|
|
DAILY
PRESS SUMMARY
Monday,
9 September 2002
Vol 8 Number
2619
Palestinian President Yasser Arafat will open today at
11:00 am the seventh term of the PLC with a comprehensive speech in which
he will pose the ministerial statement upon which he will request from
the PLC the vote of confidence on the new government. The PLC is expected
to re-elect Ahmad Qrei' as Speaker of the PLC. Source in Fatah Movement
which possesses the majority of the seats in the PLC said the trend is
to grant the vote of confidence to the new government. Qrei' said the PLC
will decide if the vote of confidence will be granted to the new ministers
only or to the whole government. The PLC will hold this session in an exceptional
way at the Presidential Headquarters in the Muqata' and not at the PLC
Headquarters as usual since President Arafat has not left his headquarters
since Israel reoccupied Ramallah last March for fear that Israel might
occupy the Muqata' or destroy it. Meanwhile, Israel issued yesterday a
list of 13 names of PLC members from Gaza Strip whom Israel decided to
ban from participating in the session under the claim that they participated
and supported "terrorist" operations. The PLC members who are banned from
attending the session are: Abdul Azeez Shahin and Salman al-Roumi from
Rafah; Ahmad Nasr, Ra'fat Najjar, Ahmad al-Shibi, and Jawad al-Tibi from
Khan Yunis; Musa Zabout, Yousef al-Shanti, and Nahed al-Rayyes from Gaza
city; Kamal al-Sharafi, Fouad Eid and Karam Zarandah from the northern
region in Gaza Strip. Most of the above mentioned members belong to Fatah
Movement, including two members who are close to Islamic movements and
one PLC member who belongs to the PFLP and two independent members. The
Palestinians condemned the Israeli decision. Qrei' said banning any member
from attending or preventing the holding of a session is unacceptable and
totally rejected, stressing that Israel has no right to attack the rights
of any member. He said: It is legally unacceptable and it is violation
of the agreements and the norms to prevent members from participating in
the sessions and to prevent them from exercising their monitoring and legislative
role in democracy building and in the important reform process in the Palestinian
life. Ziad Abu Amro, Head of the PLC Political Committee, said the PLC
members will discuss taking a position against the Israeli decision and
will study how to handle this situation. He stressed that the PLC members
will not accept to come to the West Bank unless there are international
guarantees. He considered the Israeli decision as a political decision
that aims to obstruct the works of the PLC. He added: We hold the Israeli
government responsibility for obstructing the works of the PLC in taking
its monitoring and legislative role in the reform process. Ibrahim abul
Naja, the first deputy of the PLC Speaker said the members who will not
be able to attend will follow up the works of the PLC session through videoconferencing
from the PLC hall in Gaza and they will be able to vote and participate
while the members who will head to Ramallah, they will get special permits
at Erez Checkpoint. Regarding the fears that some of the PLC members from
the West Bank might be arrested, Abul Naja said: We do not assume good
intentions in the part of the Israelis; anything is possible and there
are no guarantees that they wont do this. Abul Naja said the PLC informed
the EU and several friendly countries and international organizations on
the Israeli measures that aim to obstruct the Palestinian democracy and
obstruct the work of the PA institutions, mainly the PLC. PLC member Muawiya
al-Masri refused to get a permit from the Israeli army to reach Ramallah;
he said: This is a crime; how can I accept to get a special permit to move
from one Palestinian city to another; this matter cannot be accepted by
any norm, religion or reason. Al-Masri confirmed that he decided to head
to Ramallah but in his own method. PLC member Hatem Abdul Qader (Jerusalem
constituency) said: We want to grant the vote of confidence to the government
as a temporary government until holding the elections. He added: Not granting
the vote of confidence to the government will only serve Sharon and the
US Administration. He said the holding of the new term constitutes a challenge
that the PLC members must face in order to frustrate the attempts of Israel
to destroy the Palestinian society. Nabil Amro said the odds of the new
government getting the vote of confidence are very slim. He explained that
some members would refuse to grant the vote of confidence because the executive
authority ignored the presence of the legislative authority in the past
few months; he added: the executive authority did not submit its program
to the legislative authority. Amro said the voting will take place on the
whole government and not only the new ministers since the Palestinian Basic
Law stipulates that what happened in terms of changes is considered a ministerial
reshuffle that includes the whole government; he added that the issue of
appointing a PM is on the agenda of the PLC and if the proposal gains two
thirds of the votes, it will be ratified. PLC member Azmi Shueibi said
Sharon wanted to prevent the PLC from holding its session but he succumbed
to the international pressures. He added: holding the session means frustrating
the Israeli scheme that aims to destroy the PLC as a Palestinian legislative
institution. (Al-Quds)
Ahmad Abdul Rahman, PNA Cabinet Chief, stated yesterday
that the PNA might reconsider the recognition of the state of Israel which
is the basis of all agreements between both sides. Abdul Rahman said this
step is considered retaliation to the decision of Israeli PM Sharon on
canceling all agreements signed with the Palestinians. The Palestinian
official urged on focusing on resisting Israeli military occupation of
the West Bank and Gaza Strip, adding that reforming the Palestinian institutions
is less important than resistance. He added: We need reforms but ending
occupation which is considered the real reform must have top priority.
