|
December 27, 2002 Opinion Editorials http://www.aljazeerah.info |
||
|
Human Price of the Israeli Occupation of Palestine Israeli daily aggression on the Palestinian people Mission and meaning of Al-Jazeerah
|
* This article was first published on 12/24/02.
-
Robertson's ‘Moral duty’ -
Members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization have, says its secretary-general, a “moral duty” to support the United States in its diplomatic and, if needs be, military offensive against Iraq. This odd pronouncement will not have gone down well with many NATO states. Though the NATO secretary-generalship is nominally independent, Lord Robertson , a stalwart British Labor Party loyalist, can be expected to be obeying his old master’s voice. He is also no doubt seeking to conform to the dictates of Washington, which, in both coin and effort, remains the master power in NATO. Robertson’s invocation of morality clearly stems from the US-led campaign against global terrorism. Iraq has been branded a terrorist state and therefore its regime, and along the way, its long-suffering people, must pay the price of US-led vengeance. Yet, Robertson would seem to be avoiding another, no less important, moral issue, which is that George W. Bush is preparing to strike at Baghdad without providing a single piece of evidence that Saddam’s Iraq was in any way connected with the Sept. 11 attack. The fact that Saddam had chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs has long been established. He gassed some of his own people and almost certainly used chemical and maybe biological weapons against the Iranians. Nevertheless, he appears not to have deployed these against the allied forces that liberated Kuwait. His drive for nuclear weaponry was a long way short of completion. The original UN inspections destroyed much of the infrastructure for all these programs and so far, it seems the new UN inspections have failed to turn up any evidence at all of a renewed effort to make this weaponry. Yet, NATO’s Robertson sees it as the moral duty of NATO members to support the US, which he says, rather strangely, has been sticking by the book to UN procedures. Clearly, Robertson was on holiday when President Bush threatened that if the UN did not back his aggression toward Iraq, he was going to go ahead anyway. The French have stated unequivocally that they would only contribute toward an anti-Saddam alliance if the UN produced a second resolution, specifically authorizing the use of force. The Germans meanwhile, voted back their chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder, partly because he made it pretty clear that regardless of what any UN resolution said, he was not going to commit the German military to a US-led Iraq campaign. Indeed, it seems that with the exception of the British, all the European members of NATO are concerned at what involvement in the Iraq campaign could cost. Robertson’s comments serve to pinpoint the weaknesses and stresses within NATO. The British still fancy themselves as global policemen and Tony Blair clearly enjoys playing deputy to George Bush’s marshal. But only the Americans are prepared to spend on the men and the technology and the logistics to make NATO a workable alliance. Morality doesn’t come into it. Most NATO members would rather spend their money on themselves rather than weaponry. If the US can afford the opposite view, then NATO’s plays are its for the calling. But by the looks of it, Bush need not expect too many deputies in his posse to get Saddam.
-
Lessons from the Roman Empire -
In the cold climes of the north, millions of old and aging people, many
of them retired at 55 or 60 years, look forward to a future, perhaps,
decades of life, without the discipline of work. They are the pensioners of the wealthy European countries whose
demographic composition is in deep crisis. All but four of the 15 original
members of the European Union are facing a population decline. At least
three - Germany, Italy and Spain — may even disappear as nations before
the end of the century. By most conservative estimates, the EU needs at
least 1.2 million new immigrants each year to preserve its demographic
balance. And, yet, the union has adopted, and is trying to enforce, a string of
rigid anti-immigration laws, during the past few years. The picture to the south of Europe, across the Mediterranean, is quite
different. There, millions of young people are queuing at European
consulates in the hope of getting the visas they seldom secure. They, too,
face a bleak future because, unless things change, they are unlikely to
get the education and job opportunities without which they will not access
modern living standards. So, what is the solution? Put simply, the solution is to revive the Roman Empire! Of course, not
as an empire with an emperor and all that, but as a space within which
many different nation states can work together without frontiers. For over a thousand years, Europe, North Africa and part of the Middle
East, that is to say the region around the Mediterranean, were components
of a natural geographical entity with no internal frontiers. Peoples and
goods freely circulated in that vast area, contributing to economic
prosperity and cultural enrichment. All religions were allowed because the
state had no religion of its own. No one would be jailed for his or her
political opinions. The Roman world was not based on ideology but on law.
