Bolton: Israel will strike Iran if Obama is elected
munaeem | 24 June, 2008 14:09
Former US Ambassador John Bolton has made a prediction that Israel
would attack Iran after the November presidential election but before
George W Bush's successor is sworn in.
He says that Arab states would support Israel's action.
In
my opinion, Mr. Bolton's should desist from making such statements. It
would only increase tension in the Middle East. It also increase the
economic woes of American people who are already suffering because of
rising oil prices.
Senator Barack Obama ‘s comment about Jerusalem
has generated a generated a storm of controversy in the Middle East and the
U.S. He said that Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must
remain undivided.
His aides are trying to explain his remarks to allay Arab
anger. However, it is clear from his statement that if he is elected, he would favor
Israel.
Former US president has met the Hamas leader Khaled Mashal despite opposition from the Bush administration and the Israel. The meeting took place under tight security in the Syrian capital Damascus where reporters were not allowed.
Mr. Carter is on a tour of the Middle East for finding solutions of Israel-Palestinian conflict. He has also met the Syrian President Bashar-ul-Asad. Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by the United States and the European Union. I think that the opposition is unjustified. No solution can be found without taking on board all stakeholders in the conflict.
Hamas has public support and it cannot be ignored if a solution is to be found. I think that Hamas should be engaged in talks and Mr. Carter has made a right move by meeting its leader.
The Russians are trying to increase their influence in the Middle East. Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas has visited Moscow and has called for a Middle East peace conference in Russia. He has said that the Moscow conference should be held as soon as possible in order speed up the slow peace talks with Israel.
I think that the Russian influence will provide a counterbalance in the Middle East. The Russians are acting in order to claim their lost power. They are now beginning to assert themselves in world affairs and I think that in the coming days the Russian influence in the region will increase all the more.
Despite this, I think that the Arab Israel conflict will not be solved even there is absence of sincere efforts on the part of big powers. The people of Palestine must also act to bring peace in the region. It must be realized that Israel is a reality which cannot be obliterated.
Commentary: Israel says removed 50 W.Bank dirt roadblocks
munaeem | 03 April, 2008 14:41
Israel had promised on Sunday that it would remove roadblocks and ease travel restrictions on Palestinian businessmen.
Today,
Israel said that it had dismantled 50 roadblocks, but declined to give
their location. Palestinian security source said that Israel removed
only three dirt-mound obstacles, near the cities of Ramallah, Jericho
and Tulkarm.
Secretary should ask Israel sternly why it
procrastinate to implements things they promise. If Israel continue to
behave that way , it will hinder peace efforts in the region.
There
is no doubt Arab disunity has embolden Israel. However, sooner or later
Arab dictators will be toppled and then Israel will fend for its
survival. The situation in Egypt will soon go out of Mubarak’s hand and
Muslim hardliners will come to power there. This will be nightmare for
Israel.
According to news report the Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrullah has vowed for the destruction of Israel and has also said that it was destined to disappear.
I think that Israel is a hard reality which the leaders of the Arab World must realize. They must also realize that they lack the power to undo Israel. Israel has unmatched firepower and has the open backing of the United States. It is a wishful thinking that Israel is destined to disappear. I do not see any such thing even in the remote future.
It would be better to find out ways of peaceful co-existance. I do not mean to say that I support Israel in whatever it is doing. I want the Muslim world to be united. Unity is their only option for survival in the present world.
Meet Professor Nadia Abu El-Haj, a notorious Barnard College professor now up for tenure who:
# claims the ancient Israelite kingdoms are a "pure political fabrication,"
# denies the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 CE and instead blames its destruction on the Jews,
# does not speak or read Hebrew yet had the temerity to publish a book on Israeli archaeology that demanded such expertise,
# is so ignorant of her topic that she quotes one archaeologist on how a dig might have damaged the ancient palaces of Solomon - oblivious to the fact that those palaces, if they existed, were far from the site in question.
None of these charges are true. You could look it up. I did, in El-Haj's book “Facts on the Ground,” about which these charges are made. The statements for which a network of right-wing critics assail her book are not there.
I asked Paula Stern, the Barnard alum who has organized an online petition demanding that El-Haj be denied tenure, how she squared her petition's charges with El-Haj's book. "The petition takes pieces of criticisms from experts. It may not be quoted 100 percent accurate," she admitted. Still, more than 2,500 people, including many Barnard and Columbia alumni, have signed on to its claims. Tellingly, Stern, who now lives in the West Bank, voiced astonishment at being asked to justify her charges in terms of what El-Haj's book actually says. "I've spoken to many newspapers," she said. "No one has done what you've done."
I looked that up, too. In the key media venues, at least, Stern was right; and not just with regard to her target. In case after case, a network of right-wing activists has started an online furor based on a mélange of distorted or provably false charges against someone involved in Middle East studies. They supported these charges with quotes yanked out of context or entirely made up and wielded a broad brush of guilt by association. Right-wing media megaphoned the charges, stoking the furor. And mainstream media ultimately noticed and responded, often focusing their stories on the furor rather than the facts.
Under pressure from these assaults, some academic institutions buckle and a professor's career is derailed; in other cases it is permanently stained. More insidious, even when tenure puts an academic beyond the reach of his or her assailants, more vulnerable junior faculty and grad students take note. "There certainly is a sense among faculty and grad students that they're being watched, monitored," said Zachary Lockman, president of the Middle East Studies Association. "People are always looking over their shoulder, feeling that whatever they say - in accurate or, more likely, distorted form - can end up on a website. It definitely has a chilling effect."
This is the modus operandi of the New McCarthyism. It targets a new enemy for our era: Muslims, Arabs and others in the Middle East field who are identified as stepping over an unstated line in criticizing Israel, as radical Islamists, as just plain radical or as in some way sympathetic to terrorists. Its purveyors include Campus Watch, run by Arab studies scholar Daniel Pipes; the David Project, supported by the Charles and Lynn Schusterman Foundation; and David Horowitz's FrontPage Magazine (in October Horowitz organized an "Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week" on campuses across the nation).
Their efforts often appear to be linked. As first noted by blogger Richard Silverstein, the earliest web attack on El-Haj's book was posted simultaneously by Campus Watch and FrontPage, in October 2005. Alexander Joffe, identified as a professor at SUNY, Purchase, published a harshly negative review of the book in The Journal of Near Eastern Studies that same month. The prestigious journal did not note - and was not informed - that he was then-director of Campus Watch. Soon after, he became research director for the David Project. Less prominent researchers like Stern, the online PipeLine News and writers such as Beila Rabinowitz and William Mayer provide raw material to the more well-known portals, such as Pipes and Horowitz. Pipes's and Horowitz's material is, in turn, picked up by key conservative papers like the New York Post and New York Sun.
There is an undeniable security threat, but as in the 1950s the New McCarthyites use it as a base for demagogy. Their distinguishing feature is not concern about this threat but cynical indifference to the truth or decency of their charges. Take the case of Debbie Almontaser, the New York City public high school principal forced to resign in August as head of a new Arabic/English secondary school. The furor revolved around her attempt in an interview with the Post to explain the meaning of, rather than simply condemn, T-shirts bearing the words Intifada NYC. This provoked a firestorm. United Federation of Teachers chief Randi Weingarten, a key supporter of Almontaser's school, condemned her in a letter to the Post. The next day Almontaser resigned - a move publicly welcomed by Schools Chancellor Joel Klein and Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Almontaser has since stated she was told to resign or the school, which she founded, would be closed.