He continued: corruption and bad organization will stop when the occupation
ends. When asked about the Israeli rejection of the Danish peace plan posed
last week, Abdul Rahman accused the Jewish state of obstructing all peace
initiatives. (Al-Ayyam)
Israeli FM Peres defended yesterday in public the Oslo Accord which was signed between his country and the Palestinians nine years ago, thus taking a position opposing the position of Israeli PM Sharon who said that this agreement no longer exists. The spokesperson of Peres said Oslo Accord constitutes the sole base for any future agreement with the Palestinians. Peres said when the Palestinians signed Oslo Accord, they recognized for the first time the right of existence of Israel inside the 1967 borders which allowed the negotiations towards finding a peaceful solution.
Meanwhile, Israeli Interior Minister and head of extremist
right wing Shas Party in the Jewish state Ely Yishai called on the Israeli
government headed by Sharon to control all Palestinian territories under
the claim that all understandings to end attacks against Israel have failed
and that Palestinians do not intend to stop the Intifada. (Al-Ayyam)
Al-Quds: US encouraging statements, but…
The statements made by US Secretary of State Powell last Saturday when he said that the US government considers President Arafat the Palestinian legitimate President of the Palestinian people and that the US does not propose to the Palestinian people to topple him or for the Israelis to expel him, shows that the US administration started to realize that it cannot cancel the legitimacy of President Arafat and cannot ignore the position of the Palestinian people and cannot just dictate or impose a leadership.
In this sense, the statements of Powell constitute a step in the right direction in dealing with the Palestinian reality away from the illusions of imposing a Palestinian leadership.
However, this US position is not enough to end the current
crisis. The basic problem does not lie in who leads the Palestinian people
or in the Palestinian position but lies in the Israeli insistence on keeping
occupation and denying the Palestinian national rights. This is the real
dilemma.
In order to have a US positive position, it has to take
a series of steps, mainly to make Israel understand that peace and security
in the region cannot be achieved through evading the commitments of peace
and surely cannot be achieved through instigating against the Palestinian
people.
9/11, Terrorism and the Middle East: The way out; by: Jeff Halper*
One of the most conspicuous features of the September 11 attack on the United States was the general inability to "get a handle" on what had happened. Thousands of responses filled our TV screens and newspapers. Those of the victims' families were predictably emotional. So were the responses of the-man-on-the-street, which ranged from shaken and disoriented to patriotic and revengeful. Nor did the public get much perspective and clarity from the learned "experts," political figures and apologetic voices from the Muslim world. While all this is understandable in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, a year later we still do not have that perspective, that "handle." The overriding reaction continues to be one of "war" retaliation and victory as if we are simply in a conventional battle with the "bad guys."
