|
November 1, 2002 Opinion Editorials http://www.aljazeerah.info |
||||
|
Human Price of the Israeli Occupation of Palestine Mission and meaning of Al-Jazeerah
|
Russia's savage campaign Russia’s savage military campaign to suppress the Chechens is being
ratcheted up still further, while the Kremlin uses international distaste
for terrorism to bring about the arrest of a leading Chechen envoy
attending a conference in Denmark. Moscow’s troops have sealed off six refugee camps with some 100,000
occupants in the Russian-run Republic of Ingushetia on Chechnya’s
Western border. There are reports that snatch squads have begun to enter
the camps, seizing young men of military age, who are being taken away
apparently for interrogation. Meanwhile, Danish authorities were convinced
by the Russians to arrest and detain Chechen diplomat Akhmed Zakayev on
suspicion of his involvement in last week’s seizure of a Moscow theater.
At a news conference yesterday, the Russians displayed weaponry they said
was found in the theater after its fatal storming. They also claimed to
have telephone taps that proved that Chechen President Aslan Maskhadov was
directly behind the terror attack. The fur of the Russian bear has long
been matted with Chechen blood. Tragically, world opinion may not be too
bothered that these latest moves against the Chechen are but the
continuation of a struggle that Vladimir Putin himself restarted in 1998. Ignoring renewed Russian aggression against Chechnya will be a bad
mistake, not just for the long-suffering Chechens but also for the
Russians themselves. Russia cannot crush Chechen resistance once and for
all. The nature of the terrain, coupled with the no less rugged nature of
the people it is fighting there, ma The only way the Russians can regain
anything from this struggle, even if it is only their dignity, will be
through negotiation. Yet the Kremlin refuses to talk, claiming in its
defense that there is no one with whom it can talk. Russian loathing for
Maskhadov may be considerable. It may be part of their strategy to cast
the Chechen president as the evil hand behind all Chechen terror groups,
in much the way that the Israelis seek to present Yasser Arafat as the
direct instigator of Hamas and Abu Jihad onslaughts. But the Russians are wrong to believe that there are no Chechen
moderates and no preliminary grounds on which negotiations could at least
begin. The Chechens as a whole may be a proud and stubborn people, but few
of them can really relish the continuation of a struggle that has
devastated their country to an awesome degree. Some form of autonomy under
Russian rule might now be acceptable, at least in the medium term. Such a
deal which would probably have to be underwritten by outside powers,
include substantial international aid flows to rebuild the shattered
infrastructure, and include a date on which Chechens might have the
opportunity to vote on their future relationship with Russia. The tragedy is that with every further assault on the Chechen people as
a whole, whether within or without the country’s borders, the moderate
position is becoming increasingly hard to sustain. Though Chechens must
ache for peace and justice with the same intensity as Palestinians, their
fury at their continued treatment can make any form of moderation seem to
be a form of betrayal. It will be a brave Chechen in the current time who
will put forward the arguments of compromise.
Israel has too many things on
its plate Retired four-star General Anthony Zinni, speaking at an Oct. 10 Middle
East Institute forum in Washington, cited some of the reasons why the
United States should not enter into a war on Iraq unless absolutely
necessary. In a list of 10 necessities for waging a successful war, Zinni
described the fourth necessity for any US action as the requirement that
there be no Israeli military attack. Zinni made it clear that if the Israelis got involved militarily, all
bets were off. Israeli participation would be a catastrophe for the US,
Zinni said, because all of the Arab countries would then feel compelled to
join into the fray, insofar as would be feasible. The possibility that, for their own domestic purposes, the Israelis
would join the battle is perhaps the single greatest dilemma facing
Washington. Inevitably, moreover, Israel will exact a steep price for
exercising restraint, in order to alleviate its own economic difficulties. Israel already has too many things on its plate. It is facing security
and economic issues at home and international criticism abroad. Israel also has too many irons in the fire. First, Prime Minister Ariel
Sharon hopes for an upheaval to take place if US President George W. Bush
decides to attack Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. This will give Sharon a
long-sought-after opportunity to try and force more Palestinians out of
the occupied territories. At the same time, cooperating with
Washington’s wishes will enable Sharon to make maximum gains in the form
of increased US aid. As far as the first goal — expulsion of Palestinians — is
concerned, Jordan’s stance on the matter renders that highly unlikely.
