading exercise, it means you are living in the Middle East. Here, logic is reversed, and physical and moral brutality is deemed nothing but a natural extension of power.
One of the most glaring symbols of reverse logic is the speech Israel’s UN envoy delivered to the General Assembly during the debate on his country’s decision to expel Yasser Arafat. He complained that “such meetings cost no less that $30,000,” meaning that the PLO should desist from lodging complaints that require the Security Council or General Assembly to convene, out of concern for the UN’s budget.
Christians and Zion: British stirrings
By Donald Wagner, Miftah 10/14/2003
The British have had a long-term fascination with the idea of Israel and its central role in biblical prophecy that dates back to their earliest recorded literature. The Epistle of Gildas (circa. 6th century AD) and the Venerable Bede's Ecclesiastical History (735 AD) both saw the British as "the new Israel," God's chosen people, who were destined to play a strategic role despite repeated invasions by their Nordic neighbors. In the British perception of being an elect, these battles were understood in the context of Israel's battles against the Philistines, Babylonians and others.
A clear resurgence of such themes was evident in the 16th century, perhaps influenced by the Protestant Reformation and its emphasis on the Bible and varied interpretations of its texts, now that Rome had lost its control over the new clergy and theologians. One of the early expressions of fascination with the idea of Israel was the monograph Apocalypsis Apocalypseos, written by Anglican clergyman Thomas Brightman in 1585. Brightman urged the British people to support the return of the Jews to Palestine in order to hasten a series of prophetic events that would culminate in the return of Jesus.
In 1621, a prominent member of the British Parliament, attorney Henry Finch, advanced a similar perspective when he wrote: "The (Jews) shall repair to their own country, shall inherit all of the land as before, shall live in safety, and shall continue in it forever." Finch argued that based on his interpretation of Genesis 12:3, God would bless those nations that supported the Jews' return. However, his idea did not find support from fellow legislators.
Muslims and Americans have been divided by history
By Akbar S. Ahmed, Daily Star 10/14/2003
When American troops entered Kandahar, Afghanistan, on a routine visit in the late summer of 2003, Muslim elders ran to hide the Koran. The rumor had been circulating that US soldiers would burn and destroy the holy book of Islam. A quiet fury was spreading in the land against what the religious leaders called the infidels. We will take revenge, people were saying. There is a proverb in the land: “I took revenge after 100 years, and I took it too quickly.”
The Kandahar story was not reported in the Western press. It was not given any significance because there is a blind spot in America’s interaction with the Muslim world. In many ways, ideal American and Muslim societies are similar – there is respect for the family and for humanity; a respect for knowledge and a belief in the goodness and compassion of God.
There is, however, one major difference between American and Muslim society: the understanding of history. For most Americans, especially the young, history does not go far beyond the 1960s, when television became part of everyday life. In any case, as the carmaker Ford, one of the makers of modern America, expressed it, “history is bunk.” US history is a linear progression to better and more positive times ahead. It makes the Americans a uniquely optimistic people. For Muslims, the past defines, guides and inspires the present.
Why DO They Hate Us?
By John Zogby, The Link October - November 2
“If They Didn’t Hate Us Then…” -- In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, Americans became painfully aware of the gap in understanding between our world and much of the Arab and Muslim world. Front page headlines and newsmagazine cover stories asked “why do they hate us?’ Pundits and scholars across the ideological spectrum offered answers that ranged from the serious to the silly. Some suggested that the behavior of the attackers was not aberrant, but characteristic of Islam and its followers. They suggested that the West and Islam are not only different, but are inevitably headed toward a clash. Others suggested that “they” hate our democratic values, our superpower status, our wealth, and our people. Still others noted that it was our policy of unquestioning support for Israel, our denial of Palestinian rights, and our collaboration with authoritarian regimes in the Middle East that was behind “their” alienation from “us.”
At the same time, it was striking to see that a similar discussion was taking place in the Middle East. While U.S.-based think tanks have plotted strategies to improve communications with the people of the Middle East, their counterparts in the Arab and Muslim worlds have been engaged in identical discussions designed to enhance U.S. understanding of the Arabs and the religion of Islam.