In its obscuring, anodyne postmortem on the affair, the New York Times vaguely described Almontaser as a victim of the city's "treacherous ethnic and ideological political currents" rather than of specific charges that were demonstrably false - like Pipes's widely publicized claim, based on a truncated quotation, that she denied Muslims or Arabs were involved in the 9/11 attacks. The Times report on El-Haj adopted a similar hands-off stance, simply quoting supporters and attackers. It did not once compare the activists' charges with what El-Haj actually said in her book.
As it happens, Almontaser's forced resignation was the city Education Department's second dive in the face of pressure from the New McCarthyites. Three years ago it dismissed Professor Rashid Khalidi, the esteemed director of Columbia's Middle East Institute, from lecturing teachers enrolled in professional development courses. The dismissal came in response to a Sun article claiming Khalidi had denounced Israel as "a 'racist' state with an 'apartheid system.'" Khalidi denied the quote fragments as they were used in the story. "I do not think Zionism is racist," he told the Forward. "When we talk about some of the contemporary laws, there are policies that I consider racist and discriminatory." Asked if the department had verified Khalidi's purported remarks before dismissing him, a department spokesman avoided answering Times columnist Joyce Purnick.
Khalidi still has his day job, as does - so far - a nontenured Columbia colleague, Joseph Massad, who according to a special school investigative committee was falsely accused several years ago of discriminating against Jewish and Israeli students. The same cannot be said for Norman Finkelstein, who was terminated at Chicago's DePaul University in September after the school's president - in a rare departure from standard procedure - rejected the overwhelming tenure approval Finkelstein had received at both the departmental and college levels. Finkelstein's scholarly work has accused Jewish groups of exploiting the Holocaust and Israel of egregious human rights violations. He had incurred the special wrath of Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, whose book defending Israel Finkelstein had devoted an entire book to savaging. Dershowitz, in turn, tried unsuccessfully to prevent the University of California Press from publishing Finkelstein's book, and sent Finkelstein's tenure committees a dossier that he said documented his "most egregious academic sins, and especially his outright lies, misquotations, and distortions." Clearly, the tenure committees were not impressed by Dershowitz's claims. DePaul president Dennis Holtschneider, for his part, denied that Dershowitz's intervention affected his decision.
Beshara Doumani, a University of California history professor, has mapped the systemic strategy of the New McCarthyism, highlighting that more than just its targets are new. First and foremost, private advocacy groups, not Congressional committees, are by and large today's means of pressuring academic administrations - at least, so far. These groups often retain important ties to government figures. But they are most focused on organizing alumni and students, with an eye toward generating public outrage and eventually government and donor pressure.
"I'm worried about untenured professors trying to get tenure," said Doumani, co-chair of the Middle East Studies Association's Committee on Academic Freedom. "I'm worried about entire departments saying, 'We need people in Middle East positions, but we're not going to hire certain kinds of people. It involves too much headache, too much risk.' How do you quantify that? You can't. But it's going around. I can tell you, it's a real issue."
Commentary : Peres blasts U.S. school for hosting Iran leader
munaeem | 26 September, 2007 10:18
Israeli President Shimon Peres on Tuesday lambasted Columbia University in New York for hosting Iran's president. He compared the event to attempts to engage Adolf Hitler in dialogue before World War Two.
Instead of lecturing others to correct their behaviors, Israelis should learn to behave themselves. There is no doubt that Ahmadinejad is a "petty and cruel dictator". But Israelis are oppressor, occupier and tyrant too.
They ignored all UN resolutions. They are oppressing Palestinian people. They are denying them their legitimate rights.
After four years mucking up Iraq, President George W. Bush is calling an American-led "international meeting" on the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
Please, Mr. President, let it be, bad as it is. Go fishing, send Dick Cheney hunting, whatever. Don't blunder again in a region in which you and your neoconservative advisers have zero credibility.
The much-abused Israelis and Palestinians deserve an honest broker.
Events in the region have deteriorated since Israel's victory in the 1967 war resulted in control and eventually occupation of those lands left to Palestinians after creation of the state of Israel.
Reporting from the West Bank in 1982 for King Broadcasting, I concluded a 30-minute documentary: "The occupation has taken the land, diverted the water, and filled village life with tension and conflict. Palestinian boys leave to become guer-rillas, for there is little reason to stay under the guns and in the prisons of occupation. This is an occupation financed and forgotten by Americans. But while it continues, there will be no peace, on the land or in the souls of the people."
Shortly after the documentary aired, Israel invaded Lebanon and drove the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) into exile. Two Islamic organizations — Hamas and Hezbollah — emerged in the chaos, and now dominate the Palestinian cause. Palestinians were overwhelmingly secular in 1982 — the only PLO element with religious overtones was a Christian militia. Gradually, Palestinians turned to Islamists because nothing else worked.
With the exception of the Oslo agreements in 1993, events have gone downhill in the past 25 years, directly related to the building of permanent Israeli settlements (now 271) in Palestinian territory. Jerusalem is ringed by fortresslike settlements, a 30-foot wall is sealing off the West Bank, and a network of roads exclusively for Israeli settlers carves the West Bank into a series of isolated and impoverished enclaves.
Some 400,000 Israeli settlers live among 2.5 million West Bank Palestinians, but control more than 40 percent of the land. Israeli soldiers protect them, staff some 500 roadblocks and checkpoints, and control much of West Bank life.
These "facts on the ground" must be addressed along with the violence from both sides if any progress is to be made. The policy of the Bush administration has been to turn a blind eye to expansion of Israeli settlements while condemning Palestinian violence. Our Cheney-driven policy is black-or-white, us-or-them, good-or-evil, in a region where everything comes in shades of gray.
We have not helped our cause by promoting democratic elections in Palestinian territories and then refusing to accept the overwhelming victory of Hamas in a free and fair election. Just as our invasion created al-Qaida in Iraq, isolating and demon-izing Hamas may create a branch in Gaza.
Israel "gave" Gaza to the Palestinians in 2005, an overcrowded slum with no jobs and with borders sealed off by Israel. No one wanted Gaza — it has no religious significance — and its predictable implosion gave Israel an excuse not to yield on the West Bank.
Politics have failed on both sides. Israel's vibrant and democratic politics have been captured by right-wing religious zealots and sometimes-violent settlers. Among Palestinians, the Fatah government has been ineffectual and corrupt, and educated secular professionals have emigrated to find a better life, leaving a gap that has been filled by violence. Ordinary people on both sides want peace and support a two-state future.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas holds the shredded cloth of secularism, but is increasingly unpopular. Hopes for reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah remain, but lack a leader.
Israel is releasing some Fatah prisoners, but not Marwan Barghouti, perhaps the only Palestinian with the street credibility to unite Palestinians. Israel says Barghouti "has blood on his hands." Indeed. No major player in the dispute has clean hands. In 2006, according to B'tselem, an Israeli human-rights group, Israeli forces killed 660 Palestinians; Palestinians killed 23 Israelis.