A few voices have been raised, especially in Europe, questioning whether a "war on terrorism" will effectively solve the problem. "Terrorism" might be an accurate term for the 9/11 attacks, but it becomes dangerously simplistic and self-serving when used by interested parties to characterize all forms of conflict, violence and resistance to oppression. For that reason Amnesty International does not use the term, but speaks instead of "attacks against civilians." The indiscriminate use of the term "terrorist" allows strong parties especially states to define who is or is not a "terrorist," what is "legitimate" use of power and what isn't, who is "with us" and who isn't. It risks stigmatizing whole populations or religions. And the by-products of such an approach ever-escalating conflict in which the "nuclear option" has been mentioned, rising levels of personal insecurity, global xenophobia and the setting aside of human rights in favor of ethnic "profiling" and other discriminatory practices certainly outweigh the emotional satisfaction of taking revenge. And, in the end, it is almost a truism that combating what is essentially a political problem by military means is futile and self-defeating.
OK, say the military-minded realists (or "crackpot realists," as the sociologist C. Wright Mills once called them), so what is your suggestion? If military operations will not solve the problem of terrorism, what will? Ironically, an effective approach was aired just the week before 9/11 but the US was not listening because it had walked out of the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia And Related Intolerance. In late August-early September 2001 some 15,000 representatives of governments, NGOs and faith-based organizations met held under UN auspices in Durban, South Africa to formulate a covenant that would address just those inequities and grievances that nurture terrorism, oppression and conflict.
In the official Durban Declaration and Program of Action, government delegates reaffirmed the principles of equality and non-discrimination in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; expand the notions of human rights and freedom from discrimination to include race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status; affirmed the fundamental importance for States to sign and ratify to all relevant international human rights instruments; and welcomed the proclamation by the General Assembly of 2001-2010 as the Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for Children of the World. They called on states to enact legislative, judicial and administrative measures to prevent and protect against racism, to ratify and effectively implement relevant international instruments on human rights, to promote human rights education in their societies, and to provide effective remedies at their own national levels.
The NGO Declaration was, as might be expected, sharper and more demanding in its tone. Whereas the government document confined itself to principles rather than to specific peoples and situations (with the exception of the Roma/Gypsies), the NGO Declaration spoke more unequivocally about colonialism and foreign occupation. Article 98 recognizes "that the Palestinian people are one such people currently enduring a colonialist, discriminatory military occupation that violates their fundamental human right of self-determination, including the illegal transfer of Israeli citizens into the occupied territories and establishment of a permanent illegal Israeli infrastructure." It affirms that "the Palestinian people have the clear right under international law to resist such occupation by any means provided under international law." Article 99 argues that "a basic 'root cause' of Israel's ongoing and systematic human rights violations, including its grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention 1949…which is Israel's brand of apartheid."
In Durban NGOs and governments sought to take another important step in the painful process of creating an international civil society that possesses the moral and legal means to stop violations of human rights and punish crimes against humanity. The greatest enemies of such grassroots civil diplomacy are the world's most powerful governments, led by the US, who are loathe to relinquish one iota of their sovereignty. But here lies the only hope of truly coping with terrorism and its root causes while preserving the values of freedom and tolerance that are the very point of what we are struggling for.
Israel and the Palestinians, Terrorism and Resistance
Terrorism is a frightful and immoral thing. It takes innocent lives and by its nature violates the most fundamental human right of all: the right to life. As Amnesty puts it: "A fundamental principle of international humanitarian law is that parties involved in a conflict must at all times distinguish between civilians and combatants, and between civilian objects and military objectives. It is not permitted to target civilians, that is, people who are not members of the armed forces of either side. This principle, known as the principle of distinction, is codified in the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their two Additional Protocols of 1977. The principle of distinction is a fundamental rule of customary international humanitarian law, binding on all parties to armed conflicts, whether international or non-international."
What happens, though, when one's own life is controlled by an overwhelmingly superior power that denies you the basic conditions of life? What happens when the right to life of members of the oppressing society clash with the fundamental rights of the oppressed the right to an identity, to a country, to self-determination, to well-being for oneself and one's family, to a home, to property, to personal safety, to respect and, in the end, to life threatened by the violence of the dominant power? International law recognizes the right of oppressed people to resist. But are there forms of resistance that are illegitimate, like terrorism? Amnesty and the Red Cross would give an unequivocable "yes." In their recent report "Without Distinction" that deals with attacks on Israeli civilians by armed Palestinian groups, Amnesty asserts that "attacks on civilians are not permitted under any internationally recognized standard of law, whether they are committed in the context of a struggle against military occupation or any other context. Not only are they considered murder under general principles of law in every national legal system, they are contrary to fundamental principles of humanity which are reflected in international humanitarian law."