As long as an individual obeyed the law, the state didn’t care about his
race, ethnic background, sex, religion or economic status. The Roman world did have its ugly side, however. It tolerated slavery
and, in its final phases, was sinking in a morass of moral turpitude. It is strange that almost 2,000 years later, that natural geographic
and historic entity is divided across religious, cultural and ethnic
lines. The EU has just admitted as new members a string of countries like
Poland and three Baltic republics that were never part of the Roman
Empire. At the same time, it has rejected Turkey that, for a thousand
years, was the center of Roman power. The EU doors are also shut to Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya and
Morocco that were part of Rome before it extended its rule to present-day
France and Britain. What is now Turkey, Egypt, and North Africa produced
numerous leaders for the empire, including at least six emperors. The logic of globalization dictates that state frontiers, which began
to solidify as a result of World War I, be lifted to create larger
economic, social and cultural spaces. North Africa, which has the most beautiful beaches of the
Mediterranean, could become a kind of Florida for the old-age pensioners
of western and northern Europe. In exchange, millions of young people
could move north from the south to provide the labor force needed to keep
the modern European economies going. Turkey, for its part, could become an
important reservoir of manpower, agricultural production and purchasing
power for an expanded Europe. A judicious mix of wealth and technology from the north and manpower
from the south could turn the Euro-Mediterranean region into the biggest
and most prosperous economy the world has ever seen. A purely continental Europe, however, will be heading for what
population experts describe as “ the gray explosion”. At the same
time, the southern and eastern regions of the Mediterranean will remain
poor with a demographic time bomb ticking in their midst. Against that background it is interesting to see some Europeans cling
to old prejudices to promote a “little Europe” ideology. France’s
former President Valery Giscard d’Estaing claims that Turkey’s entry
into the EU could mean “the end of Europe.” The reason? Giscard answers with one word: Islam! Germany’s former Chancellor Helmut Kohl, despite the fact that his
own son has married a Turkish Muslim lady, takes a similar position. What Giscard and Kohl ignore is the fact that Islam already forms the
second largest, and the fastest growing, religious community in the
European Union. Giscard and Kohl are yesterday’s men, with a vision
oriented toward the past rather than the future. What would happen if the entire European continent, including all those
that have refused to join the EU, enter the club alongside with Turkey,
Egypt and the four North African countries? This new and expanded version
of the old Roman Empire will have a total population of around 800 million
of which some 250 million would be Muslims. Giscard’s claim that Muslims could “swamp Europe out of
existence” is pure fantasy. The Europeans, especially the French, pride themselves in having
secular political systems. Thus there is no logic in treating the European
Union as if it were an exclusively Christian club. It makes no sense for
the European Union to court Georgia and Armenia as future members, simply
because they are Christians, but slam the door in the face of Turkey and
Morocco which are closer to Europe by geography and history. One crucial lesson of history is that civilizations that close
themselves end up weakened and ultimately perish. Rome’s own history is an illustration. As long as it was an open
society, accepting people of all faiths and ideas, it remained a dynamic
maker of civilization. Once it had frozen into an instrument for a single
dogmatic brand of Christianity, it began to decline and was ultimately
defeated by its traditional enemies. Prosperity is like the flame of a candle. If applied to the wick of
unlit candles it can produce a feast of light. If left to burn alone it
will eventually die out.
-
America's
pro-Israeli policy, main source of ME troubles By R. Zein Syria Times,
24-12-2002 -
The course of events in the Middle East region has irrefutably shown that the American Administration of President George W. Bush has not only given up its commitment to ME peace obligations but has, as well, been adamant on backing the Israeli occupiers and aggressors and on dealing blows to principles of the peace process, to the US-designed "land for peace" initiative and to the legitimate rights of the Palestinian Arab people. The US is no more a true sponsor of ME peace and an impartial and honest peace broker. It has been pursuing a double standard policy which has nothing to do with right and justice nor with the long-awaited just peace. The awkward policy, based on full bias to Israel and on backing its anti-peace and criminal course, is unquestionably the source of all ME troubles which have been bedeviling the entire region over the past fifty years. Past and recent experiences as well as the American ME initiatives have proven that the US is favouring the Israeli occupiers and aggressors and is working to impose total American-Zionist domination on the Arab region. The US initiatives, including the Mitchall report, the Tenet plan and the Road Map , ran short to UN Resolutions 242 and 338 which are the basis of a just settlement and to the Palestinians' legitimate rights to total liberation, freedom and genuine independence. The US moreover continued to back the extremist Israeli government of Ariel Sharon and to render it all-out political, military and financial aid. Washington has been giving blind eyes and deaf ears to the tragic conditions in the occupied Palestinian territories were acts of mass genocide and brutal destruction have been at full swing against the unarmed and defenceless Palestinians. Needless to say therein that statements made every now and then by the American officials on ME peace and on the establishment of an independent Palestinian state are mere candid words and that their promises to set up a just and comprehensive peace have been false if not totally delusive. Tangible actions on the ground are a proof that