Peace in the Middle East: A Global Challenge and a Human Imperative
By Hanan Ashrawi, Miftah 11/5/2003
Dear Friends, Sisters and Brothers — The Sydney Peace Foundation, its members and partners, as well as its distinguished director, Prof. Stuart Rees, have taken the difficult decision to make a difference, to stand up for justice and the pursuit of peace, and to intervene as a positive force in the resolution of global conflicts. I am truly honored to be included in this endeavor among such distinguished recipients of the Sydney Peace Prize. May I also view this prize as a recognition of all those who have maintained an unwavering commitment to a just resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, who have defied the prevailing dynamic of violence and the mutual infliction of pain and delegitimization, and who continue to provide hope in the midst of despair on both sides of the “divide.” Palestinians and Israelis, as well as people of good conscience throughout the world, will share the empowerment of this recognition as a significant force for reconciliation and inclusion.
You too have chosen courageously to take sides in the struggle against injustice as opposed to the refuge of so-called neutrality or the self-interest of power. You have refused to be deflected, intimidated, or silenced, exercising a tenacity and determination that are the rare attributes of moral leadership and genuine service. In this context, the Premier of New South Wales, Bob Carr, stands out as the most appropriate embodiment of these qualities. For that too, I am truly grateful.
Why justice in Palestine/Israel is in the best interest of the Western world
By Silva Palatina, International Middle East Media Center 11/5/2003
"Nam tua res agitur paries cum proximus ardet" is one of the lassical Latin proverbs for educated lawyers, "Because it is your business if your neighbour’s roof is burning" (i.e., it also endangers your own house). There are not only moral and sentimental reasons, why the Western world should take a more active part in working towards peace - in its own best interests. The "burning roofs“ in Palestine/Israel are, indeed, affecting our own house.
According to the Dutch writer, den Doolaard, common sense is the first casualty in every war. So this is not about fighting for or against Israelis or Palestinians. It is about ensuring human rights and establishing common sense for all concerned, and, most of all, for the best interests of the Western world. It has become very popular to talk about „Win-Win“ situations as desirable goals in settling conflicts, perfectly in line with common sense. At the moment, we are far away from that goal.
Winners in the current situation: It is true, for some , there is big business in the Middle East: producers of weapons, bulldozers, aircraft, tanks or ammunition are making a great deal of money. Charity organizations and governments also invest a lot of money in Palestine. They build or restore hospitals, schools, airports, , and they donate ambulances, food, or tents. They pay their employees, and that money is spent in the country. It is a different question, however, whether in the long run, they really help, or hinder. Preventing human suffering might be a relief for the moment, necessary to mitigate the humanitarian disaster, but it also prevents real cure - in this case a political solution, peace based on justice for both.
America’s shuttered window on the peace process
By Robert MacGregor, Daily Star 11/5/2003
The stepped up violence in the Middle East should serve as a loud wakeup call for all Americans, so they can listen carefully to what is being reported outside the United States.
According to the best polling of world opinion, the US has never been more unpopular globally. It is well documented that even our friends in Europe, Latin America, Africa and Asia are expressing anger with American policies in the Middle East. These opinions should matter because no country is isolated from global events.
Two recent trips around the world and a just completed three-year assignment in Lebanon have helped this writer, who remains a staunch American patriot, to understand the world’s indignation in terms many US opinion makers are reluctant to report. I found that world opinion generally says it likes the American people, but not our foreign policy and not the degrading Hollywood culture we export in our films and music to children everywhere in the world.
Americans need to understand that there are two vastly different global windows through which America’s behavior in the world is surveyed. One window is framed by the US media, Hollywood and other interest groups. The other includes world media outlets such as the BBC and the Arabic satellite station Al-Jazeera, but also many new satellite channels blaring out a very different point of view than America’s, 24 hours a day. Not surprisingly, the main issue of contention that surfaces is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and America’s one-sided support for Israel.
