Dec 23, 2002 Op Eds

December 23, 2002 Opinion Editorials http://www.aljazeerah.info

US President Bush once more bowed to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s wishes, and this time not just at the expense of the Palestinians. He rebuffed a personal appeal from President Jacques Chirac and other Europeans to adopt the Middle East road map plan, thereby deepening a rift with European allies. By siding with Sharon, who does not want the plan to be drafted until after the Israeli elections on Jan. 28, Bush also delayed what is perhaps the last remaining political way out of the more than two-year-old intifada.

European officials had hoped, and in some cases expected, that the United States would be willing to publish and adopt the document on creating a Palestinian state when diplomats from Europe, Russia and the United Nations met on Friday in Washington. But the most the so-called quartet got was a photo opportunity with the American president and a meeting with Colin Powell, his secretary of state, to “discuss and develop” the road map. Bush’s delay is explained in two parts. The first lies in differences between the United States and the European Union on the peace plan. The map is expected to lay down a procedure under which Israelis and Palestinians meet certain reciprocal commitments leading to security for Israel on the one side and a state for the Palestinians on the other by 2005.

But there are differences including the scope of the quartet’s authority in the West Bank and Gaza to supervise implementation of the peace plan on the ground and the EU’s immediate demands to end construction of new Jewish settlements and to restrict Israel’s targeted hits of Palestinian militants.

Bush’s other concern is Sharon who has serious reservations about the plan. The unconditional and complete settlement freeze — with priority to ending projects that threaten Palestinian regional and residential contiguity, including the regions around Jerusalem — is coupled with a requirement for Israel to reciprocate the Palestinian ending of the intifada with the end of Israeli-initiated military attacks against Palestinians and withdrawal from Palestinian areas occupied after Sept. 28, 2000.

It is also insufficiently clear to Sharon whether Yasser Arafat would be removed as the Palestinian leader, as President Bush demanded last summer. Sharon also dislikes the participation of the Europeans, Russians and the United Nations in the drafting process.

In any event, the road map delay should not dissuade the parties concerned from the view that adoption of this new peace proposal is more urgent than ever. The EU argues correctly that the whole process needs momentum and that time is running out if the 2005 deadline for the creation of a permanent Palestinian state is to be met.

Work on the proposal is also crucial to reassure the world that the United States has a positive vision in the region beyond going to war with Iraq. Drafting the road map before the Israeli elections will not make the peace negotiations more difficult, as Sharon asserts. The peace plan should be revealed before the elections to make Israeli voters aware of the options. Revealing the plan now would put Israeli voters in a better position to decide.

Carter needed more than ever before
By Richard H. Curtiss, Special to Arab News
-

Jimmy Carter’s Nobel Peace Prize was long overdue. It should have been awarded at the same time Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin shared the prize in 1978. Because of a purely procedural glitch, however, that did not happen.

In retrospect, it would have been nearly impossible for Carter to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict. Even then it was the most dangerous unsolved problem in the world. Carter knew this when he took office in 1977 and daringly set out to do something about it at the beginning of his administration. It turned out that Carter, his wife Rosalynn and his old friend Jody Powell, who subsequently became his press secretary, went to the Holy Land even before his election. The three went there, pondering what they would do when Carter became president.

This fast start caught Israel and its American defenders by surprise. Momentarily, time was also on Carter’s side. Egyptian President Anwar Sadat made it known that he was prepared to do anything to end this dilemma before the problem worsened. Sadat went to Jerusalem in 1977 and addressed the Knesset.

Events happened so rapidly that neither Sadat nor Begin, who was the most intransigent Israeli leader to date, quite knew what to expect. Israeli Army officers later admitted they were so alarmed that they set up precautions, thinking that the whole Sadat journey might be just a trap to land Egyptian commandos on Israeli soil.It soon was clear, however, that Sadat was quite sincere in hoping that his initiative would bring about a rapid peace. Willy-nilly, a visit to Egypt by Begin followed. The problem, of course, was that the Israelis had no intention of making peace until they had permanently absorbed the rest of the West Bank, at the very least.Soon Begin, Sadat and Carter found themselves sequestered at Camp David, Maryland, the American presidential retreat. Very early on, Begin seemed intransigent, as usual, but Sadat left the details to be ironed out by Carter. For 13 days Carter proposed and Begin rejected. Time after time, Carter came up with a new proposal to untie the Gordian knot. Eventually, Begin seemed to yield, and the three negotiators returned to the White House with what appeared to be an agreement.

The next morning, seeming to ignore what had transpired the night before, Begin left for a scheduled fund-raising rally in New York. Jimmy Carter was persistent, however, and continued moving forward. The dilemma, of course, did not go away, and the drama continued, alternating between high hopes and deep depression.

Meanwhile new events were taking place in Iran, increasingly diverting the world’s attention from Israel and Palestine.

Ronald Reagan, who defeated Carter in the 1980 presidential election, then made his own attempt to solve the Arab-Israeli problem, which came to naught for his entire two terms. Despite his sponsorship of the Madrid peace conference and his attempt to tie US loan guarantees to a halt in Israeli settlement building, President George Herbert Walker Bush met with the same disappointments. Then came President Bill Clinton, who was putty in the hands of the Israelis. Clinton’s two terms were characterized by many false starts, but, in the end, nothing had really moved forward.

Now, after the first two years of President George W. Bush’s administration, the “war on terrorism” has absorbed the American public. As a result, the Arab-Israeli dispute has continued to remain unsolved. Instead of attending single-mindedly to that core problem, Bush has launched into a dispute with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Regardless of how that works out, it appears that there always will be yet another reason to postpone working on the Arab-Israeli dispute. Clearly George W. Bush fears the Israel lobby above all else — even though he knows nothing else can be solved as long as Israel refuses to cooperate. There may be a way to help solve this impasse, however. En route home from Norway, Carter was interviewed in Denmark. When asked if he would help once again to tackle the Arab-Israeli problem, Carter said he would not intervene unless both parties want him to. In a way, that makes Jimmy Carter needed more now than ever before.

At this point, all the groundwork has been laid. Crown Prince Abdullah, with the support of the entire Arab League, has offered peace with Israel with no strings attached. All the Israelis have to do now is to return to the 1967 borders.