What the Israeli-Palestinian conflict shows graphically is that the issue of terrorism cannot be divorced from its larger political and military context, nor can the demand that Palestinians end terrorism be separated from the demand that Israel do the same. Holding Palestinians accountable to international humanitarian law is a double-edged sword, since it holds Israel accountable as well. If the Palestinians are forbidden to engage in terrorism, so too is Israel forbidden to employ the two forms of terror implicit in the Occupation and the measures required to maintain it: systematic and massive violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention protecting civilians living under occupation; and state terror embodied in Israel's indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations. If terrorism is "evil," as Bush repeatedly states, then the equally illegal terrorism of the powerful cannot be dismissed as mere "collateral damage." And if terrorism has no justification whatsoever, then that ban extends to all parties Israel and the US included. Adherence to international law cannot be selective. The US and Israeli cannot oppose the International Criminal Court and still argue that terrorism (re: terrorism "from below") is unacceptable.
The acts of terrorism most condemned by the US and other states are those of non-state actors, in which the legitimate resistance of oppressed peoples to their oppression gets tragically lumped with the loony and pointless terrorism of Bin Laden, Carlos and other "professional terrorists." Cruel as it is, this "terrorism from below" is small-scale when compared with the massive "terrorism from above" of states. Except for the year 2001, the former has claimed less than a thousand victims per year worldwide, while the killing of civilians by states reaches into the hundreds of thousands. This is why Bush, Sharon, Putin, the Burmese generals, the Chinese Politbureau and other interested state actors frame their "war against terrorism" in solely moralistic terms ("axis of evil") or as self-defense, rather than in terms of human rights. Because this constrains and condemns those who use illegitimate means to throw off oppression while permitting oppressive regimes to employ equally illegitimate and infinitely more destructive means as long as they frame it appropriately.
The Palestinians' need to resort to terrorism raises questions of fundamental fairness. One cannot expect a people to suffer oppression forever, to abrogate their own human rights in favor of those of others. One cannot deny the protection of international law to oppressed peoples while demanding that they comply with international law when it suits the purposes of their oppressors. Equality before the law and the universality of human rights (as well as obligations) must guide us all. The international community may condemn Palestinian terrorism only if the legitimate avenues for throwing off the occupation and securing their rights to self-determination are made available to them. Israel and the United States refused to base the Oslo negotiations on international law, because they knew that every element of the occupation was illegal and that Israel would lose. Instead Oslo was based on power negotiations. Not only did they prejudice the outcome from the start, but they allowed Israel to strengthen its occupation, to continue its violation of internal law, even as it was engaged in negotiations.
Accountability To International Humanitarian Law: The Only Way Out Since World War II more than 90% of the world's conflicts have been tribal, national, ethnic, or religious in nature, rather than ideological. Power politics, armaments and the use of the military in "solving" inter-state conflicts has gone unchecked. This is the conception, the "tradition," the "reality," behind the self-serving "war on terror" declared by the world's powerful states after 9/11. Over the past half-century and more an alternative has arisen, slowly, painfully but steadily. Prodded by human rights organizations, other NGOs and faith-based groups, and assisted by the UN, the "club of nations" is grudgingly giving ground to an international civil society based on universal human rights and law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the member states of the UN in 1948 in the aftermath of the Holocaust, was the first international document to use the term "human rights." This concept, together with "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity," has gained increasing currency. Subsequent human rights conventions have coalesced into a comprehensive corpus of international humanitarian law. Together with new instruments of enforcement (most recently the International Criminal Court), these new elements offer a way out of the injustice, arbitrariness, violence and power-dominated relations that characterize the world that led to 9/11 and its aftermath.
In a multicultural world in which inequalities are growing
ever more stark and even the smallest groups are acquiring access to weapons
of mass destruction, international humanitarian law, in contrast to military
operations, actually offers a way out of conflict. Human rights have been
defined over the years through a lengthy, participatory process of international
consensus among peoples and cultures (which has by no means been completed).
