About Us

IMRA
IMRA
IMRA

 

Subscribe

Search


...................................................................................................................................................


Friday, June 17, 2005
Excerpts: US overlooked Israeli-Palestinian issues. Jordanian political slip.Reform on hold.Boycott of Israel 17 June 2005

Excerpts: US overlooked Israeli-Palestinian issues.Jordanian political
slip.Reform on hold.Boycott of Israel
17 June 2005

+++JORDAN TIMES 17-18 June '05:
"The hazardous road from Gaza - withdrawal to comprehensive peace talks"|
Rami G. Khouri
QUOTE FROM TEXT:
"likely to get much more quality analysis in the near future than a
tangible
peace making"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------EXCERPTS:This is either a moment of real hope for a resumption of peace makingbetween Israelis and Palestinians, or ... for some really thoughtfulanalysis of the situation.Judging from the discussions in Cairo this week at a UnitedNations-sponsored international media seminar on reinvigorating the peaceprocess ... we are likely to get much more quality analysis in the nearfuture than tangible peace making. [IMRA:Amazing omissions in the analysis include the status of Hamas, thePA's stated refusal to disarm Hamas and the continued incitement.]... There is some scope for ..."qualified hope", in the words of therecently appointed United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle EastPeace Process, seasoned Peruvian diplomat Alvaro de Soto.He framed the debate here by stating ... "though born as a unilateral planoutside the scope of the `roadmap', it is possible to weave the Israeliinitiative to
withdraw from Gaza and the northern West Bank into theroadmap, as it fits into the broader process of building confidence andmoving towards permanent status negotiations. The intrinsic value of thewithdrawal could remain ephemeral if it does not become part of the broadereffort to reinvigorate the peace process."Many obstacles stand in the way of smoothly weaving the Gaza withdrawal intothe wider roadmap strategy of returning to negotiations for a permanent,comprehensive peace. ...Palestinian Planning Minister Ghassan Khatib cautioned that the opportunityfor peace making was debatable, in view of the hard realities ... . Whilethe existing ceasefire reflected a mutual acknowledgement that warfare wouldnot resolve the basic conflict between Palestinians and Israelis, he noted,it is very difficult to envisage a smooth shift into comprehensivenegotiations to cement that ceasefire if Israel keeps expanding settlementsin occupied Palestinian lands....He sees little reason for optimism if
Israel continues its present policies;including Israel's firm `no' in response to Palestinian requests for: a safepassage between Gaza and the West Bank; building a port in Gaza; rebuildingthe Gaza airport that Israel bombed; and a Palestinian role in controllingthe Gaza-Egypt border.He urges a more serious third-party role in mediating the conflict andbringing Israel into compliance with the international community'scommitment to the roadmap principles. This raises the issue of thecredibility and efficacy of external intervention which, for all practicalpurposes, means American diplomacy.Former State Department Middle East specialist Aaron David Miller, who wasdeeply involved in America's Mideast diplomacy from 1988 to 2003, noted thatwhile both Israelis and Palestinians made plenty of mistakes ..., the USalso must acknowledge its own ...in particular three American "misreadings"of the situation that contributed to the collapse of the Camp David summitin July 2000.Washington failed
to understand how Israeli and Palestinian actions on theground would impact on negotiations ... . He mentioned Israeli settlements,land confiscations, house demolitions and other policies that mostlyreflected domestic Israeli politics, and Palestinian violence and incitementagainst Israel, as examples of issues that Washington should have addressedwith the parties in the preceding years, but did not. [IMRA: The largest mistake was standing by as the Palestinian setupbecame increasingly corrupt, did not develop sound policies and courtsystems and did not press removal of ilegal weapons.]A second problem, he said, was that "we in the United States lost control ofour own policy, largely to the Israelis", and often allowed the Israelileadership to drive American diplomatic decisions. One example was the USpursuit of an Israeli-Syrian peace agreement, as Israeli Prime Minister EhudBarak wanted, instead of pushing Israeli-Palestinian peace making after theSeptember 1999 Sharm El Sheikh
accord.. . .The third US mistake was to hold a summit, "a cosmic roll of the dice", hecalled it, when the parties were not ready for it and there was not areasonable chance of success. [IMRA: US policy resulting from US objectives.]The shifting environment in the Middle East does include significant newelements, such as the Gaza withdrawal, the elections in Palestine, theIsraeli-Palestinian ceasefire, and a reconfigured foreign policy team inWashington. Whether any of this translates into movement towards acomprehensive peace will depend on whether or not we can learn from ourmistakes, and craft peace-making diplomacy that responds to the needs ofboth sides simultaneously. Miller nicely described this by noting that "theUnited States has only one client in this matter: a negotiating process thatmeets the needs of both sides, based on a balance of interests, rather thanan imbalance of power."+++JORDAN TIMES 17-18 June '05:"Editorial:"No right"QUOTE FROM TEXT: "Some of those