It appears the Israelis will not do this, however, as long as the United States continues to forgive all of Israel’s debts and thus postpone any solution. There, too, then, all President Bush has to say is, “No — not until the Arab-Israeli problem is solved.”

Despite Ariel Sharon’s intransigence, it might be that Bush and Carter could work to solve this problem together. Would that not be the best solution, not only for Bush, but for both the Republican and Democratic parties, in order to get the world off this downward spiral? This is not the time for either party to play politics as usual. As Carter already has said, “The worst thing that you can do is not to try.”

— Richard H. Curtiss is executive editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

Silence about Israel’s nuclear weapons
By Hassan Tahsin, Arab News 12/23/02
-

International politics has a number of contradictions. At present, we see the United States leading the world against Iran, Iraq and North Korea because they allegedly possess weapons of mass destruction. We see the United States at the same time approving the idea of Israel building a new nuclear reactor. The new reactor will chemically process uranium and will obviously increase the size of the Israeli arsenal.

The world is in general agreement with the United States about the necessity of eliminating weapons of mass destruction. The existence of these weapons which includes nuclear warhead threatens the entire world. It is not enough to disarm the so-called “axis of evil.” All weapons of mass destruction must be eliminated, including those of the superpower permanent members of the UN Security Council.

The idea of disarming is a political and military one developed in the 20th century. Its main goal was to reduce arms, step by step, until they reached a level at which arms were eliminated. This is a good theory but it is far from practical reality. With the establishment of the United Nations after World War II, it was stipulated that the Security Council had the task of preparing plans and programs aimed at regulating armaments and their reduction in accordance with certain steps.

If we look at Israel and its weapons of mass destruction, we join many countries and governments which have wondered why Israel is always an exception to rules that are scrupulously applied to other countries. It is certain today that Israel possesses between 100 and 200 nuclear and hydrogen warheads of all sizes. This is confirmed by published American satellite pictures and scientific reports. These same reports also indicate that Israel is about to produce a neutron bomb.

Israel also has nuclear bombs which are designed for use from airplanes. They can be used in battle without fears of side effects. Israel also has spy satellites which can identify targets on the ground very easily. In cooperation with the former racist government in South Africa, Israel conducted nuclear tests in 1979 in the South Pacific. Further information about Israeli weapons is not available though it is known that some were used for the attempted assassination in Jordan of Khalid Meshaal, the Hamas member.

Closing the world’s eyes to Israel’s nuclear arsenal and weapons of mass destruction can only lead to suspicion and rejection. Since Israel was the first country in the region to possess these weapons, it should be the first to get rid of them. This is especially true in light of the fact that Arab countries have agreed to make the region empty of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear ones.

The United States is the present leader and it has embarked on a campaign to eliminate weapons of mass destruction around the world. If this is carried out, then the United States will have done something that will be remembered in history and which will also increase its political importance.

In the future, the United States will need no help in collecting an international coalition because the whole world will support its aims. People around the world dream of peace and believe in it, and they believe that they can live in peace together without any war. Unfortunately, this is not consistent with the ambitions of politicians.

London: Being endured rather than enjoyed
By Neil Berry, Arab News 12/23/03
-

With the British government warning that Islamic terrorists could strike the British capital at any time, London at the close of 2002 is a city with the jitters. The other day, the veteran British journalist, Ian Jack, wrote about the frantic spirit of ‘every man for himself’ that has become routine among people trying to board London buses. Jack is far from alone in his uneasy feeling that one of these days London is simply going to snap.

In the eighteenth century, Dr. Johnson famously remarked that ‘he who is tired of London is tired of life’. But that great man of letters was not familiar with the soul-destroying pressures that are the daily lot of latter-day Londoners. Crazily escalating property prices; gross social inequalities; rampant street crime; streets and a transport system grotesquely unworthy of what purports to be a developed society: such ills are making for a brutal and degrading metropolitan environment. With its theaters and art galleries, its concert halls and art-house cinemas, London retains much of its old cultural vibrancy. For growing numbers of its inhabitants, though, it is becoming a place to be endured rather than enjoyed.

And yet ever more people are pouring into a city whose booming economy of the past several years has spawned jobs galore (albeit mostly low paid ones). For the many ‘asylum seekers’ who are anxious to cross the English Channel from France and gain entry to Britain, London is invariably the destination of choice. During the last decade, the population of London has risen by approximately half a million; a similar jump in numbers is anticipated over the coming ten years. With its overstretched public services and old and inadequate housing stock, London is ill-equipped to cope with this fresh influx of humanity. One writer has made the desperate suggestion that the only answer to the capital’s problems is to build a major new city in the southeast of England, a duplicate London.

It is not just by comparison with the capitals of other European countries that London appears decrepit and inefficient. In Britain itself, resurgent provincial cities, such as Manchester and Newcastle, now have much to offer that London woefully lacks — basic amenities like affordable housing and buses and trams that get people to work on time. Recently, a PR campaign was launched on behalf of the north of England to persuade jaded Londoners to relocate, to take up jobs in comparatively under-populated northern cities where they can expect to experience a better quality of life. “Why put up with ‘capital punishment’?” was the campaign’s mischievous slogan. London’s own Development Agency was not amused.

Much of the blame for the malaise of the Britain’s first city can be laid at the feet of Margaret Thatcher, who ruled Britain from 1979 until 1990, and who abolished the Greater London Council, the overarching metropolitan authority which for years ran London, latterly under the flamboyant left-wing leadership of Ken Livingstone. It is thanks to ‘Thatcherism’ that privatization and the free market have run riot in London. The result is mounting disorder, a dysfunctional city where — with coordinated civic administration a distant memory — unending road works have for some years been carried out in more or less haphazard fashion by a multitude of private contractors. The overwhelming impression — the re-emergence of Livingstone as London’s mayor notwithstanding — is of a city careering out of control.