My dictionary defines terrorism: "The use of violence or threats to intimidate or coerce." There is terrorism on all sides. Palestinians carry suicide bombs and lob mortar rounds into Israel. Israeli soldiers raid Palestinian neighborhoods and shell from the air. One terrorist wears a robe, the other a uniform.
Earlier this month, departing British Prime Minister Tony Blair was named a special envoy to the Middle East. Better to give Blair a chance rather than turn this vital area over to the tender mercies of Bush, Cheney and the neocons. They need to make a genuine effort to get Syria and Iran to help extricate us from Iraq, not look for one more place to intervene.
Floyd J. McKay, a journalism professor emeritus at Western Washington University, is a regular contributor to Times editorial pages. E-mail him at floydmckay@yahoo.com
Israel to release prisoners this week, says Olmert
munaeem | 16 July, 2007 20:41
Ron Bousso AFP July 16, 2007
PROMISE: Israel's PM Ehud Olmert (L) meets Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Jerusalem July 16. Olmert met Abbas Monday and promised to speed the release of 250 prisoners in a bid to shore up his West Bank administration against rival Hamas Islamists. (REUTERS)
JERUSALEM -- Israel plans to release 250 Palestinian prisoners by the end of the week, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas as the two leaders met in Jerusalem Monday.
The pair held discussions for an hour in the presence of aides and then for nearly an hour one-on-one, in their second meeting since fighters loyal to Abbas were overrun in Gaza by Islamist Hamas a month ago.
The prisoners, the vast majority of them from Abbas' Fatah party, are slated to be released Friday following Israel's pledge to free them as a goodwill gesture to Abbas, a senior Israeli official quoted Olmert as saying.
"The ministerial committee will convene tomorrow to go over the list of 250 prisoners, which has been drawn up by the Israeli security services, and once it is approved, the prisoners will be released Friday unless there are legal steps taken against the release," the official said.
But while welcoming the release, the Palestinians said that the freeing of 250 prisoners out of the more than 11,000 currently held in Israeli jails was not enough.
"The president demanded that political leaders be included among them," chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat told reporters in Ramallah after the encounter, the sixth official meeting since Olmert took office in May 2006.
The prisoners include 11 minors, with the rest adults who have at least a year left to serve in their sentence, and all will have to sign a "commitment not to be involved in terror," the official said.
The prisoner release was one of a series of moves undertaken by Israel to boost Abbas since the Gaza takeover by Hamas, a group pledged to the destruction of the Jewish state.
Olmert insisted that Abbas, who has ruled out dialogue with Hamas in the wake of the bloody Gaza takeover, not re-engage with the Islamists, saying that this "means blowing up the current peace efforts."
Other recent Israeli steps have also included a pledge to take off wanted lists nearly 190 militants who had promised not to wage anti-Israel attacks and allowing veteran Palestinian nationalist leader Nayef Hawatmeh to enter the West Bank for the first time in 40 years.
Israel has also unblocked part of Palestinian custom duties that it has withheld for more than a year after Hamas came to power.
The Palestinians, however, have insisted that talks between the two sides focus on long-term issues, like borders, instead of gestures.
"The president wants his meetings with the Israeli prime minister to focus on political negotiations, the Arab initiative" and steps toward establishing the Palestinians' long-promised state, Erekat said.
Ahead of the meeting, Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad warned Israel that it had to be willing to discuss substantive issues with the Palestinians if the stalled Middle East peace process were to move ahead.
"To give confidence to the Palestinians in the peace process, you have to deal with long-term and short-term issues at the same time," the respected economist said in an interview with the Ha'aretz newspaper, excerpts of which were published Monday.
Fayyad said that although recent gestures by Israel were important, it would be a "pathological" mistake to focus talks on these issues exclusively.
Monday's meeting came ahead of an expected statement by US President George W. Bush, in which he is due to outline new economic and diplomatic support for Abbas and the Fayyad government.
"And he's going to talk about what we can do to support President Abbas, Prime Minister Fayyad in their efforts to build now a democratic and effective Palestinian state," National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley said Sunday.
The chances of a Palestinian state are fast diminishing, as Israel forges ahead with the Judaisation of East Jerusalem
Another Jewish settlement is being built. It is called Nev Tzion/ Manthar Al-Thahabi (the Golden View) because it overlooks Jerusalem and the Dome of the Rock. The settlement is located in the middle of the Arab neighbourhood of Jabal Mukabir. On the back of Israeli buses, advertisements claim that the prices for apartments at Nev Tzion have reached $200,000, providing a bargain for European and American Jews who might possibly desire a vacation home in the Holy Land, the "Eternal Capital of Israel", as the former Israeli prime minister, Menachem Begin (who also annexed the Golan Heights in 1981) once called Jerusalem.
As a result of the Six-Day June 1967 War, Israel conquered East Jerusalem from Jordan, the barb wire separating east and west Jerusalem was torn down and the city was "reunited".
Meanwhile, a report by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) leaked to the media, has separately accused Israel of reshaping Jerusalem to further its own interests, in violation of international law.
According to the report, Israeli policy has far reaching humanitarian consequences for Palestinians living under occupation in east Jerusalem.
The confidential report transmitted to Israel on February 2007 showed Israel's "general disregard" for its obligations under international humanitarian law and the law of military occupation in particular.
Yet, Israel rejected the report, "we reject the premise of the report, East Jerusalem is not occupied land, it is part of Israel," said Israeli foreign Minister spokesman Mark Regev.
Furthermore, according to the authors of a new book, Separate and Unequal, Israel's Judaisation and discriminatory policy towards East Jerusalem has become a "d e facto " one. The authors, Amir Cheshin, Bill Hutman and Avi Melamed, go to great lengths to describe how, since 1967, the Arab population has fared badly under the supposed "re-unification" of Jerusalem. Treated as an "ethnic minority" with lesser political rights and social privileges, Arabs in East Jerusalem are also subject to inferior quality social services such as water, postal services, electricity and garbage collection. The first Palestinian Intifada exacerbated the divisions between the east and west, while the second reinforced and militarised Palestinian frustration, following decades of Israeli mistreatment.
Relying on their experiences as advisers to the successive Israeli mayors of Jerusalem -- Kolleck from Labour and Olmert from Likud, it is worth quoting the insightful comments of the three authors.
"Do not believe the propaganda -- the rosy picture Israel tries to show the world, of life in Jerusalem since the 1967 reunification. Israel has treated the Palestinians of Jerusalem terribly. As a matter of policy, it has forced many of them from their homes and stripped them of their land, all the while lying to them and deceiving them and the world about its honorable intentions. And what makes all this so much more inexcusable is that there was no reason for it." (p.251)
Published in 1999 by Harvard University Press and presenting The Inside Story of Israeli Rule in East Jerusalem, as the subtitle attests, the repercussions continue to be felt today. East Jerusalem is now an Arab enclave within a consolidating ring of Jewish settlements. These stretch from the settlement growth of Pisgat Ze'ev and Nev Yaco in northern Jerusalem, to the eastern Jerusalem E1 settlement activity in and around Ma'ale Adumim. The southern Jerusalem settlements of Gilo and Har Homa also extend to the pockets of new Jewish settlements in the Arab neighbourhoods of Jabal Mukabir and Ras al-Amoud. East Jerusalem is thus completely surrounded and isolated from the rest of the Palestinian territories. The consolidation of "Greater Jerusalem" is also effectively cutting the West Bank in two, destroying the possibility for a territorially contiguous Palestinian state.