King Abdullah is deeply concerned and is keeping Jordanian armed forces on
alert in order to forestall any such action. It, therefore, seems unlikely
that Sharon will be able to realize his fondest hopes in that regard. The
second goal — increased US aid in exchange for cooperation — is,
therefore, the more practical approach. It is also arguably the most
urgent. Israel’s economy is now mired in its worst recession in 25 years,
thanks to the two-year-old Palestinian intifada and a slump in Israel’s
key hi-tech industries. Foreign investment and tourism have collapsed. The
shekel loses value by the month, unemployment has risen to 10 percent, and
small businesses suffer because people are reluctant to wander through the
malls for fear of suicide bombings. Last month Uzi Dayan, chairman of Israel’s National Security Council,
told the Israeli Parliament that the intifada was costing the economy
almost $3.1 billion annually, and that without an end to the violence
there is little hope of reversing the financial decline. According to Hebrew University in Jerusalem Professor Ephraim Kleiman,
“Tourism revenues have halved. Foreign investment has fallen by
two-thirds since the start of the intifada, although much of that drop
also has to do with the bursting of the dotcom bubble... I think nothing
will improve until something happens to the peace process.” Rather than face that reality, Israel hopes to revive its economy by
turning to the United States for more generous financial aid, in exchange
for noninvolvement in Iraq. Adds Kleiman, “I think Sharon is just trying
to exploit [the situation] to get some money. Bush wants Israel to behave
more decently to the Palestinians and to keep out of a war with Iraq.
Sharon wants to exact a price and guarantees for cheap loans are it.” Israel is trying to amass a pot of up to $10 billion, hoping to receive
as much as possible in the form of direct aid, rather than loan guarantees
that eventually would have to be repaid. Washington already has offered a
large aid package to help Israel in the event of a US strike on Iraq. The
offer, according to Israeli sources, was made during Sharon’s visit to
Washington in mid-October. According to a top Israeli official, “We’re basically talking about
credit guarantees and soft loans to stimulate a return of foreign
investment to Israel, help relaunch a string of projects and strengthen
our credibility in overseas financial markets.” More than a decade ago, the US offered Israel an enormous package of
soft loans to assist in the integration of one million immigrants from the
former Soviet Union. There was one condition, however: the aid could not
be used in the occupied territories. Then Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir
refused the offer, his government fell and he was replaced by Yitzhak
Rabin, who agreed to a freeze on settlement activity. But no such freeze
was implemented. According to the Israeli daily Ha’aretz, Israel has now set up an
interministerial committee headed by Sharon’s chief of staff, Dov
Weissglass. The committee, which also includes officials from the Israeli
Treasury and Defense ministries, will discuss how large a package to press
for. It wants Washington to allow most or all of the $2.1 billion in
military aid that Israel currently receives to be spent in Israel rather
than in the United States. Finally, the committee wants a special aid
package pledged by former US President Bill Clinton in July 2000 to be
restored. The package would cover Israel’s redeployment costs in pulling
out of south Lebanon. According to Ha’aretz, bureaucratic delays have
held up disbursement of the package and reduced its effective value to
$200 million. Israel already is by far the largest recipient of US aid in
the world. Every year it receives around $1 billion in civilian aid in
addition to the $2.1 billion military package. While Sharon seeks to extract every possible concession, however,
something may happen to forestall his designs. If Bush is forced into
further negotiations before attacking Iraq, it is possible that no such
attack will occur in the immediate future. In that case, Sharon once again
may have to confront the fact that the US wants to settle the Arab-Israeli
dispute once and for all. That is the possibility Sharon fears most. Many Israelis already feel that Sharon’s actions are destroying any
opportunity to make peace with the Palestinians on the basis of the
favorable conditions offered by the Arab League. These include an Israeli
