Double Injustice

By denying Palestinian farmers to work in Israel, the Netanyahu government is compounding their misery

This editorial was published in Arab News on 24/11/2010

While Palestinians in the occupied territories are denied the opportunity to work in Israel, Israeli farmers are demanding their government bring in 4,000 extra laborers from Thailand to do the menial work on their farms.

The Netanyahu government recently decided to cut the number of foreign workers it allows into the country. Many are employed in agriculture. As a result, Israeli farmers have gone on strike and begun demonstrating. Roads have been blocked, food has been dumped in the streets and police have been bombarded with rotten fruit. There is already a shortage of fresh produce in supermarkets.

The injustice to the Palestinians that this dispute points up also highlights the insanity of Israeli policies toward the occupied territories and their repressed inhabitants. Peace will only come through the creation of trust and the building of a rapprochement between Palestinians and Israelis. It cannot be created by a so-called security wall and the banning of Palestinians from working in Israeli-controlled territory. All that is achieved by confining Palestinians in their own homeland is their continued impoverishment and ever deeper desperation. It may be a pittance that Israeli farmers once paid their Palestinian employees, but it was a pittance that mattered to the fragile Palestinian economy.

The difficulties of Israel’s farmers are also being exacerbated by the increase in agricultural production. Official statistics show that in the last 40 years it has grown no less than twelve fold. This is due only in part to better technology and husbandry. The main booster has been the increased use of water and therein lies one of the little discussed issues of the occupied territories and a final settlement.

Israel has made full use of the water resources that it seized with the Golan Heights and the West Bank. Agriculture is an important export earner. The local water has been plundered, in the view of many agronomists unsustainably, to fuel the sector’s rapid growth. For years, the falling water table and its increased salinity have been issues for Palestinian farmers on the West Bank as well as those in Jordan.

The enormity of what is happening is clear from the figures. Of the water available from West Bank aquifers, Israel uses fully 73 percent, while West Bank Palestinians use 17 percent and illegal Jewish settlers 10 percent

It matters not that Israeli scientists have apparently come up with smarter ways to irrigate crops. Not content with occupying territory illegally, the Israelis are steadily impoverishing it by destroying a water resource that will take many years to be replenished and with climate change, indeed may never recover. At the present rate of exploitation, Israel may one day hand back to the Palestinians little more than an arid desert.

Thus there is a double injustice to the Palestinians. Not only may they not work on Israeli farms and must be replaced by thousands of cheap laborers from Thailand and elsewhere but Israel’s rapacity in its use of water is threatening the agricultural prospects of the whole region.

Palestinian farmers and unemployed farm laborers will doubtlessly be watching the angry demonstrations by their Israeli counterparts with very mixed feelings. This row is the result of agricultural success built upon the precious and fragile resource of water. Maybe Israeli farmers should be cutting back their water use and production and so reducing their reliance on foreign labor flown in from the Far East. Maybe also Palestinians should once again be permitted to work on Israeli farms.

Daniel Bellemare And The Truth

By Randa Takieddine

This comment was published in al-Hayat on 24/11/2010

 

The image of the two young children of the late young Lebanese minister Pierre Gemayel at the commemoration of the martyrdom of their father, who was a victim of a hateful crime, reminds us of the series of crimes that have stricken Lebanese families. Don’t these children, mothers and wives have the right to know who killed their father, sons and husbands, and what lay behind these brutal crimes? There is great pain in people’s hearts, and we can only wait for the investigation by Canadian prosecutor Daniel Bellemare to reveal who was behind the many assassinations, which began with the attempt on Minister Marwan Hamade and included the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and Minister Basil Fleihan and their comrades, Samir Kassir, Gebran Tueni, Wissam Eid, Walid Eido and his son, and the list goes on.

Today, before the Lebanese people go to sleep and awake to the news and media leaks about the indictment by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL), and what was written by this or that journalist in Der Spiegel, or what the Canadian Broadcast Corporation (CBC) has aired, there is a prosecutor in The Hague who is working far away from the media commotion, and all of the leaks and everything said about the politicization of his work. He is making efforts to bring together the tangible evidence to complete his investigation; the speculation and media proposals do not concern him. Bellemare wants to arrive at a result, not only for the sake of his reputation, or for political reasons, as some accuse him of, but for the sake of the families of those who were killed, and for the people of Lebanon and their future. Those who know Bellemare realize that he is completely distant from getting involved in the politics of states, even if he is completely famliar with developments in the country. He wants to verify the results of his investigations because he is aware of the importance of the truth and justice for the memory of a nation that has long seen political crimes in which those who committed them remain unknown; the crimes have continued because those who carried them out remained in the dark.