who manoeuvered to realise the resignation of Minister ofFinance Bassem Awadallah may think of themselves as politicians. In reality,they are more like playground bullies."----------------------------------------------------------------------------FULL TEXT:Some of those who manoeuvred to realise the resignation of Minister ofFinance Bassem Awadallah may think of themselves as politicians. In reality,they are more like playground bullies.Politicians know how to define, defend and realise the interests of theirconstituency and their country through clever negotiation and measuredsacrifice; bullies resort to base tactics to have their way at the expenseof others. [IMRA: Evidently the king misjudged.]It is entirely unacceptable that Awadallah - and let us speak frankly - hasbeen forced to resign after only two months in office, having committed (toour knowledge) no breach of law or error in performance, and before thegovernment of Prime Minister Adnan Badran has presented its policy
statementto the Parliament.It is certainly the right of Parliament to monitor the performance ofgovernment, including the performance of Awadallah, a controversial figurefor some time now. It is also the right of Parliament to seek an explanationfor his resignation earlier this year and to know if his reappointment isjustified. We also contend that Parliament has the right to be dealt withrespectfully by members of government.But some parliamentarians have far exceeded their authority by making aconfidence vote for the Badran government conditional on Awadallah's absencefrom the Cabinet. Votes of confidence should be granted on the basis ofpolicy statements and the capability of government to deliver on its statedambitions. Some parliamentarians have deviated from this basic rule bybaying for Awadallah's resignation for reasons that have nothing to do withskill or competence in realising policy, or even with his compatibility withthe rest of the government. The source of their
agitation arises from anappalling self-interest and, for lack of a better word, sectarianism. Inshort, these parliamentarians have risked compromising the interests of themany in national reform for the interests of the few, who wish to reinforcethe status quo. To these deputies, we say, you have no right to hold thecountry hostage to your narrow ambitions.+++AL-AHRAM WEEKLY 17-22 June '05:"Editorial: Reform and change"QUOTES FROM TEXT: "reform seems as distant as ever" "We have parties with no significant following, and an oppositionmovement with negligible popular support." "Political gimmicks cannot satisfy real demands for change"------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FULL TEXT:Since the US started to visualise a greater Middle East the region has beenabuzz with talk about reform.The Alexandria document came up with proposals urging reform with the samezeal as Washington but nothing
much came of it. Then the government enteredthe game promising -- ahead of the National Democratic Party congress --that reform is on the way. Little came of that. Then it was the turn ofopposition parties to speak, and they didn't say much. Intellectuals andNGOs sprang into action, gathering under the umbrella of the EgyptianMovement for Change. Yet reform seems as distant as ever. Why?First, you cannot talk about political reform without linking it witheconomic policy. Those who speak about reform focus mainly on political andindividual freedoms, on curtailing the power of the presidency and freeelections. It is the agenda of the already comfortably off. These demandshave been around for years and have yet to capture the nation's imagination.We have parties with no significant following, and an opposition movementwith negligible popular support.No one has yet to offer a coherent vision of where reform will end. TheMuslim Brotherhood coats its policies with a theological veneer
which is, inthe end, unlikely to appeal to the public, though they do enjoy somepolitical leverage which the government is trying in vain to curtail throughsecurity measures.Talk of reform is meaningless in the absence of a specific agenda thatattracts public support. The opposition can demand reform as loudly as itwishes but until they come up with specific proposals -- contained within acoherent manifesto -- that appeals to the majority of the public they willbe shouting in the wind.President Hosni Mubarak's call to amend Article 76 could have been the startof real reform. Without follow- up measures though -- a timeframe, aspecific and binding agenda for democratic change, and the reform ofpolitical parties, the media, educational system and religiousinstitutions -- the amendment is worth little.Political gimmicks cannot satisfy real demands for change. The time is ripefor a new presidential initiative capable of firing the nation'simagination. We need a genuine partnership
between the opposition, thegovernment and the people in order to build on the momentum created by theamendment of Article 76.+++AL-AHRAM WEEKLY 16-22 June '05:"Academic freedom in context"The boycott of Israeli universities remains a moral imperative, write OmarBarghouti and Lisa Taraki* (See below for author I.D.) QUOTES FROM TEXT: "The concept of academic freedom has been abused by opponents ofthe boycott" "boycott is seen as generating true academic freedom" "The Israeli lobby has enough influence in the media and theacademy to avoid carrying out Israel's obligations"------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------EXCERPTS:The Association of University Teachers (AUT) in Britain has reversed its 22April decision to boycott Israeli universities. If misinformation,intimidation and bullying were among the tactics used by boycott opponentsto achieve this result the tool
they most persistently used was the claimthat the academic boycott infringes academic freedom. Freedom to produce andexchange knowledge and ideas was deemed sacrosanct regardless of theprevailing conditions. There are two key faults in this argument. It isinherently biased -- regarding as worthy only the academic freedom ofIsraelis. The fact that Palestinians are denied basic rights as well asacademic freedom due to Israel's military occupation is lost on thoseparroting it. .... The right to live, and freedom from subjugation andcolonial rule, to name a few, must be of more import than academic freedom....... Towards the end of the Apartheid era, when the world boycotted SouthAfrican academics as part of the overall regime of sanctions and boycottsendorsed by the United Nations, a degree of violation of academic freedomwas entailed. ... Freedom from racism and colonial subjugation wascorrectly perceived as more important than the unwanted side-effects on theacademic and other