Plans to consolidate "Greater Jerusalem" are nothing new, however. Ma'ale Adumim was established in 1975, and the E1 expansion and expropriation plan was conceived by Yitzhak Rabin in 1995. Sharon continually supported settlement activity, and, not surprisingly, the near completion of his "security fence" is inclusive of "Greater Jerusalem". The Israeli wall cuts through the Arab neighbourhood of Ras Al-Amoud and through Jabal Mukabir, and then deeply into the West Bank.
The inclusion of the Jewish settlements within Greater Jerusalem could resolve the perceived demographic problem posed by the Arab population, with its higher birthrate. Israel will be able to maintain its claim to be both Jewish and democratic. In the case of final settlement negotiations, this inclusion scenario would satisfy the Clinton parameters which state that what is Jewish will be Israeli, and what remains Arab, will be Palestinian. The Clinton parameters also call for an Israeli withdrawal from around 90 per cent of the West Bank, along with land swaps for the remaining settlements.
However, the consolidation of a Greater Jerusalem as the capital for Israel will further complicate final status negotiations, and could render the two-state solution obsolete. The current course of settlement activity makes it difficult to envision how East Jerusalem could become the Palestinian capital. Where precisely in East Jerusalem could a Palestinian capital be situated? One can envision a possible token Palestinian Authority office at the now empty Orient House, where the quasi- headquarters of the PLO once were; but even flying a symbolic Palestinian flag above the entrance seems so far-fetched that it would be laughable. The other possibility would be a symbolic religious capital on the Haram Al-Sharif, which is also highly improbable. High levels of Israeli creativity and Palestinian imagination will be required to determine where the location of a Palestinian capital would be in Jerusalem.
Ideally, Tel Aviv and Ramallah would be the political capitals of Israel and Palestine, and Jerusalem would become a corpus separatum, as the UN proposed in 1947. But this is unacceptable to Israel, which claims that it is entitled to a holy city, Jerusalem being the only one pertaining to Israel, whereas Al-Quds (Jerusalem) remains third in line for the Arab Muslim world, after Medina and Mecca.
With no Palestinian state in sight, and with Arab East Jerusalem incorporated, with all its limitations, into Israel, one is compelled to ask again: will Palestine remain a symbol or will it become a reality? As Israeli "facts on the ground" consolidate, that reality is rapidly vanishing. Will what remains of Palestine then be incorporated, as East Jerusalem has been, into Israel? If so, a bi-national Israel/Palestine could then become a possibility. But then, due to the demographic balance, Israel would no longer be able to claim that it is both Jewish and democratic. Is this scenario really in Israel's national interest?
Settlements have overwhelmed Jerusalem, making the Dome of the Rock but an insignificant speck in the prospect of the city.
"Redeeming" Palestine? Two States, One State and Snake Oil
munaeem | 19 May, 2007 04:17
Written by Michael Neumann
May 18, 2007 at 10:30 AM
Those familiar with the Israel/Palestine conflict know that people propose one-state and two-state solutions. Two states means Israel plus a Palestinian state. One state means a single state covering all of Palestine.
There is a sort of one-state solution that I consider unattainable but otherwise unobjectionable. It essentially calls for Palestine to be given back to the Palestinians. This need not be a violent process, but it is radical. It can mean that all Jewish families and individuals who entered Palestine in the last 100 years or so have to leave, abandoning all their landed property. A more moderate but still radical variant is that these people can stay, but not on land previously occupied by Palestinians, unless the previous occupants were willing to sell or rent that property. Whatever its disposition, there would have to be compensation for past illegitimate occupancy. Presumably this compensation would be pretty enormous, into the millions of dollars per incident. The rationale for these solutions is that the Zionists did not simply settle in Palestine as immigrants, but planned and achieved a state which gave Palestinians a choice: accept ethnic Jewish sovereignty or leave. One-staters can argue that no one should profit from this abhorrent plan, so that everything should in principle revert to the pre-Zionist state of affairs.
My principal reason for favoring a two-state solution is that, like many, I don't feel there's the slightest chance that Israelis would accept a one-state solution as described, or that anyone could dictate it to them. If someone can show otherwise, fine. But recently another sort of one-state solution has been advanced, and it's snake oil.
The snake oil solution simply speaks of creating a single secular state in Palestine. This is sold without a price tag, but with a promise: it will be cheap! Essentially the Palestinians have everything to gain, and Israel's Jews nothing to lose but their chains: that is, their obsessive attachment to a state designated, in the sales pitch, as nasty, racist, undemocratic, and all sorts of other things. The idea that the nastiness of the state rule out the proposed solution never surfaces. Since Israel is roundly condemned in the pitch, it's assumed that the salesmen are on the level.
Invariably the promise of a cheap one-state solution is tied to the South African example. South Africa, it is said, experienced a non-violent transition to a single state in which whites and blacks have a future together. But is South Africa really a model for what could happen in Palestine?
South Africa is big (1,219,912 sq km), Palestine tiny (26,320 square kms). South Africa resource-rich, Palestine resource-poor. What is tolerable in South Africa is by no means tolerable in Palestine: the extraordinary magnanimity of South Africa's current leaders towards the white population is based on an abundance of land and resources not available in the Israel/Palestine conflict. There are other differences. In South Africa, whites were outnumbered almost ten to one within their own borders; Israeli Jews are a majority in Israel. When at last South African whites made serious concessions, it was not because they were awed by the fortitude of Nelson Mandela or crushed by economic boycotts. It was because violence within South Africa's borders was spiralling out of control. This is a long story that I have touched on elsewhere , but one historian puts it in a nutshell:
In June 1976 the Soweto uprising shook South Africa to the core.
The violent unrest challenged almost every aspect of the apartheid state's ideology. It is possible to read South Africa's history and conclude that apartheid's eventual disintegration was predetermined from the moment the first bullet hit thirteen-year-old Hector Peterson.
Israel does not fear massive violent unrest within its own borders. Israeli Arab rioters will not bring it down.
Finally and crucially, Israel's attachment to its existence as a Jewish state runs far deeper than the Boers' attachment to apartheid, because Israel thinks of itself as the sole barrier to the physical extermination of the Jewish race. This commitment is fervently supported by the great powers; its legitimacy is an article of faith: in marked contrast, it was the *ill*egitimacy of South Africa's apartheid state that became an article of faith among those same great powers. In other words, international support for Israel's current status is mountainously greater than support for South Africa's apartheid.