The resulting conventions are truly universal, yet they set forth in great
detail the rights that every person and community possesses, together with
the acts that violate them. Under the agreed-upon definition of "crimes
against humanity," the perpetrators of the September 11th attacks could
have been apprehended, charged, prosecuted and sentenced without recourse
to "holy wars" or the feeling that one part of the world is ganging up
on another. Similarly, the Fourth Geneva Convention offers a blueprint
for dismantling the Israeli occupation and granting Palestinians their
independence while still ensuring Israel security and regional integration.
International tribunals, working with the legal systems of individual countries,
are capable of meting out justice and holding states accountable if only
if the international community supports them. The United States, the herald
of a New World Order, is ironically (or not) one of major opponents to
these international instruments of justice. In one of the most dishonorable
acts in modern international politics, Israel and the United States were
the first countries to sign a pact protecting their respective nationals
from accountability before the International Criminal Court.
The human rights approach offers the best chance of avoiding
future 9/11s, as well as bringing a just peace to our region of the world,
the Middle East. But it requires states and their industrial-military interests
to give up power and the possibility of dominating and exploiting. And
that they will not do willingly. It is up to us, the international civil
society, to bring a new, egalitarian and truly just world order into being.
Durban, not Washington, offers us the way out.
* Jeff Halper is the Coordinator of the Israeli
Committee Against House Demolitions www.icahd.org.
Qalqilya: Israeli occupation forces tightened its
blockade on Qaqilya District. They also prohibited Palestinians from entering
or leaving the District. Also, the farmers are denied access to their farms.
In Azoun town, Israeli occupation military handed the
residents confiscations orders of thousands of dunums of their lands. It
is expected also that the military will hand similar confiscation orders
to residents of Nabi Elias village.
Hebron: in the past three days old city of Hebron
was put under tight curfew and meanwhile al-Haram al-Ibrahimi was shut
down before Moslems on the occasion of the Jewish new year. Yesterday,
Israeli military raided Yatta village and conducted arrest campaigns. At
the entrance of Sa’ir town, Israeli military together with the Jewish military
destroyed more than 52 Palestinian cars.
Nablus: Israeli tight curfew continues on Nablus District.
Early this morning, Israeli military tightened its blockade on Aseirah
al-Shimaliya town, north of Nablus and conducted search campaigns.
Bethlehem: Israeli military continues to impose
its blockade on Bethlehem District and establish additional military checkpoints
around the district.
Last night, Israeli occupation invaded Batteer village,
west Bethlehem, and conduct arrests campaigns.
Ahmad Abdel Rahman – Secretary of PNA Ministerial Council
Q: How do you see Sharon’s statements over cancellation
of Oslo accords?
A: I think he is trying to give a political dimension
to his military campaigns. He wants to show that his crimes against the
Palestinian people have ended into a political result.
Despite the very small issues that were brought by Oslo
to the Palestinian people, yet Oslo is bigger than any decision that is
issued by Israeli prime minister. When the people hear Sharon boast in
that, Peres announces that Oslo Accords forms the only base on which peace
could be established between both sides. The accords also gave Israel the
recognition.
Sharon position has another dimension and ramifications.
Canceling Oslo accords my push the Palestinian people and leadership to
cancel the accords from their part. These agreements have obliged us to
recognize Israel in accordance to 1967 borders and not according to the
partition resolution 181.
Sharon is addressing a people that lack security and
peace. Oslo means a key to peace for the Israelis. In fact, Sharon is saying
to them, he cancels peace.
I believe Sharon is confused. He starts the trip of return.
He has no future as Israel prime minister.
Q: German news agencies quoted you saying that PNA
may review its position towards Israel. What is your elaboration?
A: in response to Sharon do you think we are going to
cry for agreements that are cancelled by the Israeli side. If the Israeli
side cancels the agreement, we are going to cancel them on our part. Palestinians
have recognized Israel in exchange for peace. Consequently, if Sharon cancels
these agreements, then the Palestinians will no doubt cancel them.
It is an attempt from Sharon to force the Palestinians
to kneel and to impose final concessions on the Palestinian people. However,
the entire world is talking about a Palestinian state. Even Bush is talking
about a Palestinian state.