The truth is important for every citizen, even if international punishment, unfortunately for the cause of justice, often turns into political bargains and settlements. Bellemare is concerned with finding the truth, accusing criminals, and asking for their punishment, while the appearance by the accused before the judiciary is another matter. And unfortunately for true justice, we have often seen accusations and trials become compromises and international deals. Libya was accused of blowing up two planes full of American and French civilians, although verdicts were later issued, to either let the perpetrators go, or allow others to avoid appearing before the French judiciary.

Colonel Moammad Qaddhafi paid money to the families of the victims and afterwards, western countries set out the red carpet and tents for him. They all received him, while his relative, who is wanted by Interpol, continues to move around with him. The Shiites in Lebanon are asking for the truth about the disappearance of the Imam Musa Sadr. How can they ask for truth in this case and condemn the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, investigating the Rafik Hariri assassination?

President Omar Bashir of Sudan, meanwhile, is also facing an international arrest warrant, while he moves between one Arab country to another with no problem.

It is possible to doubt the efficacy of international punishment because the situation in more than one case demonstrates this. However, the truth is something else. It is the responsibility of prosecutor Bellemare to arrive at decisive evidence that allows the Lebanese people to learn who the killers are, and why they did it. Memory, in the history of a country, is essential for its survival and its people. All of the speculation and rumors that are published daily about the STL are untrue.

The truth is what Prosecutor Daniel Bellemare will announce after he sends the document to the judge for verification. Today, who knows if we are on the brink of an indictment? Who says that it is further off? No one knows what Bellemare and his team have, whatever is said or written by the newspapers. The attack on the STL and the threats to change the situation in Lebanon are useless, because Bellemare’s work cannot be canceled out, or forbidden from arriving at the truth that is sought by everyone who lost their young people and children. The punishment, meanwhile, is another matter. Justice is responsible for trying the accused, even if in absentia, as in the case of the French UTA plane. However, the question remains: will the actual accused in the Hariri assassination and a string of killings appear before the international tribunal? It is a very difficult wager, when the game of nations concerned with protecting regimes comes into play, as it did in the case of Libya.

Iraq's Sunnis And Shiites... And Bush's Vision

By Tariq Alhomayed
This comment was published in Asharq al-Awsat on 24/11/2010
 
In his memoirs (Decision Points), former U.S. President George W. Bush accepts that he did not foresee the consequences of his decision to disband the Baath party, saying “The Shiites and Kurds in Iraq, who constitute the majority of the population, welcomed liberation from Saddam. However, the decision had a psychological impact that I had not predicted – many Sunnis regarded it as an indication that they no longer had a place in the future of Iraq. This situation was wrought with danger, particularly with regards to the army, where thousands of soldiers had been notified that they were no longer needed. Instead of joining the new military establishment, many of them joined the rebels”.
 
He says “Regarding the orders of Jerry (Paul Bremer), it was necessary to insist on further discussions, especially in relation to the message that the decision to disband the army would bring, and how the policy of Debathification would affect a lot of Sunnis”. He added “Over time, it became clear that the program of Debathification, which was presided over by Ahmad Chalabi, who spent a long time in exile, had led to deeper repercussions than we calculated, including its impact on party members in mid-level positions, such as teachers”.
 
Then he adds, and this is the crux of the point: “Decisions were difficult. Like any alternative; it created another set of problems. If the Shiites had concluded that we were not serious in putting an end to the era of Baath rule, maybe they would have turned against the coalition forces, and rejected the goal of building a united, democratic Iraq, instead entering into an alliance with Iran.”
 