When it comes to settling land claims, the South African example is particularly inappropriate. In South Africa, white land ownership had a very long history. Whites had been in SA for 400 years, and their expansion included a period in which the Mfecane disturbances disrupted native land allocation. Among the Palestinians, on the other hand, there was a far more solid consensus about who was entitled to what. Most Israeli Jews have been in Israel for less than 60 years, and in the occupied territories for a far shorter time, between 40 years and a decade. They did not occupy vacant or disputed land; they obtained it either through purchase (but as part of a scheme to seize sovereignty) or through expulsion of the Palestinian owners. The Palestinian title to much Israeli occupied property is in many cases a matter of record. For Israelis to give up the land to which they are not entitled would be absolutely ruinous, particularly since, if justice were done, there would be huge compensation to be paid for the ill-gotten gains of illegal occupancy. Again, millions of dollars *per usurpation* would be at stake.
To appreciate the full scale of the problem, remember that there will be two accounts about what Palestinian property was rightfully and legally obtained: the Palestinian, and the Israeli. For many Palestinians, regaining their property is the difference between a life of relative comfort and one of abject poverty. No binational state has ever had a land problem on anything like this scale. When land disputes are taken into account, the snake oil solution looks a lot less like South Africa and a lot more like the bloody soil of Lebanon.
In a two-state solution, land claims are settled in the clearest and most brutal way. The Jewish settlers in the occupied territories leave, period. The whole of the occupied territories belong to the Palestinians. In Israel, the property situation is essentially unchanged, with Israeli Arabs doing as well as they can . Though immeasurably better than the death and starvation that today stalks the Palestinians, this is a bad solution. But it is doable, and its flaws are out in the open.
And how does this work in the snake oil one-state solution? Here the sales pitch gets murky. In Israel, Jewish property holders either keep what they have, or the disputes continue as they have since before Israel's foundation--it isn't clear. In the occupied territories, though, the settlers get a sweet deal: Jews in the occupied territories simply keep what they have.
Am I kidding? Here we have Jeff Halper, justly celebrated for his Committee against House Demolitions, writing around 2003:
"Israeli Jews wishing to live in the settlements could continue to do so under Palestinian sovereignty (which would permit the settlements to be integrated, of course), but would lose their role as extensions of Israeli control by remaining Israeli citizens. " [A Middle Eastern Confederation: A Regional 'two-Stage' Approach To The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict . A working paper by Jeff Halper, written around 2003)]
Here he is again, writing in The Kansas City Jewish Chronicle on November 24, 2006:
"The two-state solution is dead. Israel killed it (as Begin charged Sharon with doing back in 1977). The settlement enterprise has gone beyond the point of no return."
And Virginia Tilley agrees:
"...Israel must admit its Muslim and Christian population as citizens and then grapple with the ensuing tough work of pluralist democracy like the rest of us.
"This was the hard-won South African solution, where the state now represents everybody. Seventeen languages and differing historical narratives are recognized and dignified. Whites have retained their property and wealth, while black Africans are rising rapidly to join the middle and upper classes.
"...that we presently have a one-state solution--Israel's apartheid version--allows us to affirm a different one: a unified secular-democratic state, in which everyone is equal in dignity and rights, and where the Jewish and Palestinian national homes can share the land as they should."
Note the glowing "Whites have retained their property and wealth". I gather that, come Tilley's revolution, Palestinians and Israelis will be equal in their right to stare at what was once a Palestinian home. This will be very good because it will 'recognize and dignify different historical narratives'.
The more you look at claims about the settlements, the more suspicious you grow. Sure, the settlement enterprize has gone beyond the point of no return, and sure the settlements are there to stay. It's just that the settlers aren't: their buildings would house Palestinians quite as well as Jews. Is it impossible to get the settlers to give up their settlements? Not at all. If the Israeli army withdraws, the Palestinians would have no difficulty persuading the settlers it was time to leave. The Algerians did the same with settlers much more deeply rooted than in Palestine. If it's so impossible, why did it already happen--why did Israeli troops make it happen--in Gaza?
It's impossible to get rid of the settlers only if the Israeli government supports them, that is, only if it's impossible to get the Israeli government to stop supporting them. But if that's impossible, how, is it possible that Israeli government will give up something far dearer to it--its home turf, its own existence, and the existence of a Jewish state, at the very least within 1948 borders? How are the settlements a tougher nut to crack than the state of Israel itself?
What's the point of this one-state solution? If the settlements are something to be legitimated, why not say the same--as Tilley hints--of all Israeli land claims, everywhere in Palestine? Entrenching the settlements means a great big pat on the back for the very worst, least conciliatory, most violent political forces in Israel, the spoilt, fanatic racial supremacists who conceived the settler movement and made it into the formidable force it is today. It confirms that their strategy worked. Do Halper and Tilley really think this is a formula for peace? "Peace in our time", perhaps.
If only one could think that Tilley and Halper had been dishonest in stating their positions. Far from it; they have been very straightforward, if not very clear. The interplay between muddled idealism and muddled practicality makes for quite a comedy of errors. Having two states isn't good enough for these people; they want justice. To get justice, they confirm the worst of the usurpers in their usurpation--not only of land, but of scarce resources. Apparently the Palestinians will clutch citizenship papers to their breasts and be happy in the dusty leavings of what was once their land. Meanwhile the settler movement and their allies will be free to pursue their project of 'redeeming' Palestine, and it will all be ok, because it will happen within the confines of a single secular state.. Humpty Dumpty couldn't have got it more ass-backwards.
"A Syrian court sentenced four pro-democracy campaigners, including one of Syria’s most respected writers, to prison terms Sunday as part of President’s Bashar Assad’s latest crack down on dissent.
"We are not criminals, we are patriotic people," said writer Michel Kilo from behind bars after Judge Zaher al-Bakri of the Damascus Criminal Court read out the verdict.
He and Mahmoud Issa, a translator, were convicted and then sentenced to three years in prison each for spreading false news, weakening national feeling and inciting sectarian sentiments. Two other activists, Suleiman Shummar and Khalil Hussein, were sentenced in absentia for 10 years in jail on similar charges.
The rulings bring to six the number of government critics and human rights campaigners to be convicted and sentenced in the last month, despite American and European calls for Assad to stop harassing activists and release political prisoners.
"It is by far, the worst crackdown on civil liberties and activists in the country since 2001, when the authorities cracked down on what has since been called “Damascus Spring”."
A local human rights group says that Mr Kilo was put on trial for signing a petition published in a leading anti-Syrian Lebanese newspaper.
The petition condemned political assassinations to silence dissent.
Hundreds of Syrian and Lebanese intellectuals signed the document, which was published in the Nahar newspaper.
Human rights group claims Jewish state ’created conditions that made Palestinians move’ from central Hebron by discriminating residents based on their ethnicity. Settlers call report an ’unbroken string of lies and distortions’
"The survey showed that at least 1,014 Palestinian housing units, which account for 41.9 percent of those in the area, are empty. Of these, 65 percent were vacated during the course of the second Palestinian intifada, which began in 2000.
B’Tselem spokeswoman Sarit Michaeli said :
’’They created conditions that made the Palestinians move. The army can’t now say that they didn’t know this was going to happen."
The Israeli military declined comment.
They say Israel is democratic country. It wants peace with Palestinians. But their actions belie their claims.
by Barry Rubin One of the Middle East's biggest, least-discussed mysteries has been how to understand Israelis. This is a long, complex subject. But so many, including Arab friends, have asked me to explain about this issue that there is an obvious need for clarification here.