Sharon is singing alone. His settlements dreams and views
are detested. Now, he is doing the impossible because the Palestinian cause
is no more an Israeli internal issue. Palestinian cause is now the cause
of international community.
Q: Can Sharon be left to act freely regarding these
agreements that were internationally sponsored?
A: in fact, Sharon threats international interests that
rest on this agreement as a base for security and peace in the Middle East.
Q: What about the Danish plan?
A: In order to implement any plan there should be a halt
of Israeli aggression. For implementation, there should be a lift of the
blockade and ending reoccupation. No political or security progress could
be achieved at time Israeli tanks are besieging the Palestinian territories.
Q: What is your expectation from PLC session today?
A: the President’s speech will include important political
issues in addition of the issues that are related to reforms and administration.
Moreover, confidence in the new government will be raised.
Q: How do you evaluate Peres and Sharon’s statements?
A: Sharon expressed his believes. His policy ended in
re-occupying West Bank in addition of dividing Gaza Strip. There have been
no talks with the Palestinians over peace agreements.
Peres talks about the peace process but meanwhile he
joins Sharon’s government, defends its policy and the blast of accords.
His statements that the accords exist are useless.
Sharon wants to win in the coming elections. He speaks
to please his voters and because US is busy in striking Iraq. US President
and leaders do not say even one world about Israeli occupation. In fact,
President Bush adopts Sharon’s statements only.
Q: Don’t you think that the Labor should withdraw from
the government?
A: of course they should have withdrawn since more than
one year. If Labor is not a partner in this government, Sharon could
not have gone this far in his measures. Peres has committed the biggest
mistake by remaining in this government.
Q: What are the consequences of the possible Palestinian
cancellation of recognition with Israel?
A: I believe that the current cancellation between Palestinians
and Israelis will lead to more blood, fights, and blockade. The Knesset
has approved Oslo accord. It will not be cancelled regardless of Sharon
statements. We are living in one land and I do not think this escalation
will solve the problem.
Headlines
Egypt: Al-Ahram daily, September 9
* Mubarak gives certain instructions to Maher in regards
to the Egyptian stands towards the peace issues and the international economic
relations in the UN new round of sessions. Maher: we will not hesitate
to conduct contacts in favor of the Palestinians and peace in the region.
* Washington and London call on the international community
to ally and retaliate against the Iraqi threat to the world.
* An American accusation against Baghdad of condensing
efforts to produce nuclear weapons.
* Chirac and Schroeder reject the unilateral American
attack on Iraq, and demand Baghdad to allow the unconditional return of
international inspectors.
* Powel: Washington likes that the Palestinians chose
a new leader and Israel withdraw.
* A letter to the King from Saddam carried by the Iraqi
deputy president.
* Jordan requests the quatrain to expand the bases of
Arab participation.
* The Palestinian parliament will meet today before Arafat’s
headquarters.
* A possible security meeting between Israel and the
authority.
* Occupation deep in Dair Al-Balah and the Maghazi camp.
Arrests continue in the West Bank.
* Cheney: the coming weeks are decisive for Iraq.
* Sharon will announce a Palestinian security force according
the American –Israeli characteristics this month.
* Washington: the coming weeks are decisive and we may
move alone.
* The Nuclear Agency denies allegations against Baghdad.
* Barazani and Talbani endorse a historic agreement on
restoring the function of the unified parliament.
* Iranian training in preparation for facing a nuclear
war.
* Cheney: the coming weeks are decisive for Iraq.
* Saudi Arabia sends an official trade delegation to
Baghdad for the first time.
Jordan: Al-Rai daily, Sept. 9 - Why do they hate us?; by: Dr. Fahd Al-Fanek
Following the explosions of Sept. 11, the American president
was entitled to ask: why do they hate us so much to the degree of sacrificing
themselves in order to inflict harm on us??
A number of Arab thinkers at the time tried to answer
the president’s question and to explain that the reasons for the hatred
is the blind American support for the Israeli aggression against the Palestinian
people, and the continued insistence to besiege the Iraqi people and impose
penalties on more than one Arab country.