Download Acrobat version at: http://www.ameu.org/uploads/vol36_issue4_2003.pdf
Exporting Devalued Values: America's Policy of Foreign Interference
By Christopher Deliso, Antiwar.com 10/14/2003
In his latest incisive critique of US foreign intervention, Texas Rep. Ron Paul takes aim at a pseudo-governmental organization, one that's sinister insofar as it appears benign – the National Endowment for Democracy. Charges Rep. Paul,
"…the NED is nothing more than a costly program that takes US taxpayer funds to promote favored politicians and political parties abroad. What the NED does in foreign countries, through its recipient organizations the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI), would be rightly illegal in the United States. The NED injects 'soft money' into the domestic elections of foreign countries in favor of one party or the other. Imagine what a couple of hundred thousand dollars will do to assist a politician or political party in a relatively poor country abroad. It is particularly Orwellian to call US manipulation of foreign elections 'promoting democracy.' How would Americans feel if the Chinese arrived with millions of dollars to support certain candidates deemed friendly to China? Would this be viewed as a democratic development?"
Who Oversees These Interventionist Institutions? The NED, of course, sees things otherwise. On its website, the NED publishes a long-winded, self-congratulatory history, and describes itself as being essentially
"…guided by the belief that freedom is a universal human aspiration that can be realized through the development of democratic institutions, procedures, and values. Governed by an independent, nonpartisan board of directors, the NED makes hundreds of grants each year to support pro-democracy groups in Africa, Asia, Central and Eastern Europe, Eurasia, Latin America, and the Middle East."
'Do as We Say, but Not as We Do' Is the New US Message
By Linda S. Heard, Palestine Chronicle 10/14/2003
"America’s double standards were never more glaring than the way that the respective stories of Americans Jessica Lynch and Rachel Corrie were handled, both by its government and press .." -- As US President Bush berated the Cuban regime for its oppressive policies and imprisonment of dissidents on Friday, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) launched an unusually stinging criticism of the US for its open-ended incarceration of so called “war on terror” detainees.
The normally reticent ICRC cited dozens of suicide attempts and severely depressed inmates as evidence of the psychological damage inmates are suffering. This was an irony surely lost on the “Patient Man” complaining that Cuba lacked democracy while the US is doggedly occupying part of that troubled island. There was also a hollow ring to the American Viceroy L. Paul Bremer’s boast, the day before, that Iraq now has a free press. This came on the heels of criticism from Reporters Without Borders slamming undertakings which journalists visiting Guantanamo are forced to sign. Representatives of the media have to promise not to ask questions about ongoing investigations or else be removed from the base. What possible use is a reporter who is gagged from asking questions, other than a peddler of propaganda?
Syria in an American and Israeli corner
By Robert G. Rabil and Josh Pollack, Daily Star 10/14/2003
Israel’s air strike on an alleged terrorist camp in Syria last week followed a deadly suicide attack against a Haifa restaurant, and served as an unmistakable warning to the Syrian leadership: You continue to host terrorist organizations at your peril. But Syria’s bristling response may have been the opposite of what Israeli leaders had hoped. The reply came on the Lebanon-Israel border, where an exchange of fire claimed the life of an Israeli soldier. Through its ambassador in Spain and officials in Damascus, the Syrian government also vowed to retaliate against any further attacks.
The Sharon government, seemingly having expected something more along the lines of Syria’s quiet response to a border raid by US forces earlier this summer, now must contemplate the possibility of an imminent conflagration.
Israel possesses hands-down military superiority, and can prevail over Syria in any confrontation. Nevertheless, while struggling with the Palestinians and a troubled economy, Israel scarcely could afford the price of such a victory.
This apparent failure to anticipate Syria’s reaction also contains a lesson for the Bush administration, which is now edging closer to a confrontation with Damascus despite having its hands full with Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Al-Qaeda, and an election year at home. Neither side will benefit from a miscalculation.
|