Disappointment for Israeli Arab women
By Suheir Abu Oksa Daoud, Ha'aretz 11/5/2003
The results of the latest local elections were even more disappointing than their predecessors. Each election has produced rising hopes that this time - because Arab women are more educated, more active and more willing to compete in the political game and to challenge the consensus - they will achieve greater representation. But only two women, both Hadash members, were elected to city council seats last week - one in Nazareth and one in the Galilee village of Ilabon. The names that were bandied about before the elections vanished into thin air, just like all those bandied about in previous campaigns.
This minuscule representation for women continues a tradition that dates back more than 50 years, during which time only 12 Arab women have served as city council members. Seven of them have served since 1998 - but of these, only two were elected, both to the Nazareth city council. The rest were interim appointments who served for only a few months. One woman even served as council chairman - an event that has not recurred in the last 30 years, and evidently will not recur in the coming years.
Prior to the recent elections, there was a lot of talk about the need for appropriate female representation in the Arab sector. Leadership courses were opened, articles were written and most of the parties included women on their slates - but usually not in realistic slots. And when a woman did secure a realistic slot, like Rabab Abu-Lashin, who headed the Arab Movement for Renewal list in Nazareth, she was later pushed down to the 13th slot due to coalition agreements.
The Violence of Construction: Israel's Wall and International Law
By Michael Kearney, Electronic Intifada 11/4/2003
The Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, initiated through aggressive military campaigns in 1948 and 1967, has been consolidated and standardised through a continuous and ongoing assault on the very environment of Palestine. The Israeli grip on the Palestinian Territories has been ensured through a paradoxical "violence of construction." Thus, in the Occupied Palestinian Territories today "we find two countries superimposed one on the other: on top, 'Judea and Samaria', the land of settlements and military outposts, bypass roads and tunnels; and underneath, 'Palestine', the land of villages and towns, dirt roads and paths."1 Ownership and control of territory is the prize being contested in this conflict. This was aptly demonstrated by the inevitable failure of the Oslo Accords, the peace process between the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority which was negotiated throughout the nineties, wherein the Palestinian Authority accepted responsibility for the actions of the Palestinian people, yet Israel retained control over roads and movement, entry and exit, water resources and crucially, most of the land.
The mechanisms employed by Israel to ensure its permanent grip on Palestinian land have been neglected to a large extent in the press and in the general discourse on the conflict where attention has focused on the day to day horrors of house demolitions, assassinations, torture, arbitrary detention, curfews and so forth.
The prosecutor and the judge
By Adam Keller, Electronic Intifada 11/4/2003
It's nearing the end - this routine of coming again and again to the Jaffa Military Court, to which we have grown accustomed in the past half year. The testimonies and cross-examinations are past. Today the prosecutor - Captain Yaron Kostelitz, will make his final summation, trying his utmost to make the most heavy case and use the most specious arguments against the five young guys in the dock. To offer solidarity to Haggai and Matan and Adam and Shimri and Noam, we have come again: parents, friends and supporters, plus the faithful Ecumenical Accompaniers of the World Council of Churches, and two young Italians doing internship at the Palestinian Medical Relief Committees at Ramallah, a civilian service in lieu of service in the Italian Army - the kind of constructive alternative which the state of Israel denies to its own conscientious youths.
We have become quite familiar with Kostelitz over the long-drawn out course of this court martial as well as Yoni Ben Artzi's. He is quite predictable, and none of us is surprised at the basic philosophy expressed in nearly each sentence he utters: "Military service is the highest duty and the highest privilege of a citizen, the chance to lay down his life"; "Breaking the law is by definition an immoral act. Law is morality, morality as defined and encoded by the entire society. Breaking the law is immoral, only obedience to law can hold society together". When Colonel Avi Levy, the Presiding Judge, remarks that "Things are are not that clear-cut, not always black and white", Kostelitz mutters: "Oh, it is black, very black indeed ..."