So far from conceding that privatization has failed to benefit London, Britain’s business-friendly Prime Minister Tony Blair remains determined to involve private companies in the running of the city’s dilapidated tube network. Much of Ken Livingstone’s time in office has been devoted to what has finally begun to look like a doomed attempt to stop the semi-privatization of the tube — it was after all because of general public opposition to the scheme that Livingstone got elected. But now it transpires that a number of the private companies in question are effectively bankrupt. Tony Blair’s plans for the tube may yet have to be shelved. Meanwhile, the investment-starved tube system seems fated to degenerate still further — even as the number of people who use it every day continues to swell.

Two years ago, the London-born writer, Peter Ackroyd, published his remarkable magnum opus, London: the Biography. Conjuring up an entity that is always changing but forever the same, Ackroyd portrayed London as a scene of endless human energy and voracity, a microcosm of man’s fallen nature. For all its erudition, the book was less straightforward history than a sort of mystico-philosophical sermon. Small wonder that it enjoyed such enormous success: the hard-pressed denizens of present-day London need all the philosophy they can get.

(Neil Berry, a London-based freelance journalist since 1980, is the author of Articles of Faith: The Story of British Intellectual Journalism.)

Anti-war demo held at American University in Cairo

SyriaTimes

19-12-2002

- Hundreds of students and professors at the American University in Cairo (AUC) staged a peaceful demonstration Wednesday against a possible US war on Iraq and in support of the Palestinian people.

"We're having a petition signed in support of the Palestinians and against (US) intervention in Iraq," Samia Mehrez, a professor of Arab literature at AUC, told AFP.

The protestors were echoing widespread opposition in Egypt to US plans to invade Iraq -- if it fails to come clean on its weapons of mass destruction -- as well as longstanding criticism here over perceived US bias toward Israel.

AUC professors who have formed "Faculty4Pal" helped organize the protest and plan to invite here next year a children's theater group from Aida refugee camp near Bethlehem on the West Bank, Mehrez said.

Around 5,000 Egyptian and foreign students attend AUC, which was founded in 1919 by American scholars and is incorporated in the US State of Delaware, where it is licensed to confer degrees.

Also in Cairo former Algerian President Ahmed ben Bella said US threats to launch a war against Iraq are a "new crusade" to take control of Arab oil.

"The United States is leading a senseless campaign to impose hegemony on oil and not to defend liberty and democracy," ben Bella told the opening of the two-day conference.

"It's a new crusade being prepared by US President" George W. Bush, he added.

Turning to the other burning issue for most Arabs, Ben Bella said that "Israel's presence in the Palestinian territories is the world's last manifestation of colonialism."

Conference organizer Mohamed Sami charged that history's "most right wing" US administration and Israel's "most criminal" government had forged an alliance to "tear apart the Arab world and put their hands on the area's immense oil reserves."

Sami was speaking on behalf of the "Egyptian Popular Committee for Struggling Against American Aggression in Iraq," the conference organizer, which groups members of professional associations, leftists, Arab nationalists, Islamists and intellectuals.

Among the 160 participants were mainly Egyptians, but also people from other Arab countries and Western nations, including Denis Halliday, the former UN coordinator in Iraq who resigned in 1998 in protest over the UN sanctions.

Hans von Sponeck, Halliday's successor who also quit in 2000 for the same reason, told AFP, "I still think that weak forces, if they unite, will become strong forces. If the European voices unite with the Middle East voices, we could avert this catastrophe."

Fadia al-Rafidi, a young Palestinian who was invited to represent the "new generation," called for establishing an anti-globalization front to challenge American policy "which is seeking to divide the Arab world."

The conference was scheduled to issue a "Cairo proclamation" on Thursday and set out a programme of protest actions against a war on Iraq.

Towards A Theory Of The Uprising

A. Halaweh

Syria Times, 19-12-2002

The Palestinian uprising continues to pose a series of questions. Some of these concern the political strategy of the Palestinian national movement; others concern tactics, slogans, compromises and political moves. During the last two years, the Palestinian arena has been preoccupied with direct and tactical political questions related to the uprising, such as the peace process, the prerequisites for its resumption, the supportive Arab environment, the evaluation of the Arab officialdomصs position, the status of UN resolutions, the European and US positions, etc.

Of course, these are important questions to which Palestinians were required to give answers. Otherwise, in the absence of a Palestinian role, the political arena would have been filled by other players eagerly awaiting Palestiniansص banishment from the political scene. The Palestinian position on all these matters has been clearly indicated in the past, so there is no reason to repeat what has already been said. Rather, the subject to be specifically discussed is related to the strategic questions raised by the uprising, such as: How shall we crystallize the theoretical framework upon which our political positions and slogans are based? Is it true that we have succeeded in creating the theory of the uprising? Have We created its ideological framework? How shall we link tactics and strategy, politics and theory?

Our response to these questions must be negative. The Palestinian and Arab organizations and intellectuals are still preoccupied with examining daily events and very far from deriving theories for the uprising. In spite of our conviction in the importance of the immediate tactics and political thinking, our loyalty to the uprising and its repercussions requires efforts to formulate the theory of the uprising, and to discuss its strategic direction. For example, is it enough, when examining the effects of the uprising on the Zionist society, to confine ourselves to the number of seats and votes gained by the peace camp? Or to monitor Israeli leadersص statements which recognize the Palestinian peopleصs rights to repatriation, self-determination and, maybe, an independent state and, maybe, the need for withdrawal from even Jerusalem? Is this really sufficient? In fact, the uprising has posed questions about Israelصs ability to absorb the results of the 1967 war, and consequently questions about the Israeli theory of expansionism, settlement- building and security; it has shaken the fundaments of Zionist ideology and for the first time ever, seriously posed the possibility of destroying these fundaments.

Has not the uprising posed the question of the Israeli future and demographic destiny more seriously than ever before? In response, some have spoken of the need for Israel to withdraw from densely populated areas, which would mean the beginning of the defeat of the Zionist project as a whole. Others have emphasized the need to resort to transfer of the Palestinians, which would lead to other problems, not confined to the Middle East. Letصs not forget the question related to the future of the Zionist project. What does the formation of an independent Palestinian state mean for the Zionist plan of expansion and settlement-building? Does it mean the beginning of the final countdown for this scheme? Or will we be faced by a miniature of the Zionist scheme? We must devote more time to responding to these questions in line with our immediate goals.