Here we go. From 1967 on, Israelis had a great debate. Both sides agreed the Palestinians and most Arab states weren't ready for peace. But the left thought big concessions could bring a permanent political deal once the other side began to change. The right doubted this would happen, and settlements in the captured territories would consolidate control there. Only a small minority saw permanent retention of the territories as a religious obligation. Most Israelis supported holding that land and building settlements as a strategic tactic.
By the end of the 1980s, signs of a real shift in Palestinian positions were still limited. But in the early 1990s, Iraq's defeat by a U.S.-led coalition and the PLO's low point seemed to offer a true opportunity. Rather than try to crush the Palestinian movement forever--something that would have fit the demonization of Israel stereotype--the country offered confidence-building measures and concessions in exchange for real peace. The result: the 1993 "Oslo" agreement and the ensuing peace process.
With the long-awaited moment perhaps at hand, debate within Israel shifted. The left claimed that Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat would make and implement a compromise peace. The right claimed he would do so and then break it. Hardly anyone believed Arafat would turn down even a good deal.
The test came with the Camp David meeting in mid-2000 and the offer by President Bill Clinton, with the agreement of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, at the end of 2000. The final offer--and even this was only the minimal proposal for starting negotiations--was a West Bank-Gaza Strip Palestinian state with the equivalent of all the pre-1967 land (with small swaps to make up for Israeli annexation of a few areas) plus a capital in east Jerusalem and massive reparations payments. Arafat turned it down and instead turned to renewed violence and terrorism.
At this point, Israeli perceptions were turned upside down. The high hopes of the 1990s (even my conservative friends, while balking at turning over east Jerusalem, had accepted large concessions and a Palestinian state in exchange for peace) crashed.
Internationally, Israelis had suffered two betrayals. First, there was the Palestinian leadership's use of concessions to strike against Israel directly and undermine its position internationally. After all, Israel's own government had dismantled the negative image of the PLO as a movement whose goals were Israel's destruction and whose means was terrorism. (On one memorable occasion, some American Jewish leaders rewrote a speech for Arafat to make it sound more moderate.)
The other betrayal came from the West, especially Europe. For years, Israel had been told that if it made concessions and took risks for peace, it would have international backing if anything went wrong. Now, subjected to a terrorist assault whose bloodiness was made possible by Israel's own admission of so many returning Palestinians, sponsorship for aid to them, and turning over of territory to their control, Israel also faced the most hostile Western policies and image, too.
Within the country, a new consensus emerged, taking one idea from the left and one idea from the right. From the left, most Israelis accepted the idea of giving up the territories and agreeing to a Palestinian state in exchange for real peace. From the right, the majority concluded that there was not going to be a Palestinian partner for peace or a negotiated resolution for many years to come. Of course, not everyone took this conclusion but most did. On this basis, friends of mine who habitually voted for Meretz on the left now cast their votes for Ariel Sharon to be prime minister.
After a half-century of warfare, in which everyone knows someone or has relatives who have died in war or terrorism, most Israelis are still eager for peace. They are not motivated because they think Israel weak or are afraid, but simply from feeling strongly that peace is preferable to war.
Digging in for the long run, they backed withdrawal from southern Lebanon and from the Gaza Strip. They were ready to pull out of much of the West Bank as well. Whether these withdrawals were a good or bad idea is another column; yet, they were certainly an attempt to show Israel's desire to not be "occupying" another people. At that point, it was up to the Palestinians to show what they would do with the opportunity. The election of Hamas and the continuation of terrorism was the result.
After all this political talk, it should be added that no country in the world--perhaps in history--has so many rapid psychological ups, downs, and dramatic changes as Israel. Yet, public opinion polls show a remarkably high level of personal satisfaction. The economy has boomed; progress continued. Whatever problems the country has--also another column--there is a strong sense of optimism and willingness to examine faults to repair them.
Which reminds me of how one day I took a U.S. newspaper, walked down Shenkin street in Tel Aviv jammed with people, finally found an empty chair in a cafe, and read the front-page article, which explained how Israelis were so fearful of terrorism that nobody went out any more.
Tzipi Livni had an opportunity to show that she was a leader yesterday. She had the opportunity to reach out and grasp the golden ring of power, to lead a revolution. Everyone expected her to. But yesterday when she stepped up to microphone to make her move, she showed that her ability to lead is no better than that of the person she wants to replace.
With the eyes of the country upon her she opened her mouth for a bold declaration and out came a little squeak. Yes she called for Olmert to quit, yes she indicated that she would like the party's leadership position in the future----and then NOTHING !
A real leader would have said that if he doesn't resign she would use every means possible to oust him. A real leader might have even said "I think the people should decide if Olmert continues" and call for new elections. A real leader would have found a way to keep the anti-Olmert momentum going. But yesterday Tzipi Livni showed that she is NOT a real leader.
Ted Turner the sometimes nut bag who started CNN once said, "either lead, follow or get the Hell out of the way !!!" Tzipi did none of the above. Instead, she made a luke-warm fence sitting declaration and decided to let everyone else do her do her dirty work. Livni could have accelerated the momentum against Olmert, instead she slowed it down.
A real leader takes bold action during a crisis---Tzipi Livni made a tepid "vanilla" response, proving that she is not a what Israel needs. She has no guts and should get no glory.
Israeli Knesset Speaker and Acting President Dalia Itzik (President Moshe Katsav has been suspended for allegedly committing sexual crimes) on Monday urged Palestinians to "trade your Qassams for computers."
"Our advice to you is replace your Katyoushas and Qassams with computers and loving education," Itzik said during a speech marking Israel's Independence Day.
"The citizens of Iran, Syria and the Palestinian Authority should think twice about why they are so thirsty for battles and blood. Isn't the blood that you have already spilled enough?" she added.
Well, it is manifestly clear that Itzik's remarks are void of even an iota of truth and honesty. Their mendacity and brazen hypocrisy cry out to the seventh heaven.
President Bush vetoed legislation to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq Tuesday night.
In vetoing a $124 billion (62 billion pounds) bill to fund wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush said he was stopping legislation that "substitutes the opinions of politicians for the judgement of our military commanders." Associated Press Writers , ANNE FLAHERTY and JENNIFER LOVEN commented :
"It was a day of high political drama, falling on the fourth anniversary of Bush's ``Mission Accomplished'' speech declaring that major combat operations had ended in Iraq."
Democrats accused Bush of ignoring Americans' desire to stop the war, which has claimed the lives of more than 3,350 members of the military. Pelosi and Reid lamented on president's action.
Senator Reid said :
"The president may be content with keeping our troops mired in the middle of an open-ended civil war, but we're not – and neither are most Americans.
The president refused to sign this bill. That's his right, but now he has an obligation to explain his plan to responsibly end this war."
Pelosi commented :
"Earlier today the leader and I sent to the president a bill that made a strong commitment to support our men and women in uniform and a strong commitment to honor our promises to our veterans.
It was a bill that honored and respected the wishes of the American people to have benchmarks, to have guidelines, to have standards for what is happening in Iraq, again, out of respect for the wishes of the American people."