Trailblazing Aljazeera loses its edge
By Iason Athanasiadis, Asia Times 11/4/2003
Aljazeera is coming in for increasing criticism in the Arab world after a spate of embarrassing revelations that suggest it has capitulated to United States pressure and tamed its news coverage.
The recent appointment of new boss Waddah Khanfar at the Qatar headquarters comes amid mounting revelations that Aljazeera's top management chose not to air several Osama bin Laden tapes; pulled from its news websites caricatures the White House deemed offensive; and removed its former general manager following US complaints to the Emir of Qatar about the channel's coverage of the war in Iraq.
The channel's new attitude follows a sustained US campaign against the broadcast of allegedly inflammatory material in the aftermath of September 11 and comes at a time when Aljazeera is losing viewers to Saudi and United Arab Emirate-backed competitors al-Arabiyyah and Abu Dhabi TV.
"We don't want to become the fanatic's channel," Ibrahim Hillal, editor-in-chief of the channel has said, explaining why Aljazeera did not broadcast over six tapes in its possession said to feature bin Laden's voice.
The Settlement Of The Arab-Israeli Conflict: Between Political And Religious References
By Hassan Nafiaa, Al-Hayat 10/22/2003
The Arab-Israeli conflict is, at least from an official Arab point of view, primarily a political one, not a religious one in any way. True, religion has always been one of the dimensions of the conflict's structure, not to mention that it affected its course, especially during the major changes. It is also true that the religious perspective prevails in some of the political Palestinian and Arab factions' perception of this conflict. However, all this did not change the essence of the general Arab's vision of this conflict. Anyway, there is a large difference between a political conflict where religion is used as an instigator and a stimulator for mobilization on one hand, and a religious conflict where politics is used as a means of misleading or blinding towards its nature, on the other hand. I believe that the increase of suicide operations carried out by certain political factions, even by individuals belonging to any factions, is an expression of heroic determination to resist the occupation and defend the land and honor by all means, rather than an expression of a change in the Arab vision towards the nature of the conflict; hence, the main current in the Arab world still considers it to be essentially political.
Nevertheless, what applies to the Arab vision of the conflict does not apply as well to the Israeli vision of it, although the appearances might suggest the contrary. I believe that the political secular cape covering the official Zionist movement is a mask hiding a religious vision through which Israel insists on determining its stances from the conflict. Thus, it bases its positions on religious ideologies rather than on political concepts. This is why it seems that the main reason behind the hindering of the settlement resides so far in the humongous gap separating the Arabs' perception from the Israeli one in terms of the settlement. For Arabs, this settlement is essentially political, whereas Israelis maintain religion in the first place.
How Did We Get Here?
By Jihad Al Khazen, Al-Hayat 11/5/2003
Soldiers in bulldozers, with speakers blasting jazz music, up-rooted old palm trees and orange and lemon trees, implementing a new policy that consists of collective punishment of peasants who do not provide soldiers with information regarding armed people who intend to attack them.
The reader must think that I am talking about the Palestinian territories, as the up-rooting of trees there is a daily practice; however, the reader is wrong, because I am quoting Patrick Cockburn, a renowned British journalist, whose report on the darkness in Iraq was published in the Independent, and it seemed to be addressing the occupied territories as I was reading it.
The American administration, which is allied with a war criminal such as Ariel Sharon, would never hesitate to use his means, though Israeli soldiers themselves, as well as some of the ministers have criticized these ways.
How did we come to this? I am tired of discussing the lies made up to pave the way for war, and since the "end" of the war, which did not actually end on May 1, the way the American President said it did.
A record of terror
By John Cherian, The Hindu Frontline September 13 - 26, 2
"YOU do not fight terror by shaking hands with a terrorist," said a senior Arab diplomat based in Delhi. He was referring to the visit of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to India in the second week of September. Sharon's career-graph bears ample testimony to his predilection to use violence and terror to achieve the goals of the Zionist blueprint for the region. An unabashed votary of `Eretz Israel' (Greater Israel), Sharon was involved in right-wing terrorist activity from the age of 14, when he joined the Haganah, an underground Jewish militant organisation that used terrorist methods against the native Palestinians and the British colonial administration.