Washington's attitudes towards the ME issues, the entire Arab-Israeli conflict in general and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in particular have been based on favouring Israel's occupation and aggression and on serving the hegemonistic American-Zionist interests in the this strategic and sensitive part of the world. America's hegemonistic and anti-peace drive manifested among other things through full backing of butcher Sharon and his criminal ilk can be summed up in few examples: Washington has on several occasions obstructed the UN Security Council debates on Israel's incessant atrocities against the Palestinian people and spared no efforts to prevent condemnation of Israel. On Israel's destruction of the Jenin camp and its killing of hundreds of unarmed Palestinians, Washington's stand was wicked and flagrant. The Bush administration obstructed the international investigation team before they started activities. It closed the file of the Jenin camp massacre, considering Israel's carnage as if it were not intentionally perpetrated. Meantime, Israel's immense crimes being committed against the Palestinians still go unheeded by Washington. Moreover, Bush and his close aides used to welcome butcher Sharon as a "hero" and a "man of peace" despite world-wide condemnation of Sharon as a war criminal at large. Bush has unreservedly approved Israel's decision to declare holy Jerusalem as its capital. Fairly recently, the US voted against a Security Council resolution considering Israel's decision as null and void. Furthermore and in addition to unceasing military, political and financial support, Washington has granted Tel Aviv USD.14 billion as loan guarantees which will be allocated for reactivating Israeli settlement building and expanding operations and for seizing further Arab lands. Reference should be made to the fact that Israel annually receives more than USD.3 billion from the US. Bush has recently appointed "Eliot Abrams" as a new American special envoy to the ME in charge of the peace process and a settlement between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. Abrams is known for his full allegiance to the most extremist and racist forces in Israel, especially and the Likud. Last but not least, the US continues to mislead the world public opinion about the real state of affairs in the Israeli occupied Palestinian territories and to intentionally mix between terrorism and the Palestinians' right to resist Israel's occupation and repel its flagrant aggression. As far as the establishment of the proposed Palestinian state is concerned, Washington continues to give a vague vision on the nature, frontier and function of the temporary state, stressing meantime that Israel's security -not the security and safety of the Palestinians- is America's top priority and its main pre-occupation. However and by fully backing Israel and adopting flagrant and arrogant stances, the US confirms its non-abidance by basic peace obligations and by resolutions of the international legitimacy. It has given an established evidence that it is a practical partner of Israel's anti-peace course and its unbridled crimes and aggression against the Palestinian people. Under such tragic circumstances and so long as the US adopts arrogant stances and continues to back the Israeli occupiers and aggressors, peace will not be established, security is a mirage and new cycles of violence and bloodshed may not be bridled. The region will hence be put on the verge of total collapse, if not complete destruction, and the US alone will be responsible for evil and deadly consequences.
-
Israel's
Political- Military Elite By A.
Halaweh
Syria Times,
23-12-2002 -
For Israel the early eighties were marked by the invasion of Lebanon, and aggravated economic crisis and the rise of the supposedly autonomous armed settler movement. In this situation, there was much speculation about the possibilities of a military coup and /or the rise of fascism. We would contend that outright implementation of these two options is superfluous, for they already exist in forms especially geared to the needs of the Zionist project. A military regime is not needed in view of the existence of a closely integrated political-military elite; it would only harm the Zionist state's international image, and thus complicate its alliances and foreign aid, etc. Semi-fascist control is already exercised against the internal enemy in the form of the military dictatorship which exists in the 1967 occupied territories, and when needed against Palestinians living in the state itself. On the other hand, maintaining a democratic facade for Jewish citizens is an integral part of fully mobilizing their capacities for the Zionist project. Those who were shocked by Israeli conduct in the 1982 war in Lebanon cited in particular the role of then war minister Ariel Sharon and chief of staff Raphael Eitan who directed the advancing army way beyond the geographical and time limits approved for زOperation Peace for the Galileeس. However, a deeper historical perspective reveals that similar زmanipulationس of adopted objectives by the military leadership have often occurred before. For example, in the 1967 war, the approved military plan called for penetrating the Sinai without conquest of the Gaza Strip or reaching the Suez Canal. There were those in the political leadership, notably then Labor Minister Yigal Allon, who disagreed with this plan, because they favoured controlling the canal. In any event, Israel went to war on June 4th, and on June 8th, the army had reached the canal, not to mention occupied the Gaza Strip. According to Haim Benjamini, retired brigadier general, زThe Israeli military elite, being زhowس decision-makers, made a crucial contribution to the overturning of the process (of civilian-military decision-making). However, Benjamini also notes that some in the political leadership advocated the military advance that was implemented, so his other conclusion is more to the point: ز A narrowing of the structural differentiation between the political institutions and the military elite nucleus, usually in wartime and in times of national crisis, has an influence on the constitution of ad hoc coalitions between political and military authoritiesس (Israeli Society and its Defense Establishment). This