We had hoped that the president would have treated it with the respect that a bipartisan legislation, supported overwhelmingly by the American people, deserved.
Instead, the president vetoed the bill outright, and, frankly, misrepresented what this legislation does. "
Nearly $100 billion of the $124 billion bill would fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan this year. The rest would fund domestic projects Bush claims are either wasteful or not urgent, ranging from health care for poor children and farm aid to rebuilding southern states hit by 2005 hurricanes and increasing the minimum wage.
Two Israelis in three think their prime minister should quit after a damning inquiry found he rushed into an ill-judged war in Lebanon last year.
"A poll showing 69 per cent of Israelis thought he should quit after the government-appointed Winograd commission issued its scathing interim report on his conduct of the war on Monday, many concede the 61-year-old Olmert remains well-placed at the heart of a complex coalition to ride out the storm."
Winograd Findings Lead to Calls for Olmert to Resign
munaeem | 30 April, 2007 02:37
The interim Winograd report on the Second Lebanon War has not yet been published, but leaked previews have already prompted calls for the government's resignation.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Defense Minister Amir Peretz, and ex-IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz all came in for varying degrees of sharp criticism regarding their functioning in last summer's war with Hizbullah. Some details of the preliminary findings were publicized by Channel Ten news over the weekend.
Though the members of the Winograd Commission were practically hand-picked by Olmert, they found him to have "failed" in the way he oversaw the war. The word "failure" repeats itself several times in the Commission's summary of his performance, though neither he, nor anyone else, is specifically called upon to resign.
Findings in Brief
Olmert "acted with hastiness and arrogance," the Commission found. He did not consult with bodies other than the IDF, such as the National Security Council, and did not even convene the mini-security Cabinet before ordering the army to act. He was led by the army, instead of leading. The Prime Minister did not demand that the army provide him with alternatives, and did not properly deal with the "local operation" becoming a full-fledged war.
Peretz was castigated for assuming the position of Defense Minister altogether without having been properly prepared for such. He also did not properly study the problems at hand, and did not consult sufficiently with the experts in his office. Peretz was cleared of responsibility for the army's lack of preparation, which largely occurred in the years before he became Defense Minister.
Gen. Halutz, who resigned following the army's internal investigation of the war three months ago, was found to have belittled Hizbullah's Katyusha rocket capacities, and did not provide alternatives to the government.
Full Version on Monday
The full version of the report is to be publicized at 5 PM on Monday, and Olmert will receive a copy one hour earlier.
Though the Commission was appointed in order to review the errors of the Second Lebanon War so that the proper lessons might be learned and the deficiencies be corrected, the immediate result of the leaked findings appears to be only political. The question at hand is: Will public opinion force the Prime Minister to resign? Olmert and allies are bracing to remain in power, the Opposition has already begun steps to oust the government, and some members of Kadima and other coalition parties are remaining on the fence, waiting to see what develops.
Opposition leader MK Binyamin Netanyahu of the Likud met on Friday with far-left Meretz party leader MK Yossi Beilin, to discuss the report's political ramifications. Beilin said, unsurprisingly, that he would not support a replacement government headed by Netanyahu. Despite this, following the Channel Ten revelations, Beilin said that Olmert must resign immediately.
Within the coalition, Labor's Danny Yatom - an underdog in the Labor race for party leader next month - said the entire government must resign. MKs Zevulun Orlev and Aryeh Eldad (National Union/National Religious Party) also called, once again, for Olmert's resignation.
National Union faction chairman MK Uri Ariel has already submitted a legislative proposal for the dissolution of the Knesset and new elections. "The Winograd conclusions and the resulting public sentiment require that we prepare for new elections," Ariel explained, "and we might as well come up with an agreed-upon date among the various parties."
Anti-Government Rally on Thursday
A large anti-government protest rally has already been announced for this Thursday in Tel Aviv. The protest has been called by the Civil Coalition, headed by retired IDF General Uzi Dayan.
A critical question is whether Olmert's Kadima party will stick with him. On the one hand, Kadima generally supported the war effort whole-heartedly, but some pockets of resistance were heard within a few days of the beginning of the war. Most worrisome for Olmert is the fact that his main competitor, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, will be able to say that she asked for limitations on the offensive and the opening of diplomatic channels just days after the war started, but Olmert did not agree.
Suspects linked to Al Qaeda have obtained sensitive jobs in vital industries that could be the target of terrorist attacks, The Telegraph reports.
The individuals were uncovered by police and the security services in operations designed to protect key British sites such as transport hubs, power stations and the water supply.
Security chiefs believe that they may have become radicalised while already in employment, thus evading the strict vetting procedure for applicants for security-sensitive posts. Following the discovery, the British government is to draft new guidelines for companies to strengthen systems for monitoring staff. Employees will be encouraged to report any concerns they may have about suspicious behaviour by colleagues. The government has also drawn up plans to defend telecommunications, food supply, finance, key health facilities and the emergency services.
A senior Whitehall source told The Telegraph: “Police and the intelligence services are coming across more names - I’m not saying a huge number, but more cases - where they are identifying people they are concerned about that are working in jobs of some sensitivity.”
British intelligence agency MI5 is understood to have unmasked Al Qaeda sympathisers who joined its ranks during a recruitment drive aimed at young British Muslims, following the London bombings. At least three Metropolitan Police officers have also been investigated over visits they made to Pakistan, according to the Association of Muslim Police.
This month, a former employee at America’s biggest nuclear power plant was charged with taking access codes and layout plans to Iran. Mohammed Alavi, 49, a US citizen, is accused of downloading sensitive information about Palos Verde Nuclear Generation Station while on a visit to Teheran. He denies wrongdoing but could face up to two years in prison if convicted.
Global leaders of Al Qaeda have called on the organisation’s followers in Western countries to adopt tactics that include the infiltration of key industries, known in security circles as the critical national infrastructure. A tactical manual published in 2004, The Management of Savagery by Abu Bakr Naji, urges Al Qaeda supporters to “infiltrate the police forces, the armies, the different political parties, the newspapers, the Islamic groups, the petroleum companies, private security companies, sensitive civil institutions”.
Ehsan Hatem is proclaimed Miss Egypt 2007 (photo: AFP)
Dena Rashed recounts a humiliating night -- the crowning of Miss Egypt 2007.
After attending three Miss Egypt competitions, I have to admit this year's was the worst. Not to say that the past competitions have been good in any way, since whatever beauty there might have been was not complemented by brains. However this year's result was simply shocking, disappointing and irritating.
I am not even criticising the wits or the looks, but the fact that Miss Egypt 2007 did not speak Arabic. Probably half Egyptian or too long abroad, the winner, Ehsan Hatem, answered the questions posed to her in English.
Supposedly representing 76 million Egyptians, the new Miss Egypt cannot address her people in their own language. How did the organisers of the event fail to notice when she applied, when they interviewed her -- presumably in Arabic -- that she cannot speak the language of Egypt? How did the judges manage to give her the highest score when, again, she only spoke one Arabic word and switched to English because she couldn't answer fluently in her native language?