Sharon achieved notoriety in 1953, when he was given command of the "Unit 101", which was involved in special commando operations against Palestinian villages. The unit's specific task was to terrorise Palestinian villagers. Many innocent women and children were victims of its killing spree. To the international community, the massacre in the West Bank village of Qibya gave the first inkling of Sharon's ruthlessness. Troops under his command blew up 45 houses, killing 65 civilians, about half of them women and children. The United States State Department issued a statement at that time demanding that the guilty be "brought to account". No action was taken. Sharon's fortunes, instead, was on the ascendant.
He was soon appointed commander of a paratroop brigade, which saw action in the Sinai Peninsula during the Suez crisis of 1957. True to form, the troops under Sharon's command participated in another massacre - this time killing 270 Egyptian prisoners of war. This story re-surfaced in the Israeli media in 1996, after an investigation conducted by the Israeli Army's military history division.
Another kind of terror
By Ze'ev Schiff, Ha'aretz 11/5/2003
Not a day has gone by lately without an announcement by the IDF Spokeswoman of another abatement in conditions for Palestinians. More merchants can cross the border to do business in Israel; a few thousand more workers are allowed to get to their jobs in Israel. But what value does this have if at the same time and without disruption, settlers cut down hundreds of olive trees owned by Palestinian farmers on the slopes of the hills around Nablus? Does a permit to work in Israel to earn a few hundred shekels cover the anger and hostility created by the sight of chopped-down trees?
Those who do such things hate the Land of Israel and a huge chasm exists between them and Jewish values. Cutting down an olive tree is a symbol of the intentions of the rioters - to eradicate and expel their neighbors. It is a disgusting deed that is also a form of terrorism.
Politically, it shows that the extremists among the settlers do whatever they want in the territories. The IDF knew from past experience that during the olive harvest, some settlers might try to harass Palestinian farmers and therefore beefed up its guard of those farmers. But the settlers beat them to the punch, and what happened last year happened against this last week and this week. The IDF will send a company or two out to the fields, but nobody will be arrested. Thus the extremists among the settlers create new Palestinian terrorists.
People and Politics / Alibis and Lullabyes
By Akiva Eldar, Miftah/Ha'aretz 11/5/2003
Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon showed the political echelon how a single headline can turn someone from the solution into the problem. The same Ya'alon who promised that 2003 would be the "year of decision," understood that even the great big IDF does not have a solution to the problem of the occupation. His associates say that he reached the conclusion that if he kept quiet politically, he would go down in history as the first chief of staff to lose to explosive belts. He's finally been persuaded by Military Intelligence's assessments that getting rid of Arafat would aggravate the problem and distance the solution.
Ya'alon pulled the rug out from under his minister, Shaul Mofaz, a great believer in the elimination of Arafat, exposing the failure of the defense minister's policies. Ya'alon's criticism of how Israel foiled a prime minister obedient to Arafat was a mistake in judgment, thereby removing Arafat's assassination off the agenda. As a result, the government has no choice but to welcome Ahmed Qureia (Abu Ala), a prime minister no less obedient to Arafat than Mahmoud Abbas.
But aside from the polite welcome, Sharon and Mofaz are offering the exact same deal to Abu Ala that they offered Abu Mazen. Dismantle the terror organizations, arrest wanted men and collect illegal weapons. What do the Palestinians get in return - an end to the assassinations for a couple of weeks? Forget it. Dismantling outposts? Nothing to discuss. Freezing settlements? Don't make them laugh. According to Qureia's people, there's no chance he will accept the deal. He saw what happened to a premier who thought that if the Israelis and Americans like him it will make it easier to gain control of Hamas and Tanzim.
|