On the other hand, did not the uprising pose important questions related to the nature of the Palestinian national movement, its forms of struggle, the changes in the degree of influence exerted by its social forces? Did not the uprising pose a question as to the crisis of the leadership and the alternative to this crisis? Did not the uprising raise the problem of the relationship between the struggle inside and outside of Palestine, and about the revolutionصs need for a supportive base, and the strategic relationship with the Arab people and their national movements? Did not the uprising pose a question concerning the needed change in Palestinian political thinking and the actual change in this after the uprising?

In fact, the uprising also raised the question of the crisis of the Arab national liberation movement after the decline of the official Arab policies and the adjustment to the Camp David stage. It also accentuated the historical crisis of the Arab national bourgeoisie which controls the course of this movement. The uprising also highlighted the crisis of the Arab revolutionary alternative forces after their failure to benefit from the objective opportunity offered by the uprising to reawaken the Arab mass movement and transform the Palestinian uprising into an Arab uprising.

Did not the uprising expose all the faults of the Arab officialdom-its subordination, its repressive, anti-democratic nature, its backwardness which has destroyed the structure of the Arab society, turning it into a consumer market for the latest technological inventions in weaponry and consumer goods, serving only to maintain the status quo?

This is only part of them any questions and strategic concerns posed by the uprising. The organizations, leaders and revolutionary intellectuals have a very important duty to start offering scientific answers if we are truly faithful to the uprising. This article cannot give answers for all these questions but rather aims to encourage attempts to arrive at theories for this turning point.

America lacks vision

Fouad Mardoud

Syria Times, 21-12-2002

To the question whether the United States has a clear vision on peace in the Middle East, the answer is definitely No. The vision now is how to launch war against Iraq, topple its regime, disintegrate its unity and destroy its infrastructure. But with the escalation of the international rejection to such a deadly war, even that vision is beginning to blur.

The $ 20 million scheme, called the U.S-Middle East Partnership Initiative which was unveiled by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell is totally nonsense. It is not a partnership, but rather a plan mainly designed to re-draw the geopolitical map of the Middle East in a way that serves the needs and the interests of the United States and Israel. It also signals Washingtonصs determination to use military force to change the regime in Baghdad, and later to use that change as catalyst for change throughout the region, even if that means destruction, killing and chaos that will engulf all peoples there.

It has always been known that achieving a just and comprehensive solution for the Arab-Israeli conflict requires a U.S. comprehensive involvement with the aim of implementing the U.N. Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 which imply the internationally-accepted principle of land-for-peace.

But, for long time, the Americans have wasted so many opportunities to vehemently involve themselves in the process of making peace. They, unable or more correctly unwilling to pressure Israel into changing their long-held policies of occupation and expansion, have chosen the wrong attitude, causing more wars and troubles, and wasting so many lives, resources and opportunities.

The Arab experience with the United States is marked by an accumulation of fury and frustration, as well as the failure to seize opportunities to accomplish a peaceful solution for the Arab-Israeli conflict. In this way, Washington has harmed the whole of the region as well as its own image and interests more than war could.

Therefore, as long as Washington hesitates to commit itself in binding terms to the central aim of Resolution 242, peace, prospects remain dim for the settlement of other outstanding issues. Death and insecurity will continue..

Why America is after war

By Fahed Fanek

Jordan Times, 12/23/02

ANALYSTS AND writers — this one included — have spent months trying to fathom the real reason the Bush administration is so determined to wage war on Iraq. There were many theories: oil, terrorism, Israel's security, weapons of mass destruction, a clash of civilisations, redrawing maps.

It is obvious, however, that the war, if it takes place, will have nothing to do with terrorism, since Iraq has not been shown to be involved in terrorist actions.

The war won't be about weapons of mass destruction either, since Iraq will never be able to match US power with its pathetic arsenal — if it still has one, that is. And anyway, the US could deal with the threat by containing Baghdad.

The war won't be about Israel's security as, far from being threatened, it is the Jewish state that threatens the Arab world.

The war won't be about Islam, because American policy doesn't care about religion anyway. And it won't be about maps either, since the current fragmented state of the Arab world serves America's interests just fine.

In a recent article, Jay Bookman, deputy editorial page editor of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, wrote about a report issued in September 2000 by the Project for the New American Century, a group of conservative interventionists outraged by the thought that the United States under President Bill Clinton might have forfeited its chance at a global empire. Those same conservative interventionists, subsequently, became extremely influential in the current administration, especially in the White House and the Defence Department.

In this context, Bookman mentions steps taken by the Bush administration, such as repudiation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty and a commitment to a global missile defence system, increasing defence spending by 25 per cent, the “transformation” of the US military to meet its expanded obligations, and the development of small nuclear warheads “required in targeting the very deep, underground hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our potential adversaries”. All these were recommended by the 2000 report.

The report also explains why so little has so far been mentioned about an exit strategy from Iraq once the Saddam Hussein regime is overthrown.

Quite simply, the US doesn't intend to leave Iraq at all; rather, it plans to turn the country into a military base from which it can control the entire Middle East — including Iran — in an arrangement similar to those still prevailing in Germany and Japan 57 years following the end of World War II.

The occupation will be the first step towards the emergence of the greatest empire in history.

Imperialism — an accusation the US used to deny — has become its goal in the 21st century. This great prize was worth the price the US paid for getting the international consensus it wanted at the UN Security Council concerning Iraq. Weeks of intensive diplomatic wrangling were needed before Resolution 1441, threatening Iraq with “serious consequences”, was passed. The resolution faced many difficulties because, quite simply, it opposed the will of the international community.

But the resolution was passed, with an amendment here and there to save certain parties' faces. America succeeded in getting what it wanted, which, while not representing the will of the world community, fulfilled the interests of certain countries. In other words, the US bribed certain nations to secure their backing.

France, for example, was promised that a new regime would honour the trade and oil agreements it has with the current government. Russia received two prizes for its cooperation; a free hand in Chechnya and an American commitment that the future regime in Iraq will pay back its debts to Moscow, and that it will honour the oil deals signed with the government of Saddam.