observation is highly relevant to Israel which has engaged in more wars than any other state since World War II. If one looks closely, disagreements in the Israeli leadership do not usually go between the politicians and the generals, but between factions with representatives in both sectors, who have differing tactics for achieving shared Zionist goals. According to Benjamini, neither was there any decision in 1967 to take the West Bank or the Golan Heights, but subsequent developments show a high degree of unity on exploiting the facts created in the field. It took over a decade for the question of territorial compromise to become a controversy in Israeli politics, and the dispute is not between politicians and generals. Labour which contemplates territorial compromise is the same political force that commands the political allegiance of most of the army elite, in 1967 and today. What Benjamini terms زad hoc coalitions between political and military authoritiesس are not so very ad hoc in Israel, but a consequence of how the state was organized in the first place. When the state was formed, Ben Gurion dissolved the Palmach which was dominated by Mapam, in order to concentrate power in the hands of Mapai (later the Labor Party); meanwhile, the Hganah became the army. His slogan was separating the military from politics, but the real effects of his reorganization was to concentrate power in the cabinet, and actually the inner cabinet. Although Israel is formally a parliamentary democracy, in practice the cabinet leads the Knesset and has a wide range of military and security prerogatives. Control over the military, in fact all contact between the military and the Knesset, goes through the defense and prime ministers who in at least three periods have been the same person. Though the defense minister is formally part of the political leadership, most of them have considered themselves as representing the military before the cabinet. The result is that though the military is subordinate to the political leadership according to law, there exists a de facto partnership. This system is reinforced on the level of personnel. ز Extensive research has been conducted on the subject of the representation of the professional military in Israelصs political elite. Peri, for example, has indicated that between 1948 War of Independence and 1977, one-third of all retired generals have become involved in a full-time political career. Since the 1967 Six-Day War, there has been a marked increase in the number of senior reserve officers in key policy-making bodies, such as the Cabinet and the Knesset (up to 1967, there had never been more than two reserve officers in the Cabinet, whereas since then, the range increased to 3-5; parallel figures for the Keenest for the pre-and post-1967 periods are 0-5 and 4-10 , respectively). Even more relevant to our study is the transition of senior officers to positions of direct responsibility for Israelصs security.. Up to 1967, the office of Defence Minister had never been filled by a senior army officer, whereas three such officers have assumed the position since then. A similar trend was noted among Deputy and Assistant Defense Ministers (only one senior reserve officer had held this post prior to 1967, while four have assumed it since then... The transition of senior IDF officers to other parts of the complex should also be noted). The heads of the Mossad, Border Police, Civil Guard, Civilian Administration, Airports Administration and the like are nearly always senior officers. A similar situation prevails in government concerns considered essential to security (e.g. the Electric Company, the oil refineries and El Al), while a more recent trend is the زparachutingس of generals into the defense industry- primarily the state-owned defense industries and other key manufacturing plants supplying the IDF ..س Alex Mintz, زthe Military- Industrial Complex: The Israeli case,س in Israeli Society and its Defense Establishment). With this set-up, who needs a military coup?
-
Viewing ME
with Israeli eye By M. Agha Syria Times,
23-12-2002 -
The US Administration has repeatedly ignored the attitudes of its Western allies on international issues. The American policy seems to be determined to contradict the positive logic pursued by the European states, members of the UN Security Council concerning the world problems, particularly the Middle East problem. Therefore, Washington does not care about the peoplesص legitimate rights or other countriesص sovereignty as it continues to offer all support, moral and material, to Israel.. This policy has been strongly criticized by all peace-loving nations and states. Thus, it was not strange that Washington has taken a stand which is opposite to its European allies concerning the road-map plan last week in Copenhagen, which provides for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state by the year 2005, and the necessity of the approval by the quartet committee on the Mideast of the said plan during its meeting in Washington. It has become clear that the American Administration has no independent policy in the Mideast. Its policy is tied to Israelصs. So, all American decisions are taken to satisfy Israel and the Zionist lobby in the US. This makes the US Mideast policy lose credibility and the Arabs and other nations view the US Administration with the eye of doubt. The recent American veto on the motion put by the Arab group to the Security Council has also given further evidence of the American bias to the Israeli war criminals. The US has vetoed a draft resolution that condemns the Israeli killings in the occupied Palestinian territories, particularly the most recent three UN employees that were killed by the Israeli occupation troops. Of course, crime is crime where it is perpetrated against UN employees or other people in the occupied lands or elsewhere, but it seems the US has two standards, the first is that the victims are terrorists; the second is that the killers are victims. The US turns facts upside down to please the Zionists and Israelis. This is a disappointing policy which must be condemned strongly by all world freedom-loving nations in the world. Washington is still governed by the Zionist decision-makers. And Bush continues to view all issues with an Israeli eye.