It however did not seem that the American president had
understood the answer or was convinced nor did he try to treat the roots
of hatred. He however has to answer the question that is imposed by Arabs:
whey do the hawks in the American administration hate us so much, to the
degree that they are ready to sacrifice the souls of their American youth
in order to harm us and inflict destruction on the Arab world, by waging
war against Iraq even if that would lead to the collapse of the alliance
against terror??? Is it America’s interests that make it behave like an
international bully in the world just because it is militarily strong?
Or is it the conflict of civilizations?/ would his excellency the US president
be kind as to tell us why do they hate us so much , may be we can do something
to reduce the hatred and to convince America that Arabs and Muslims are
human beings like the Americans and are entitled to enjoy freedom and sovereignty
in their homeland.
Let the opponents of the Oslo agreements rejoice, their
ally Sharon has abrogated the agreement on their behalf and got them rid
of it. He also abrogated from the memory and on the grounds as well, the
arrangements which were reached in stages and all that was done in the
Camp David negotiations in July 2000, and Taba January 2001. Sharon considered
all those as no more valid. The enemies of the Oslo agreement should also
rejoice and I call them to distribute drinks in the occasion, for Sharon
has also promised and asserted that Israel will not return to the locations
it had withdrawn from since the Gaza-Jericho agreement in May 1994. Sharon,
ally of the “Oslo” opponents has discovered that this agreement which was
signed by Yaser Arafat aimed to destroy and terminated Israel, as he said,
and that “God has come to help the Jews not because of their wisdom, as
Sharon said, but because the Palestinians have made open in the Oslo agreement
their ill intentions to the Israelis.
Jordan: Jordan Times - Still need to confront the roots
The world in general and the US in particular are naturally anxious in anticipation of the first anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.
In the US, the general atmosphere seems to be that officials and security agencies are hoping for the best, but bracing for the worst.
Prosecutors and police in Europe and North America fear
attacks by Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, in the run-up to the anniversary
of the hijackings.
Despite all efforts undertaken to thwart any fresh terrorist
attacks, there seems to be an eerie feeling that preventive measures might
fail and terrorism succeed again.
Such feeling betrays the acknowledgement that the determination
to strike the US is still there.
The last year would have been well spent had the US and
the international community done more thinking and soul-searching on the
root causes of terrorism.
Unfortunately, not enough debate has been conducted on
terrorism with a view to understanding it better. Governments across the
world have paid far too much attention to the security steps that could
be taken to avoid a repeat of those events, often at the expense of public
freedoms and human rights.
But very few voices were raised to confront terrorism
by cutting its lifelines, by solving the many regional crises that breed
it, by removing the environment of frustration and desperation in which
extremism thrives.
No medicine against the kind of terrorism carried out by Al Qaeda will be found, unless an accurate diagnosis is made.
Not enough time and energy have been devoted to understanding why such brutal acts were perpetrated, and why extremists can go to the unfathomable extent of taking the lives of thousands of innocent people.
The process by which religious zealots feel justified
to commit atrocious actions remains unexplored.
Indeed, there are still many “whys” surrounding the Sept.
11 atrocities, and the world has yet to answer the questions that go to
the heart of the matter of terrorism.
Terrorism will never be eradicated from the face of the
earth as long as mankind fails to comprehend the driving forces behind
it.
Last year would have been well spent had the West engaged itself and the countries and peoples it accuses of terrorism in a dialogue.
Instead, the international community could not even agree
on what constitutes terrorism. Without agreement on a universal notion
of terrorism, there can be no hope of combating it effectively. This much
should be noted, as the first anniversary of Sept. 11 dawns on us in a
few days.
Statements made by President Bush to the German newspaper “Waltam Sontag!!” that he will provide the world with security, peace and freedom, could be the season’s Joke. These statements are made in a time when the world is preparing for the Bush bloody promises of war everywhere and not just against Iraq. The result will be scores of thousands of victims if not many more.
The response to Bush’s promise of freedom was directly made by Germany itself, one of the politically close countries to the US. The head of the parliamentarian Social Democrats group (the ruling party) said that Bush is behaving as if he is a Roman emperor and that Germany is one of his provinces.
The current American president should be the last to talk
about freedom while he is the one who was imposed as a president in elections
that are still much under doubt inside and outside the US, a success which
is believed to have been organized by the evil agents in the American military
institution so that they open the door for a series of wars that would
guarantee the American control on the world .