China's bribe was World Trade Organisation membership on easy terms, opening the US market to Chinese imports, and an agreement to consider movements fighting to secede from Beijing as terrorist organisations.

Mexico, another non-permanent Security Council member, was paid an appropriate bribe too: it was promised US support for better terms from the International Monetary Fund. In addition, by backing the resolution, the Mexicans avoided America's wrath.

A Lebanese Communist heroine tells her story
Soha Bechara’s life changed forever when she tried to kill the head of a pro-Israeli militia in 1988

By Olivia Snaije
The Daily Star, 12/23/02

Her face, engraved in our minds, is synonymous with resistance, detention and strength. Soha Bechara is Lebanese yet her story has become an international cause celebre. She is a symbol of global resistance.
The evening of November 1988 when Bechara shot General Antoine Lahd, head of the pro-Israeli South Lebanon Army, was the day she left the world she knew and entered one of deprivation and isolation, spending the next 10 years in the infamous Khiam Prison.
The 21-year-old Bechara then a member of the Communist Lebanese National Resistance Party had been politically active from the age of 14. Bechara’s family is from the Christian village of Deir Mimas in South Lebanon, a stone’s throw from Khiam.
Throughout her childhood she shuttled back and forth from Beirut to Deir Mimas where she spent her holidays. The time Bechara spent in the South was key to her early political awakening. The numerous Israeli raids and the occupation became the focus of her personal struggle.
“I was lucky to be a Christian girl living in West Beirut because this enabled me to have a dialogue with everyone and people in different parties,” she says. “I began to ask myself, who is the real enemy? I found the answer in the Israeli occupation.”
Long dark hair and a figure so slight that a checkered flannel shirt easily masks her pregnancy, Bechara is now studying human rights at a university in Lyon, France. The dark eyes seem familiar because of her intense media exposure. She appears younger than her 35 years, as if she were continuing the life that was interrupted when she entered Khiam.
“Between the ages of 14 and 19, I was a pacifist. My family never had weapons. They were protective. They wanted me to finish my studies. I didn’t suffer through massacres or arrests but I didn’t want to wait to become someone who had.
“Besides, when you’re standing in front of tanks and F16s, you have to take up arms. I wanted to liberate my country and I found strength in the occupation. It’s what enabled me to act.”
The plan to assassinate Lahd slowly matured in Bechara’s mind while she was on a mission to the occupied South. Her role was to provide information about the area for her contacts in Beirut. Bechara managed to penetrate Lahd’s household by becoming an aerobics instructor to his bored young wife.
She only found out that Lahd had survived her attack once she had been taken to Israel for interrogation and then to Khiam.
“I never regretted what I did. I would take up arms again if necessary,” she says. “I was proud of it, but relieved when the operation was over because I didn’t have to live a lie anymore. I had to listen to militiamen who were bragging about details of the Sabra and Shatila massacre. I had to sit there and laugh and drink with them. Certain things are just unacceptable.”
A terrible rhythm fell into place in Khiam. She was interrogated, tortured and held in solitary confinement in a 1.8 meter by 80 centimeter cell for six of her ten years inside. Her remarkable strength of character, perseverance in communicating with fellow prisoners and a strict self-imposed exercise regime kept her going.
In her autobiography, Resistante, published in France in 2000, Bechara wrote: “In the Khiam Prison camp, I wanted to continue resisting. It was
the same war, waged with different means.”
In 1995, the International Red Cross was finally allowed to visit Khiam and Bechara’s mother was able to see her. She was the last woman to be released, in September 1998, under intense pressure from international human rights organizations and tenacious lawyers in Israel and France.
Crafts were an essential activity for inmates. With peels of laughter, Bechara recalls when she received a box of paints.
“Here I was, the most educated of the bunch, and I had no idea how to paint. As a child, with the war going on I never had time to learn these things. We went to great lengths and risked severe punishment, communicating with another inmate who we knew could paint. We wanted to find out what colors to mix together.
“But after very complicated coded messages, the answer we got was simply ‘green and blue makes greenish-blue!’”
While in Khiam, Bechara made two women friends for life, dedicating to each a chapter in her book. Kifah, a Palestinian activist who had survived the Sabra and Shatila massacres, became a fast friend and the two communicated via letters they left for each other in the bathroom garbage can or in a washcloth. Kifah was released in 1994 and Bechara had to wait two years until another woman was brought to Khiam.
It is only when talking about her friend Hanane that Bechara who has been over the details of her detention countless times for the media, films, and human rights organizations shows a chink in her armor.
Hanane was released from Khiam well before Bechara because of medical problems, and her eyes well up with tears as she speaks about her friend, who is still gravely ill.
Nowadays Bechara has started over, continuing her studies first in Paris and then in Lyon. Before her release, Bechara’s mother had secured a guarantee that the French government would finance her studies.
“There was a lot of tension at home after my liberation. My parents were afraid I’d go out on another mission, even a suicide one. Whenever I left the house they would ask me where I was going. We were also invaded by the media.”
Bechara began by studying French and Hebrew. Her French was very basic making it frustrating for her to express herself. “When I got to Europe I realized how important is was that our cause be known throughout international channels.”
She chose to study Hebrew in order to read the original texts of the Old Testament, which she had read in translation in prison. In 1985 she had wanted to study the language in order to know her enemy better, but “I realized when I joined the resistance that there’s nothing to understand about occupation. I’ve always been able to separate the two the occupation and the Israeli people.”
Bechara now lives in Geneva with her Swiss husband, who she says is not involved in politics at all. He and friends have helped her relax and accept everyday life.
“Little by little I’m finding my way. At first it was very difficult. For a while I couldn’t accept reality that people went out, partied and thought about things that were very banal.”
She worries about Lebanon and she would like to return, but she doesn’t see a political party she can fit into. “Now it’s an even harder time than during the civil war,” she says. “Our identity itself is questioned and all Lebanese seem to be stuck in their trenches.
“I’d rather act as an individual or with an international organization. I am convinced that I have a role to fill.”