withdrawal to the 1967 borders in exchange for peace and diplomatic
recognition by most or all League members. It is crucial that Washington not weaken its stance in this regard. If
the Israelis prevail and get even a significant portion of their $10
billion pie, there will be no peace in our time. This will be the next
major challenge for the Bush administration — and the sooner the burning
issue of Israel-Palestine is addressed, the better. — Richard H. Curtiss is the executive editor of the Washington
Report on Middle East Affairs. By George S. Hishmeh Jordan Times, 11/1/02 This blatant American contradiction does not bode well for the region,
which admittedly needs a good dose of democracy, since all indications are
that the hawks within the Bush administration now appear divided as they
approach the doorstep of this unprecedented imperial experience. Democracy begins at home, not at the end of the barrel of a gun,
American or otherwise. And the holding of national elections, praiseworthy
as that may be, in Bahrain and in many other Arab countries, is not an
assurance that decision making is shared, citizens' rights are protected,
or the rule of law has become universal or respected. My experience in raising two US-born children, Omar 21 and Leila 19, in
America, and now in college here and in Europe, has opened my eyes to the
basic elements of democracy which is overlooked in the Arab world:
decision making at home. My children are often assertive about their
freedom of choice — a situation that has sometimes angered me. Many a
time I was compelled to step back and acknowledge that they do have a
right to express their point of view. This is something I have not
experienced growing up in the Arab world, especially that I had an
assertive father. Diana Abu-Jaber, a successful Arab-American novelist and a university
professor who teaches writing in Portland, Oregon, echoed the same
feelings in an op-ed article in The Washington Post last Sunday. At the age of 10, her Jordanian immigrant father gave her permission to
paint their Volkswagen car, but on finding that she had painted “a peace
sign on one door and a `flower power' symbol on the other”, popular
since the days of the student revolt in the 70s, “his dismay was
palpable”. She pleaded with him not to sell the car as he had
threatened, and drawing on “my latest social studies lesson, (insisted)
`this is what it means to be an American. This is freedom of
expression'!” The point of her column was that the US government “appears to be
disturbingly free of dissent at this volatile moment; even our media
frequently seem docile and one-note; opposition voices are rare and
marginalised. I have not met a single person who is confident about waging
war on Iraq”. After noting the Congress' approval to give Bush authority to use force
against Iraq, she pointed to a remark made by Senate Majority Leader Tom
Daschle, a Democrat, who justified to his colleagues: “I believe it is
important for America to speak with one voice.” Abu-Jaber's reaction: “After a decade of teaching writing workshops,
the only times I have seen a class speak with `one voice' are the times
when people feel frightened or pressured into going along with the loudest
or pushiest voices in the room.” Dissent in the Arab world is rare indeed, and it may only manifest
itself in often ineffective street demonstrations, as was the case in
Washington last Sunday when over 100,000 demonstrators rallied against the
projected war against Iraq. In Bosnia, where the choices ten years ago somewhat resembled the
situation in Iraq, writes Paddy Ashdown, the high representative of the
international community for Bosnia and Herzegovina, “we thought that
democracy was the highest priority, and we measured it by the number of
elections we would organise”. She added: “The result seven years later
is that the people of Bosnia have grown weary of voting .... In hindsight,
we should have put the rule of law first, for everything else depends on
it: a functioning economy, a free and fair political system, the
development of civil society, public confidence in police and the
courts.” How will Washington behave should it decide to go it alone in
overthrowing Saddam Hussein's regime remains a puzzle here. Two senior
fellows from the Brookings Institution — Ivo H. Daalder and James
Lindsay — noted that there is finer disagreement among the
administration's hawks about “regime change” in Baghdad. “Will it be
enough to put in power someone new who can keep Iraq stable and guarantee