-
No more
excuses! By M. Agha Syria Times,
25-12-2002 -
It is obvious that whenever the US Administration fails to find a convincing pretext to justify its military strike against Iraq, it fabricates another one. Washington hasnصt ceased its attempts to develop a long term strategy for seizing the oil-rich Arab region through controlling Iraq. Therefore, it is not strange that Bush and his aides everyday come out with a new crisis related to the Iraqi file! They fabricate lies and spread them to condemn Iraq although all facilities were placed at the disposal of the international inspectors. Before and after submitting the 12000-page report on their military programs, the Iraqis have also showed a full cooperation with the inspectors. Moreover, Iraq invited the CIA to help the UN team and guide them to the alleged chemical and biological weapons arsenals. زWe are ready to answer any question if we are asked to, but Iraq has no more documents to submit them to the UNس, the Iraqis said. Iraqis also confirmed they were prepared to cooperate with the UN Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC). Hence, they do their best to help the international organizations defuse the alleged crisis and to spare the region and the world a war the consequences of which cannot be predicted. The ball is now in the American Administrationصs court as Iraq has left no excuses to the warmongers to continue their feverish campaign. The UN resolutions No. 1441 has already presented any automatic military attack against Iraq, but the US seems to keep no promise or pledge since it pursues a double standard policy towards regional and international issues. The said resolution doesnصt okay any military attack eve if Iraq will not show cooperation with the UN inspectors or if any weapons of mass destruction are found. The resolution underlines that the UN Security Council is the only reference to decide on any military measure to be taken in case Iraq failed to cooperate with the international inspectors. The American policy after the September 11th events is characterized with more arrogance and brute force. This places the USA opposite to the world with other outlaws such as Israel.
-
Venezuela: US
vs. L. America By R. Zein Syria Times,
26-12-2002 -
Conditions in Venezuela continued to be complicated due to the development of the state of disorder; a pressing affair that has urged President Hugo Shavez to take some constitutional measures allowing the military to temporally control means of communications with a view to ensuring food and energy supplies to the citizens. The vicious strikes, some virtually pro-American, have worsened the economic condition, led to a shortage in foodstuff and decreased oil production from three millions barrel a day to 2000,000. Needless to say that the complication of worsening conditions is due to Americaصs intervention which continued to instigate the conflict after tension was eased following the Organization of Latin American Statesص call for a dialogue between the Venezuelan government and the opposition. In its current intervention by calling to hold new elections, Washington commits a new mistake similar to a previous one when in April supported the coup dصetate against Shavez, which failed in front of the steadfastness of the Presidentصs supporters and the Venzuelan poor. Washingtonصs intervention is not to protect democracy but is to put an end to Venezuelaصs leftist drive which stands firm against the hegemonistic interests of some US-led superpowers which care nothing about the national interests of the Venezuelans. Washington is apparently afraid of the leftist current seen growing in several Latin American countries, including Brazil, Ecuador and Argentina. The US is trying to deal a blow to Venezuela in order to intimidate the leftist parties and bridle the extension of the left in states of the continent. Can Washington succeed in its anti-people drive, bring the new leftist forces out of the conflict and achieve its hegemonistic ends? The peopleصs organizations and national forces grouping under the زBolivarس world movement have potential elements and will certainly not be an easy prey for foes of the Latin American peoples.
-
Try another one Sharon Jordan Times, 12/27/02
- When the UN weapons inspectors could not find anything incriminating on Iraq after more than a month of trying, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon proclaims that Israel suspected Baghdad was transferring banned weapons to Syria to conceal them from the inspectors. Naturally, Sharon offered no evidence of his allegation. If we were in a court of law such an unsubstantiated comment would be stricken from the record. The word coming out of the Arab world to describe Sharon's latest ploy to malign another Arab country while diverting any eyes away from Israel's own controversial nuclear capabilities is “ridiculous.” To begin with, the transfer of mass destruction weapons from one country to another is no easy matter and cannot escape the detection of the US. For Baghdad to move its scud missiles across the vast desert separating Iraq from Syria without ever being detected is unimaginable. The medium-range missiles are huge and cannot be smuggled across hundreds of kilometres without notice. As for the alleged Iraqi chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, it is hard to believe that such dangerous bombs can be carried from one capital to another without posing great dangers to the countries involved. More important is that Damascus is not so gullible, reckless or irresponsible as to accept the deployment of Iraqi weapons and risk putting its own security in jeopardy. True Iraq and Syria have grown closer to one another but the fact remains that both Arab countries are still governed by two competing Baath parties. It is not all honey between Syrian President Bashar Assad and Iraq leader Saddam Hussein's regime as to facilitate such a scheme. Lest Sharon forgets, Syria supported UN Security Council Resolution 1441 and was part of the coalition that waged war against Iraq in the 1991 Gulf War. It is obvious that the Israeli leader seeks to kill two birds with one stone. He wants Iraq devastated and Syria destroyed. But his goal to broaden the Iraq conflict so that it is extended to other Arab countries will surely fail. No country sensible enough would buy the Israeli manipulation, especially the US.