The English-language edition of Soha Bechara’s autobiography will be published by Soft Skull Press in April 2003

2002 leaves host of problems for 2003

By Abdeljabbar Adwan

The Daily Star, 12/23/02

The year 2002 did not witness the resolution of any of the tough problems that threaten world peace. In fact, the solutions proposed (or expected) threaten new catastrophes in the New Year.
All such problems are related in one way or another to America’s Middle East policy. This can only mean one of two things: either unintentional misunderstanding or deliberate planning. While US policy has demonstrated a great ability to adapt, it seems now to be unable to pinpoint the deficiencies in its Middle East policies.
It is only fair to say that the administration of President George W. Bush tried several times to come to grips with the intractable problems of the Middle East. Two new attempts were made in the last few days alone. One of those was Secretary of State Colin Powell’s announcement of an initiative to promote democracy in the region. The other was a plan by the Pentagon to use troops and propaganda to improve America’s image. The reason behind both these new initiatives was America’s realization that its relations with the world at large especially with the Middle East were at low ebb, and that it needed to do something about it.
Powell’s US-Middle East Partnership Initiative has some potential in the long run, as democracy is the best worst solution to the region’s problems. But the Middle East currently lacks the economic and social foundations necessary to build democracy. Any positive results of this initiative would thus evaporate upon contact with reality. In short, therefore, democracy is not a solution for the problems of Middle Eastern countries, or for those between them and the US.
Take Palestine as an example: Even if every Palestinian became a democrat, that would not end Israel’s occupation and would not restore the rights usurped by Israel’s democrats. The Palestinians would thus continue their struggle and continue to enjoy widespread support.
As for the Pentagon plan to improve America’s image by propagating false information and organizing pro-US demonstrations, the least that can be said is that it damaged America’s image instead of enhancing it. Truth was always the first victim of war; the US media has become the second victim of this covert psychological conflict. Until the Pentagon’s plan was uncovered, parts of the US media enjoyed a degree of credibility. Now though, any pro-administration position adopted by the media will be eyed with suspicion.
The situation of America’s friends will be even worse: Speaking positively of US positions will immediately arouse suspicion in their own countries.
Iraq is a problem that has to be faced in the New Year. Only a very small minority of people still believe that war on Iraq can be avoided. Yet Saddam Hussein’s regime has not been the direct cause of America’s 50-year-old Middle Eastern crisis for years. The Baathist regimes in Iraq and Syria have always been the most secular regimes in the region and the most hostile to Osama bin Laden-type fundamentalism.
Overthrowing Saddam will not end the problem of terrorism targeting the United States; in fact, most analysts (both in the West and in the Arab world) agree that an attack on Baghdad will only exacerbate the problem. Moreover, the possible consequences of military action could even out any electoral gains Bush is hoping for. If what Bush has been saying about Saddam’s ties to terrorism and Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction turns out to be true, then only God knows what destruction would be unleashed if a war breaks out.
The issue of international terrorism will also be postponed until the New Year. Bin Laden and his crew are like vampires who grow stronger by sucking the blood of their victims. Yet it is also true that Muslim fundamentalist movements do not employ terrorism for its own sake, or just to harm America. Arab experience with similar organizations demonstrates that they are patient and plan decades in advance. There are many examples to prove that their ultimate objective is to assume power with the full acquiescence of the people.
The way bin Laden sees it, he is always a winner except in one case. He wins if America attacks Iraq and causes Arab anger to boil over. He wins if Washington alienates its Arab friends and makes them appear weak before their own peoples. He wins if America increases its support for Israel, and if Israel escalates its terrorism against the Palestinian people. He wins if any misfortune befalls America, because people in the Middle East will see it as revenge for American injustice.
The only way bin Laden and the supporters of violence could possibly lose is if the US decides to deal fairly with the Palestine question in the same way it dealt with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait namely, by implementing UN resolutions. US arms and money have been used to slaughter Palestinians and seize their homes, land and water for over 50 years. This cannot be reversed with a pat on the head.
The Americans have to
realize the strength of the human ties that bind the Arabs to the Palestinians and to Palestine. They also have to temper their policies with a few touches of humanity and independence of Israeli influence.

Abdeljabbar Adwan is a Palestinian analyst.

End of the road for GCC as a political club?