freedoms of individual academics opposed to Apartheid.In the Israeli context what is being defended by the opponents of theboycott is not only the unfettered access of Israeli academics to the globalcommunity of scholars and participation in the free exchange of ideas, butalso the material and symbolic privileges of academic life. ... rejectingacademic boycotts in order to preserve Israeli academics' freedoms andprivileges, while ignoring the more vital rights and freedoms ofPalestinians ...is a blatant case of double standards.The concept of academic freedom has been abused by opponents of the boycott... . In democratic societies the academy takes a grave view of scholarswhose writings and activities can be interpreted as inciting racial hatred.... academics in the United States and Europe who have denied that theholocaust occurred, or who have otherwise challenged accepted facts about ithave faced harsh disciplinary measures from universities and censure fromcolleagues and
professional associations. In Israel, however, where racismagainst Palestinians and Arabs is a feature of everyday discourse andpractice, the concept of academic freedom is so elastic as to include thefreedom to propound racist theories and incite hatred, support ethniccleansing, and worse. [IMRA: Absolute nonsense. Rather, these considerations justify boycottof Palestinians and universities of the entire Arab world.]. . .For decades Israeli academic institutions have been complicit in Israel'scolonial and racist policies. Funded by the government, they haveconsistently and organically contributed to the military-securityestablishment and, therefore, to perpetuating its crimes, its abuse ofPalestinian human rights and its distinct system of Apartheid.Contrary to the image ... Israel's academy is in fact part of "the officialIsraeli propaganda", according to Ilan Pappe, one of the leading Israeli"new historians" who exposed the systematic ethnic cleansing of Palestiniansduring
the nakba.Not only do Israeli academics defend their state's colonial narrative, butthey also play a more active role in the oppression process. Almost all ofthem serve in the occupation army's reserve forces , thereby participatingin, or at least witnessing in silence, crimes committed with impunityagainst Palestinian civilians. In the last 38 years of illegal occupationfew academics have conscientiously objected to military service in theoccupied territories. Those politically opposing the colonisation ofPalestinian land remain a depressingly tiny minority.The academic freedom on campuses is grossly exaggerated. It is constrainedwithin limits set by the Zionist establishment and dissenters who darechallenge these boundaries are ostracised.Another purpose of the proposed academic boycott is to "provide a means totranscend the publicly-sanctioned limits of debate", in the words of OrenBen-Dor, a British academic of Israeli origin. "Such freedom is preciselywhat is absent in Israel,"
he adds.From this angle the boycott is seen as generating true academic freedom."The Zionist ideology which stipulates that Israel must retain its Jewishmajority is a non- debatable given in the country -- and the bedrock ofopposition to allowing the return of Palestinian refugees. The very fewintellectuals who dare question this sacred cow are labelled 'extremists'."Ben-Dor attacks those on the Israeli "left" who opposed the boycott as"sophisticated accomplices to the smothering of debate".Irrespective of the individual accountability of Israeli academics ajudicious and methodical scrutiny of the culpability of Israeli academicinstitutions in the crimes perpetrated against the Palestinian people willreveal an abundance of incriminating evidence.. . [IMRA: Where are the actual examples?]Israel's hysterical reaction to the possibility of boycotts -- recentlymanifested in charging Benjamin Netanyahu with the task of fighting academicboycott -- and the profound debate that has
ensued around the world onIsrael's illegal occupation and other forms of oppression show that thesuccess in portraying Israel as boycottable has touched a raw nerve. Bywinning this round in the boycott process Israel has proven yet again whatis already widely [IMRA: The Arab League's official boycott still stands.] recognised: the Israeli lobby has enough influence in the media and theacademy to avoid carrying out Israel's obligations under international law.The facts on the ground will remain, however. Israel's colonial wall, itsever expanding settlements, its indiscriminate killing of Palestiniancivilians, its relentless land and water theft and its abuse of Palestinianhuman rights are too real to be ignored by the international community.... a comprehensive regime of boycotts, divestment and sanctions remains notonly the most politically effective but also the most morally sound,non-violent strategy in forcing full Israeli compliance with internationallaw. [IMRA: So where
is the denunciation of the use of violence which has costsuch loss of life and physical damage!]* Omar Barghouti is an independent researcher. Lisa Taraki teaches sociologyat Birzeit University. They are founding members of the Palestinian Campaignfor the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel.Dr. Joseph Lerner, Co-Director IMRA

Search For An Article

....................................................................................................

Contact Us

POB 982 Kfar Sava
Tel 972-9-7604719
Fax 972-3-7255730
email:imra@netvision.net.il IMRA is now also on Twitter
http://twitter.com/IMRA_UPDATES

image004.jpg (8687 bytes)