IN A few days, we will be entering 2003, another year in the long life span of the Arab-Israeli conflict. I was a boy in 1967 when the West Bank and Gaza Strip were lost to Israel as a result of the so-called Six-Day War, causing a flood of Palestinian refugees to come to neighbouring Arab countries, most notably Jordan. In the early days, weeks and months after the war, the refugees of the West Bank and Gaza (including those from my own village Yalo, which Israel levelled to the ground a few days after the war) were glued to the radio expecting to hear news about their expected, “inevitable” some thought, “return”. Every week, they would say: “Next week.” Month after month, they would say: “Next month.” And year after year, they would say: “Next year.” But year after year passed, with no news to this effect. Hope dwindled, and the Arab-Israeli conflict continued to add years to its life span, now 35 years since 1967, 54 years since 1948. Many who were glued to the radio in those said days have died in the so-called diaspora, waiting and hoping against hope. This is on the Palestinian side. What about the Israeli side? If Israel's publicly declared contention is correct, i.e., that the majority of its people wants peace, security and stability, then each year added to the Arab-Israeli conflict has also brought disappointment, pain and loss to the Israelis. The Israelis may have won most, if not all, of the wars they fought against their Palestinian and Arab neighbours since 1947, but no “victory” has brought them closer to their aims: peace, security and stability. In fact, every year that passes with no peace happening is a lost year for the Israelis. In this sense, the Israelis also have lost 35 years since 1967 and 54 years since 1948. The early 1990s, when the Oslo agreement brought Gaza and part of the West Bank under the authority of the Palestinians (and thus brought hope to the Palestinians that “return” was possible) and when the Palestinians and Jordan signed important peace agreements with Israel (and brought hope to the Israelis that peace and security were possible), were an Indian summer. We, in fact, thought peace had started to happen and the Arab-Israeli conflict had started to come to an end. The killing of the then peace-seeking Israeli prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin, ended the peace process and injected life and vitality anew into the Arab-Israeli conflict. What has happened since then? What is happening now, at the threshold of a new year? More wasted time, it would seem. Another wasted year, unless a miracle happens. For one thing, the Israelis and Palestinians have never been as wide apart and as at odds as they are now. Even during those years (the 1970s and 1980s) when the Israelis and Palestinians were not talking to each other, there was the hope that one day they would. It was inevitable. And during the years when the Israelis and the Palestinians were talking without making enough progress, there was hope that one day they will arrive at some understanding or compromise. Now that the Palestinians and the Israelis have stopped talking to each other and are up in arms against each other, the days ahead look very grim. In addition, Israel's relation with its Arab peace “partners” is at its worst; no meaningful communication is happening. Add to this the fact that the US, the so-called patron or sponsor of the peace process, is not patronising or sponsoring any peace initiative. And though the Europeans are desirous of peace, they cannot apart from the US come up with any initiative which might bring the Israelis and the Palestinians to the negotiating table again soon. The most significant cause of the failure of Israelis and Palestinians to restart negotiations and rekindle hope in the hearts of the Palestinians and Israelis, however, is the continued presence in Israel of a Likud-led government. Neither the present Sharon government nor the forthcoming government (be it under Sharon or Netanyahu) has peace as an aim. Sharon and Netanyahu are hegemonic, power-loving individuals who seek to impose an unacceptable status quo on the Arabs and Palestinians, an imposition that results, at best, in prolonging the life span of the Arab-Israeli conflict, one which is in the interest of neither Palestinians nor Israelis. Sharon and Netanyahu are, at best, time wasters. At worst, however, they are, as we have been witnessing, life wasters as well. At no time in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict have the Palestinians and the Israelis lost so much life. Almost every day, there is an Israeli attack on a Palestinian town; every day or so, there is a suicide bomb in an Israeli town. Violence breeds violence and killings breed killings. The situation is likely to remain the way it is as long as there is an Israeli occupation of Palestinian and Arab lands, as long as there are extremist Israeli leaders who think they can coerce Arabs and Palestinians into accepting an unacceptable status quo, and as long as the status quo embarrasses and delegitimises Arab and Palestinian moderates and encourages and legitimises Arab and Palestinian extremists. Unfortunately, there seems to be no light at the end of the tunnel. The present leader of the Labour Party, Amram Mitzna (whose discourse is, so far, commonsensical and decent), does not have much of a chance to win the forthcoming elections. Sadly, the so-called peace- and security-wanting Israelis are electing hawks who promise what they cannot deliver rather than doves who may be able to deliver peace and security. Sadly also, the present US administration is not likely to initiate (seriously, that is) and help materialise any peace plan. In the meantime, the only winner as a result of the continuing Arab-Israeli conflict is, naturally, the Arab-Israeli conflict itself, a monster to whose life span all the parties involved, but especially the Likud government, are contributing. The losers are, naturally, both the Palestinians and the Israelis, in addition of course, to all parties directly or indirectly involved. 2003 does not, it would seem, look different from 2002, unless a miracle happens.