An Arab press review, By The Daily Star, 12/23/02

“The summit of absenteeism” is how Fawziya Rasheed, writing in the Manama daily Akhbar al-Khaleej, describes the just-concluded 23rd annual conference in Doha of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) leaders from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE, Oman and Bahrain.
“The GCC summit held in Doha can be called ‘the summit of absenteeism’ par excellence,” she says, adding: “The fact that four leaders elected to stay away from the meeting that’s meant to be the annual summit of the region’s heads of state suggests that neither its real nor its theoretical resolutions are taken seriously.
“The ‘no show’ at this juncture, which everyone concurs is tricky and could yet prove catastrophic in its outcome (given America’s death-defying threats to the whole Gulf region), could have been circumvented had the Gulf leaders had a clear idea, individually and collectively, of what needs to be done to deter the United States from continuing to witlessly pay no heed to Gulf interests by wanting to literally occupy and flagrantly colonize the region.”
Rasheed says the obvious “lack of awareness,” “shortage of collective resolve” and “GCC helplessness” are unacceptable “when time is so short that there is no room for any sort of reticence proves that is unacceptable,” and when summit host, Qatar, itself serves as staging post for a US war on Iraq and the beginning of “barefaced American-Zionist hegemony” over the region “as evidenced by US foreign policy vis-a-vis Saudi Arabia and the other regional states.”
If the European Union were facing the same ruinous threats as those menacing the GCC as a bloc, or some of its six members, “would European leaders have allowed the policy of breaking ranks to go that far?” she asks. Would EU leaders have allowed disagreements to split them up? Wouldn’t EU institutions such as the European Parliament or the European Council have been brought into play to settle economic, political or military differences?
Rasheed disputes remarks by GCC Secretary-General Abdul-Rahman al-Attiyah at the opening session, declaring that the conference should focus on next month’s implementation of the long-awaited GCC customs union. “I don’t think that’s what the people of the region are eagerly looking forward to. What’s uppermost on their minds, and what tops their priorities, is America’s looming occupation and its aggressive advance against our countries and peoples something that has no name other than blatant American colonialism, the opening shot of which is Iraq’s occupation.
“Why do we need the customs union or unified customs tariffs when we, as peoples, are about to lose our entity, independence, freedom and dignity?” she asks.
Saudi columnist Daoud al-Shiryan, writing for the Saudi-run pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat, speaks of “The GCC post-Doha.”
Gulfites were surprised, he writes, when the hullabaloo usually accompanying Gulf summits went missing this time in the Qatari capital, even though the GCC is on the eve of implementing one of its most significant achievements namely, a customs union that effectively removes barriers between the six partners.
Shiryan says no fanfare is accompanying the customs union because the GCC insists on playing the role of a regional political club aimed at strengthening the member states’ political, rather than economic, security and stability.
“But the Doha summit proved that the economic factor is truly the key to keep the council alive. Over the past 22 years, the council failed to carry out any major reforms in the political realm and had little impact on political systems and regulations adopted by some of its constituent members.
“It (the GCC) invariably mirrored official government views; drowned in procedural disputes; overlooked distinctive economic, social, cultural and historical traits among the peoples of the region; and was unable to contain bilateral disputes among its members.
“The GCC failed previously to address marginal political rows among its constituents. But it is now dealing with fundamental differences concerning the war on Iraq and facing the task of unifying its members’ positions on political conditions that will result from that war. That’s why, to insist on a dominant political character for this regional club, and to consider its economic character as secondary, mean that the total eclipse or the marginalization of the GCC will be one of the features of impending change in the region.”
In contrast, Nasser al-Zahiri, writing for the UAE daily Al-Ittihad, complains that the Doha conference was driven to be “a purely economic summit, missing a clear political stand or pronouncement. What was put on its agenda were such economic issues as a unified oil strategy for emergency situations and joint yardsticks for economic cooperation with the EU and other world economic blocs.”
In Amman, Jordan’s Ad-Dustour contrasts in its unsigned editorial the low-level representation at the summit with the exceptionally volatile regional and international circumstances surrounding its convocation in Doha, which goes to show “either that the GCC is a candidate for being disbanded, restructured or at best turned into a strictly economic grouping.”
The problem, says Ad-Dustour, is that even the economic clout of the GCC whose members sit on half the world’s proven oil reserves is now put at risk by America’s impending war on Iraq and its fallout on oil prices and supplies.
“It is unfortunate to see the GCC (which succeeded in maintaining its cohesion, albeit at minimal level at times, in the face of critical and complex situations) end this way. Its unfolding ill fate suggests it too has been hit by the curse plaguing each and every joint Arab endeavor,” the paper says.
In Kuwait’s Al-Rai al-Aam, Ahmed al-Dayyen says that irrespective of the reasons for the poor turnout at Doha, he expects “future GCC summits to stand facing new challenges and structural troubles” perhaps leading to a total rethink of the regional grouping now that it has lost its raisons d’etre of 1981: including Iran’s 1979 revolution, the 1980 outbreak of the Iran-Iraq war and the Cold War raging at the time between the West and the Soviet bloc.
“The situation, in the world generally and the Gulf region particularly, has now changed,” Dayyen writes. “The Iranian revolution is not for export anymore, certainly not under Iran’s prevailing internal conditions; Saddam Hussein’s regime, which is about to exit the scene, no longer constitutes a serious threat to the states of the region; and there is going to be a new political reality in the region in the aftermath of America’s war on Iraq so that the next Iraqi administration, which will be imposed by the Americans, will serve as strategic springboard for their regional policy.
“It won’t be possible to bypass the said (US-installed Iraqi) regime’s full participation in any Gulf grouping, whether existing or planned,” Dayyen adds. Participation by the next US-installed Baghdad government “in deciding all Gulf matters” will be from Iraq’s new position as team captain rather than team player. Emergence of the new post-Saddam Iraq would require either “full restructuring of the GCC as a regional club” or the setting up of a “totally new regional bloc with the participation of other countries that do not necessarily have access to the Gulf waterway.”
Ali Hamadeh, in an op-ed piece from Doha for the Lebanese daily An-Nahar, says the countdown to the GCC summit was dominated by talk of the council turning into a strictly economic club and dropping all things political from its prerogatives.
“In the buildup to the summit, some voices and articles sounded the death knell for the GCC as a political bloc. Personally, I think the GCC never had political clout to be buried now by the Saudi-Qatari row … for which is the Arab state liable to separate between political policy and economic policy?”
In pan-Arab Al-Quds al-Arabi, Sudanese political analyst Abdelwahab al-Affendi lambastes the GCC meeting, suggesting with scathing sarcasm that it might be best for the group to disband. Highlighting that the meeting was held to the backdrop of an approaching war, Affendi proffers a tongue in cheek “honest apology” to US President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair for “casting doubt on their accusations that Iraq is a threat to its neighbors and to the whole world.”
Poking fun at the daily footage airing around the world of teams of UN arms inspectors at some of the 150 Iraqi installations, he says in a tone of comic exaggeration that the inspectors have “uncovered staggering information about Iraq’s arms manufacturing capabilities.”
“This is indeed frightening and confusing, giving what we know about the unprecedented economic siege” Iraq has been under since 1990. If Iraq has been able to maintain such a large number of arms-producing installations under such unfavorable conditions, “what will the situation be once the siege is lifted?”
The objective of the whole inspections farce and the way it is being handled must inevitably be to provide “proof” that the UN sanctions against Iraq are ineffective and that the country “must be attacked and occupied to rid the world of its evils as soon as possible.”
One of the main objectives for establishing the GCC in 1981 was to counter the “evil” threatening the six Gulf partners from their more powerful northern neighbors Iraq and Iran that have now been added to Bush’s notorious “axis of evil.”
The media may have exaggerated the absence of four heads of state from the weekend summit given that three of them Saudi Arabia’s King Fahd, Kuwait’s Sheikh Jaber and the UAE’s Sheikh Zayed are incapacitated by ill health and could not have participated effectively. Yet the meeting is not pervaded by the harmony and cooperation that should be the GCC’s raison d’etre, and it may therefore be a good idea for the summit agenda to have included a discussion on “the benefits of the GCC’s continued existence.”
Successful regional cooperation of the kind that should be the GCC’s main objective can only come about if the internal stability of the regional participants has been achieved, and that in turn depends on resolving internal tensions between rulers and their peoples.
“The persistence of internal tensions causes every attempt at regional cooperation to draw new parties into internal conflicts,” Affendi writes. Referring to the controversial broadcasts of Qatar’s Al-Jazeera satellite channel, which is widely watched across the Arab world, he adds that “it is well known that the current tension in the Gulf stems from Qatar’s refusal to play its role in narrowing the media window that is available to Gulf citizens.”
Regional Gulf cooperation and Arab cooperation in general have “failed to achieve progress and prosperity for peoples and their rulers because the frameworks and priorities of such cooperation focus on the security of regimes first and foremost.” But the political security of regimes can only be realized by “removing the reasons behind internal instability that renders them fearful of anything that an opposition figure abroad might say on air,” Affendi continues.
This need not amount to implementing full democracy, “which is still a far cry as an objective.” But he believes it should entail establishing a minimum of “internal detente of the kind that exists in most Gulf countries” a reference to the elected National Assembly in Kuwait and the recent elections in Bahrain and “further developing that detente.”
A frank and “public” discussion of the internal problems plaguing some of the GCC countries should be on the meeting’s agenda and countries able to help their neighbors to overcome those problems should offer to do so, Affendi suggests.
“However, if the GCC remains an arena for superficial pleasantries and for evading ways to tackle problems, perhaps considering liquidating it would be best for all concerned, to prevent the group from turning into an arena for exacerbating tensions.”