disarmament, as some of (Bush's) advisers argue? Or should the United
States seek to remake Iraq — and ultimately the entire Middle East —
by establishing democracy, as other (hawks) insist?” Another university professor, Mark Danner, who teaches journalism at
the University of California at Berkeley, sums up what's behind the notion
that an American intervention will make of Iraq “the first Arab
democracy”, as Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz put it: “It
envisions a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq secular, middle-class, urbanised,
rich with oil that will replace the autocracy of Saudi Arabia as the key
American ally in the Gulf, allowing the withdrawal of United States troops
from the kingdom. The presence of a victorious American army in Iraq would
then serve as a powerful boost to moderate elements in neighbouring Iran,
hastening that critical country's evolution away from the mullahs and
towards a more moderate course. Such an evolution in Tehran would lead to
a withdrawal of Iranian support for Hizbollah and other radical groups,
thereby isolating Syria and reducing pressure on Israel. This undercutting
of radicals on Israel's northern borders and within the West Bank and Gaza
would spell the definitive end of Yasser Arafat and lead eventually to a
favourable solution to the Arab-Israel problem.” The author added: “This is a vision of great sweep and imagination:
comprehensive, prophetic, evangelical.” The American pipedream flourishes in this vacuum, where no voices are
heard advocating a more serious and down-to-earth analysis of the root
causes of the region's turbulence, or where the absence of nuclear arms in
Iraq is certainly by far less menacing than their presence in North Korea.
Or, maybe, Washington for once would exercise some arms twisting and cut
expansionist Israel to size, allowing the establishment of a Palestinian
state. Only then will the pursuit of democracy have a better chance of
success in the region. By Fouad Mardoud Syria Times, 29-10-2002
It seems that President George W. Bushصs determination to go to war against Iraq grows more tauntingly intractable with time despite the worldwide opposition it faces now. Thousands and thousands of people take to the streets every day across the world including the United States announcing their rejection to Bushصs intention to attack Iraq. The question that grows with the passage of time now is how can the world stop the landslide to war. With that done, it has always seemed, there would be the emotional line of final victory of the world communityصs will, drawn in the sand. But even that line is beginning to blur. The deliberations within the U.N. Security Councilصs permanent members smell rotten. This week, the avoidance of a war in the Gulf seems so difficult, though U.S. representatives have been attempting new ways to appear cooperative with other members of the Security Council, pressure was ذ and still is ذ a potent weapon, probing the worldصs area of maximum weakness. The United States runs the U.N like a godfather who has taken course lessons from Israel. Its pressure is the heart of power, and beyond that lies a mesh of secret and open mechanism of bribes, rewards and brutality through bodies like the World Bank and other agencies that are mainly funded by Washington. If that fails, the only obvious alternative is a war by the regular army until another infrastructure of pressure and intimidation is created. As they use it, moreover, the dream American scenario of ruling the world through the old trick of زthe carrot and the stickس recedes. The key U.S. زgeneralsس of war are about to become just as much war criminals as Ariel Sharon himself. Any war against Iraq will cause so much destruction and bloodshed in that country plus much disorder in the whole region of the Middle East. After that will follow the political failures of the war and of the peace which will add more time and much more misery to plight.
Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent http://www.aljazeerah.info |
Born in 1954 in Tehran, Rakhshan Bani-Etemad numbers among the earliest
Iranian women directors to be internationally recognised. In 1995 she
received the Locarno Festival's bronze leopard for The Blue Veiled
and, last year, the Moscow Festival's special jury prize for Under
the Skin of the City. Indeed, her success may well have contributed
to the rise of slightly younger filmmakers, a generation including
Samira Makhmalbaf and Tahmina Milani.