ACCORDING TO Resolution 1441, the Bush administration needs to present to the UN Security Council a pattern of Iraqi misbehaviour to justify launching a war on Iraq. On the one hand, Iraq must be seen to be lying to the council about its weapons programmes. On the other, Iraq must openly obstruct or defy the UN Monitoring, Inspection and Verification Commission (UNMOVIC) as it goes about its task of searching for banned weapons of mass destruction in that vast country. So far, Iraq has not obliged Washington by misbehaving. Consequently, the Bush administration is pressing the UN to prod into adopting an obstructive line on the issue of interviewing its scientists. The Bush administration was clearly surprised when Iraq submitted a whopping 12,000 pages of documentation on its weapons programmes, dual-use facilities and procurement of dual-use equipment and raw material. Therefore, it took some time for Washington to begin bleating that Iraq has simply cobbled together a report rehashing activities from 1991-98, when the previous discredited and disbanded UN inspection agency (UNSCOM) was working in the country. Late last week, US spokesmen claimed that Iraq has not accounted for a number of items, including: more than 2,000 kilogrammes of growth medium for biological weaponry UNSCOM inspectors said was imported before 1995, fuel suitable for prohibited medium-to-long range rockets, a large amount of deadly VX nerve agent, 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas, and 400 aerial bombs capable of delivering chemical agents. Iraq also denies any connection between its efforts to build a pilotless aircraft and attempts to weaponise biological agents. During his very thorough press briefing on Dec. 22, General Amir Saadi, the official in charge of Iraq's weapons programmes, went through this list of alleged “omissions” in an attempt to explain what had happened to these items. Several, he said, had been on the way to resolution when UNSCOM was pulled out. The others could, he claimed, be easily sorted out during discussions with UNMOVIC, any time the inspectors choose. So far, he said they had not asked about the items on the US list. One hopes that they will do so soon so US allegations can be dropped as a possible pretext. The hawks must have been upset by Saadi's convincing performance. He speaks English well, is well-informed on the scientific aspects of the disarmament process and projects an impression of believability. He seemed to stumble on only one issue: the missing artillery shells and aerial bombs. He said the paperwork on these items had been destroyed when they were destroyed. Since he was clearly uncomfortable with this assertion, he added that the aerial bombs had been empty, in any case. Neither of these items, World War I vintage mustard gas shells, and empty bombs, are much of a danger, in any case. Saadi made the point, once again, that documentation on the period from 1998, when UNSCOM was withdrawn, to the present was scanty because Iraq has not been engaged in prohibited activity. A close look at the US list reveals that it is nothing more than the collection of unproved allegations Saadi said it was. Washington can hardly build a case for war on the basis of these charges. Furthermore, the intelligence material it is set to hand over to UNMOVIC will have to name specific projects and reveal their locations if Washington is to make a concrete case against Iraq for failing to disarm. Since UNMOVIC began its work in Iraq nearly a month ago, Baghdad has been both helpful and cooperative. There have been only minor hitches in inspections. By adopting a positive approach, Iraq has, so far, denied the US a pretext on this front. Since the international community has not been convinced that Iraq provided a false declaration of its weaponry and UNMOVIC says Iraq is cooperating fully with its demands, Washington has started to plug a fresh issue: the spiriting out of Iraq of Iraqi scientists for interrogation. Indeed, the Bush administration insisted that this demand be incorporated in Resolution 1441 precisely because it feared Iraq would provide a large amount of documentation and go along with UNMOVIC, thus denying the US a casus belli. The issue of asking the country's scientists to testify about violations is highly sensitive in every way. Saadi said that Iraq is compiling the graded list of scientists requested by UNMOVIC and will hand over the list by the end of the month. It will be arranged as a pyramid, with the most specialised and knowledgeable at the apex, senior figures lower down and technicians at the bottom. The general indicated that the scientists would be made available in Iraq for questioning by UNMOVIC, but would not say whether the UN would be permitted to take them out of the country for examination. Initially, UNMOVIC chief Hans Blix and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohammad Al Baradei opposed the inclusion of the provision concerning scientists in Resolution 1441. Blix said he did not want UNMOVIC to become a “spy” or “defection” agency. However, under strong pressure from Washington, he has agreed that interviews abroad with willing scientists could be an “option”. Al Baradei has said the IAEA would be prepared to transport scientists to a third country if proper arrangements are made for their temporary accommodation and long-term asylum. Jordan, Cyprus and Turkey have been mentioned as possible locations for the interviews to take place. Since Cyprus is UNMOVIC's regional base, it is likely that this could happen here. A host of questions must be answered about the entire interview process: — Is UNMOVIC empowered to summon scientists and compel them to testify? Those at the very apex of the pyramid who know most about Iraq's weapons programmes — like Saadi — will not be ready to talk because they are deeply committed to the regime. Indeed, their own and the government's survival depends on a negative finding. — Who, then, are the scientists to be selected? UNMOVIC and the IAEA have not drawn up a preliminary list because these agencies do not have enough hard information. They have requested information on specific individuals from the US and other Security Council members. This has not yet been forthcoming. — What will happen if individuals refuse to cooperate? Will Iraq be declared in breach of its obligations? — Will those belonging to the small group of those selected to travel agree? Blix and Al Baradei insist that scientists must be prepared to leave Iraq voluntarily. Many, if not most, are likely to reject emigration because they are Iraqi patriots and have no wish to leave the country. Scientists, specialists and technicians who remain in Iraq today are certainly committed to their homeland because tens of thousands of professionals, including scientists, have emigrated since the 1991 war, creating a massive brain drain. — How many members of a specialists' family would be included in a resettlement effort? — Is Washington prepared to provide asylum? Since the US is the only country pressing for implementation of this provision of 1441, the US is the obvious choice. Washington has made no commitment on this issue. — What would happen if a scientist demanding asylum provided no or little useful information? Would he be sent back home, knowing that he could be punished for disloyalty? — What would happen if an interviewee invented weapons violations in order to secure a new life in the US? Some might be ready to do this in order to escape a devastating US military assault and consequent instability and uncertainty. — How credible will the entire interview enterprise be? The answer to the last question is: Not very. This means that the Bush administration — which has failed to prove Iraqi bad faith in the weapons declaration or to goad Iraq into obstructing the inspection effort — will, almost certainly, not secure satisfaction from Iraq's scientists. Thus, the recourse to the UN, the inspection effort and the interviewing of scientists are almost certainly devices to fill in the time until the US is fully prepared to mount an essentially unilateral offensive against Iraq. Once the Bush administration has doubled the current deployment of 55,000 troops in the region, war will be inevitable. No world power would spend so much effort and so much treasure to move men and materiel from one side of the world to the other then bring soldiers back home again without making them fight. The Bush administration needs no other pretext to go to war.