U.S. strong-arm acts offset positive efforts
By James J. Zogby

12/23/02

-

There's a wonderful old saying that describes the situation where "the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing." It aptly characterises current problems facing U.S. policy vis a vis Arabs and Muslims.

On the one hand, the Bush administration has launched a number of initiatives designed to spread the message of U.S. concern for Arabs and Islam. On the other hand, the impact of several U.S. foreign and domestic policies drowns out the messages of the positive initiatives.

During the past month, for example, the United States launched a number of efforts to send the message of U.S. respect for Arabs and Islam.

A $15 million television advertising campaign designed to demonstrate how well Muslims were doing in America, was complimented by a number of White House-sponsored Ramadan events.

President Bush made an appearance at Washington D.C.'s Islamic Center and spoke glowingly about the Islamic faith. Additionally Iftar events were held at the White House and State Department hosted by National Security Adviser Condaleeza Rice and Secretary of State Colin Powell.

That was the good news. But bad news came last week when more than 700, mostly Iranian immigrants were arrested in Los Angeles after they voluntarily complied with a controversial Department of Justice (DOJ) regulation that they register at Immigration and Naturalisation Service (INS) offices by December 10.

This registration requirement is part of a DOJ programme which has the declared intent of fingerprinting, photographing and recording the whereabouts of all non-immigrant foreigners coming into or already in the United States.

To date, however, this regulation has only been applied to immigrants from 20 countries. Of this group, 15 of the countries are Arab (Algeria, Bahrain, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, UAE, Yemen). Four are non-Arab, largely Muslim countries (Afghanistan, Eritrea, Iran, Pakistan) and North Korea.

Arab-Americans and immigrant rights organisations protested against the programme on several grounds. First, they argued that the programme was targeting Arabs and Muslims. This fact was highlighted last week when Armenians, who had initially been listed among the immigrants required to register, were dropped from the registration list after protests were made by several Armenian organisations. Similar protests by Arab-Americans and Muslim American organisations were ignored.

Other objections to the registration programme included: Concern that the DOJ had done little to publicise the requirement, causing fear that the deadline would pass with many non-resident immigrants unaware that they had failed to report, making them subject to deportation; the limited time frame provided for the targeted individuals to report and register; the lack of uniformity in how INS offices around the United States were handling the registration process; and finally, the concern that the entire effort, since it had been announced as part of the effort to stop terrorism, ran the risk of potentially smearing an entire group of people as "suspects."

The initial results of this ill-conceived effort were widely reported last week after the deadline passed for the initial group of required registrants (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria Sudan). In one jurisdiction alone, Los Angeles, it appears that at least 700 individuals who voluntarily showed up at INS offices to register were arrested and are being held for possible deportation.

The tragic irony of this situation is that the detained individuals were, in fact, acting in compliance with the law.

Lawyers, close to the situation, indicated that while some of the detained individuals were technically "out of status," most had legal appeals for a reclassification of their immigrant status pending with the INS.

Could anyone believe that America is safer from terrorism because the INS has arrested hundreds of individuals, with legally filed pending immigration applications, who voluntarily appeared to be fingerprinted and photographed?

And, equally to the point, what will all of this do to the U.S.'s charm offensive to communicate its tolerance and respect for Muslims and Arabs?

Does the right hand know what the left hand is doing?

Also of concern in this regard was the announcement this week that the United States has decided not to make public the long-awaited "road-map" for a Middle East peace worked out by the so-called "Quartet" comprised of the U.S., United Nations, Russia and the European Union.
This decision was reached over the objection of U.S. Middle East experts in the State Department and White House who felt that an early announcement was needed to show U.S. good faith to the Arab world and provide Israeli voters and Palestinian reformers with real hope and real choices for the future.

The apparent reason for the decision not to go forward with this announcement was so as not to influence the Israeli elections scheduled to be held on January 28. Since it is widely believed that Israel's incumbent Prime Minister Ariel Sharon objects to many of the provisions of the "road-map" and, therefore, to its release, what does U.S. concurrence with Sharon's objections say to Israelis, Palestinians and the broader Arab world about the U.S. commitment to a comprehensive Middle East peace?

And since January 27 is the deadline for the UN inspections team to announce its preliminary findings, and, therefore, for the U.S. to declare its acceptance or rejection of this report, will the U.S. now greet the end of January with an announcement of both the "roadmap" and a war against Iraq?

And what will this do to U.S. self-declared efforts to build a broad coalition to confront Iraq? Do the pieces fit? Does the right hand know what the left hand is doing?

Dr. James J. Zogby is the President of the Arab American Institute.

http://www.aljazeerah.info

Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah's.