Year after year, one expects the competition to make some attempt to be more Egyptian in character, but the fact is that every year something happens that makes it more of a farce. This year's hosts, actor Tamer Hagras and TV presenter Mariam Amin, managed to kill any hope of change for the better. Hagras, in his first time as host, managed to embarrass his co- hostess, annoy the contestants and made sure I would never consider watching any of his movies again, because I will always remember his first and hopefully last night as a TV presenter. As for the question posed to the final five contestants, it was the favourite question delivered at many previous competitions: "If you were to choose a prominent woman in history to bring back to life, who would she be?" and as usual Hoda Shaarawi [the pioneer Egyptian feminist, who in 1923 founded the Egyptian Feminist Union] was the answer of two contestants. Not surprising, as Shaarawi is one of Egypt's great 20th century women and her name is known by all, but how many people know what she actually did?
While attending rehearsals at one of the previous competitions, I heard contestants saying that Shaarawi was the perfect answer when they discussed expected questions. Since this year's winner's Arabic is almost non-existent, it appeared that she also has no recollection of prominent Egyptian or Arabic female figures. She chose Princess Diana. With all due respect to Lady Di, her charisma and her charity work, and also to the contestant's personal opinion, Egypt's 7,000 years of history includes many glorious women to choose from. Amazingly other contestants managed to know other female figures -- Mother Teresa and Queen Cleopatra, and had actual reasons for choosing them. To speak their mind on various themes, the contestants drew a topic out of a bowl, and had 30 seconds each to comment on love, success, family, the death sentence and racism. If they exceeded their 30-second limit, Hagras would threaten to either electrocute or stab them with a dagger. That was probably not the real reason for the shaky answers, since although in previous competitions no threats of capital punishment were wielded as a retribution for hesitation, the answers came out just as pathetic.
Since this competition is organised by a private company, and is sponsored and aired by a music satellite channel, as long as it's profitable, we will have to put up with it. Every year, friends and colleagues say: "There are many beautiful and smart girls in Egypt, so why don't they compete for the title?" The answer is clear, and it is not just about girls not wanting to parade on television in skimpy swimsuits. After watching the competition, any girl with an IQ over 50 would think twice about participating. Meanwhile, I hope the organisers will secure a good translator to accompany Miss Egypt 2007 in her publicity work, or better yet -- enroll her in an Arabic class.
A Hamas spokesman in an interview granted to an Iranian TV channel
munaeem | 29 April, 2007 18:59
Abu Mazen does not have full authority to engage in negotiations with Israel and Hamas will oppose any agreement reached in such negotiations
Ayman Muhammad Saleh Taha , a Hamas spokesman in the Gaza Strip, noted in an interview granted to an Iranian TV station that Abu Mazen does not have full authority to engage in negotiations with Israel and that Hamas rejects any agreement reached in such negotiations.
Ayman Muhammad Saleh Taha (Al-Alam TV, April 11, 2007 )
On April 17, Al-Alam, an Iranian TV channel in Arabic, broadcasted a talk show called Al-Mihwar (“the axis”). The show featured an interview with Ayman Muhammad Saleh Taha, a former Hamas operative who was held prisoner in Israel and is now one of the Hamas spokesmen and a member of the inter-organizational committee for preventing conflicts between Hamas and Fatah. In the interview, Ayman Taha was asked about Hamas's position on the contacts held by Abu Mazen with Israel . The highlights of his reply follow:
a. The stance of the Hamas movement has not changed and will not change regarding the “Zionist entity” and the meetings held by Abu Mazen with Israeli PM Ehud Olmert: “The movement is being very clear when it says that these meetings are pointless and do nothing to further the Palestinian cause.”
b. “The government platform is not the platform of Hamas, the Islamic resistance movement. The fundamental principles of the unity government are the lowest common denominator agreed upon by the Palestinian factions. We are saying loud and clear that the Hamas movement still considers itself the spearhead in the conflict with the oppressive enemy [ Israel ]. It will not relinquish its platform of resistance [i.e., violence and terrorism]…”
c. “In the strongest of terms, we oppose such negotiations and everything that will come out of it. We, the Hamas movement, will not agree to it, and I think these are clear, explicit statements already made by Dr. Mahmoud al-Zahar and by the head of the Hamas faction in the [Legislative] Council, Dr. Khalil al-Hayya. While they expressed their confidence in the government, they stressed that they had reservations about giving the president full authority in the negotiations…”
d. When asked what Hamas would do when Abu Mazen would reach an agreement with Israel and whether the Hamas movement would oppose the government that it heads, Taha replied: “Definitely. That is, we are saying that we will not accept any negotiations with the occupier on the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people and their legitimate rights. We will not bargain about those rights and will refuse to do so, whether in the government or in the Legislative Council…”
Serious outbreak of intellectual honesty in Italy on 'Holocaust Denial'
munaeem | 29 April, 2007 16:34
Controversial seminar criticised for negationist content
ROME (EJP)--- A controversial three-day academic seminar discussing the legitimacy of denying the Holocaust has been strongly criticized by the Union of Italian Jewish Communities (UCEI).
Held on April 17-19 at the University of Teramo in central Italy, the event gathered historians, journalists, lawyers and writers to analyze Holocaust denial.
A UCEI press release slammed the conference, entitled "The gag history" and part of a master’s degree on Middle East issues, expressing their "bitterness and concern for how the media ignored the event."
Lecturers included renowned historians and representatives of the extreme right wing organisations, along with fiercely anti-Zonisti personalities from the far left.
Professor Claudio Moffa, a speaker at the seminar, responded by condemning the "media’s slander, the economical damage, the judicial persecution and the professional ostracism imposed on those historians who are considered to be negationist".
Entry denied
Speakers included Robert Faurisson, a leading personality among those who deny the Holocaust, who gave his contributions to the seminar via a video conference as he has been denied entry in Italy because of his negationist views..
On his personal blog website Faurisson published a series of documents on the "Jewish exploitation of the Holocaust" alongside some solidarity email messages he received which slam UCEI’s communiqué as "a sign of the strong Jewish lobby in Italy".
According to UCEI’s president, Renzo Gattegna, "what has really surprised us is the fact that accredited historians who may have historical views and analyses we do not share, but whom we know have nothing to do with negationist lies decided to take part in this initiative, thus legitimating racist political and anti-democratic positions.”
“We believe that academic authorities and the institutions in our country cannot ignore such an event, which, once again, invites us to keep an eye on the issues of anti-Semitism and racism,” he added.
As they face one of the biggest crackdowns in decades and the military trial of some of their top funders begins, the Egyptian Muslim Brothers are attracting ever more attention. There is a long piece in the NY Times Magazine — a pretty decent and sympathetic portrait of the group and some of its personalities, even it is generally inconclusive — that looks at their recent pro-reform parliamentary record and what various members of the group say about issues such as alcohol, Copts, and so on. James Traub, the other of the piece, is working on a book on democracy promotion and it shows: there are references to the Bush administration’s stance towards the MB, which Traub posits as being at odds with the Forward Agenda for Freedom (Bushspeak for democracy promotion.)
To me it seems the democracy promotion angle (a US policy issue) is a bit awkwardly tackled to the more general look at the Brothers’ democratic credentials, but of course it’s an interesting issue.