-
'Merry Christmas, o little town of
Bethlehem' By Mazin B. Qumsiyeh Jordan Times, 12/27/02
- IMAGINE BEING a Palestinian Christian. Thoughts on materialism, spirituality, value of friends and families, and hope for the future are shared. These and many more existential issues face this besieged community. The Church of Nativity where tradition holds Jesus was born is less two blocks away from where I was born. Yet, my parents and relatives are forbidden to take the short walk to the church most of the time, due to “curfews”. Their world is so different. There is continued killing and injury of Palestinian civilians that goes unreported in US media and US churches and civic organisations would do well to invite Palestinian American Christians to speak to them. Israel killed over 2,000 and injured over 30,000 Palestinians in two years (that is equivalent, in population numbers, to injuring nearly two million Americans). Christians will not celebrate Christmas this year in Bethlehem. How could there be celebration when an altar boy was killed by an Israeli sniper on church grounds while playing with his young nephew? How could we celebrate when a Christian girl lost an eye while playing on her balcony to an Israeli rubber-coated bullet and we will be hard pressed to observe Christmas while under curfew? Over 3,000 children live with permanent disabilities inflicted by an Israeli army funded by our tax money. With 70 per cent unemployment and Israel targeting even aid agencies, a majority of Palestinian Christians and Muslims live below the poverty line of $2 per day and 45 per cent of the children are malnourished, according to UN studies. Holding nearly three million people hostage for the past two years, with licence to kill and maim them, is only possible because the US continues to fund and support this country (opposed by more than 140 states). Many UN resolutions critical of Israel were vetoed by the US, (including one just last week about the killing of UN personnel). Israel has yet to implement the 70 resolutions passed without a veto. Instead, the US threatens war on Iraq. Palestinian towns and villages are surrounded and isolated using medieval mechanisms, ranging from barbed wires, moats and ditches to walls and checkpoints. Bethlehem residents are not allowed to travel to Jerusalem (a mere 10 kilometres away) even during rare curfew reprieves. Human rights organisations continue to raise the alarm as Palestinians are prevented from reaching schools, work, houses of worship and even hospitals. Injecting extremist settlers (who do have freedom of movement) among Palestinians (e.g., in Hebron) adds to the misery and is tantamount to putting a few hundred KKK members on confiscated land in Harlem and then defending them with thousands of troops. Yet, unlike European media, the US media continue to mindlessly parrot Israeli government's nonsense about the Palestinians rejecting a “generous offer” or the ridiculous notion of the need for this oppression and colonisation (condemned by every single human rights organisation) for “Israel's security”. When Israel was established, some 60,000 native Christians and some 700,000 native Muslims were ethnically cleansed to make space for the nascent Jewish state (see http://PalestineRemembered.com). Thus, a majority of Palestinians now live as refugees or displaced people. By confiscating agricultural lands, building ghetto walls, and impoverishing them, Israel hopes to force the remaining Palestinians out. Should this fail, the option of transfer (perhaps while we are distracted with a war on Iraq) is being discussed at the highest level of Israeli government. Israeli apologists point to this as an accomplishment. Yet, history shows that native peoples fighting against colonial powers would rather be annihilated than live in apartheid and servitude. As the sole protector and chief financial sponsor of this oppressive regime, this double standard raises serious questions about US policy. While inner cities continue to suffer due to lack of funding, why is our government sending billions of our tax money every year to Israel (more than what we send to the whole continent of Africa)? Congress will take up a request for billions more in additional “emergency” aid to Israel in January. Merry Christmas! The writer is a Palestinian American Christian associate professor at Yale and co-founder of the Palestine Right to Return Coalition and AcademicsForJustice.org.
Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah's. |