The question now, after all these years, is: Did some Iraqi politicians, particularly those in the Shiite parties, distance themselves from Iran [as a result of this U.S. policy]? The answer: No! The day before yesterday, an Iranian official told our newspaper that Tehran was dissatisfied with the latest political agreement in Iraq. The source argued that the government which has been agreed upon, headed by Prime Minster Nuri al-Maliki, “is not expected to work in the same way that the previous government operated. Perhaps [al-Maliki] will have obstacles in front of him. Perhaps he [al-Maliki] will be forced to tolerate the Baathists”. This Iranian statement, not to mention Tehran’s actions, shows that the Americans were victims of a trick, conducted by Iran’s allies in the Iraqi opposition. The Americans were also victims of Bush’s incompetence, and the tendency of his administration to resolutely stand behind one sentiment, which was formed after the September 11th terrorist attacks. From reading Bush’s memoirs, it can be noted that he only sees the world from the 9/11 perspective, when time effectively stopped for him, particularly since bush was a president of isolation before the terrorist events, without inclinations towards foreign affairs, and this was exploited by Iran’s allies in the Iraqi opposition, to the clear anger of Saddam Hussein’s regime.
 
To date, it seems that Americans do not understand the danger of Iran and its allies in Iraq. Regarding the concept of majority and minority, a significant national Iraqi figure told me that the Americans have yet to realize: “The Sunnis, even if they are a minority, act with the mentality of a majority, whilst the Shiites, even though they are the majority, act with the mentality of the minority. The Sunnis want Arabism in Iraq, and independence, whilst some Shiite leaders want to depend on Iran”. This is the bottom line!

US Surrenders Palestinian Rights

By Ramzy Baroud

This comment was published in The Jordan Times on 24/11/2010

The Middle East policies of US President Barack Obama may well prove to have been the most detrimental in history so far, surpassing even the right-wing policies of president George W. Bush. Even those who warned against optimism when Obama came to the White House must now be stunned to see how far the US president will go to appease Israel - all under the dangerous logic of needing to keep the peace process moving forward.

Former Middle East peace diplomat Aaron David Miller argued in Foreign Policy that “any advance in the excruciatingly painful world of Arab-Israeli negotiations is significant”. He further claimed: “The Obama administration deserves much credit for keeping the Israelis, Palestinians, and key Arab states on board during some very tough times. The US president has seized on this issue and isn't giving up - a central requirement for success.”

But at what price? And doesn’t one party’s success also mean another’s utter and miserable failure?

Secretary of State Hilary Clinton reportedly spent eight hours with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu only to persuade him to accept one of the most generous bribes ever bestowed by the United States on any foreign power. The agreement includes the sale of $3 billion worth of US military aircrafts (in addition to the billions in annual aid packages), a blanket veto of any UN Security Council resolution deemed unfavourable to Israel, and the removal of East Jerusalem from any settlement freeze equat?on (thus condoning the illegal occupation of the city and the undergoing ethnic cleansing). But more dangerous than all these is “a written American promise that this will be the last time President Obama asks the Israelis to halt settlement construction through official channels”.

Significant. Achievement. Success. Are these really the right terms to describe the latest harrowing scandal? Even the term “bribe”, which is abundantly used to describe American generosity, isn’t quite adequate here. Bribes have defined the relationship between the ever-generous White House and the Congress to win the favour of the ever-demanding Israel and its growingly belligerent Washington lobby. It is not the concept of bribery that should shock one, but the magnitude of the bribe, and the fact that ?t is presented by a man who positioned himself as a peace maker (and actually became certified as one, courtesy of the Nobel Peace Prize committee).

Equally shocking is the meager return Obama is expected to receive for hard-earned US taxpayers’ dollars. According to the Atlantic Sentential, this will be “a measly three-month extension of the settlement moratorium that originally expired in late September”.

Acknowledging from the onset that these are mere “mid-term manoeuvres”, Noah Feldman, writing in The New York Times, asks: “Can Obama succeed where so many others have not?”

He preludes his answer with: “Israel and the Palestinian Authority will not, of course, make things easy.”

Seriously?

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, whose mandate has already expired, must be living the most humiliating and difficult moments of his not so distinguished career. At one stage, he had hoped that the advent of Obama would spare him and his authority further embarrassment. Imagining that the president would side with his “moderate” position, he placed all his eggs in Obama’s basket, even bidding against the democratically elected government of Palestinians in the occupied territories. He went as?far as to halt an international investigation into Israeli crimes in the recent Israeli war on Gaza so that not to frustrate Netanyahu’s government or upset the pro-Israeli sensibilities in the US Congress.

True, Abbas tried to appear as a confident and assertive leader at times. He asked for a chance to think about the resumption of peace talks, conditioned his acceptance on Israeli actions that never really actualised and, finally, sought the help of the Arab League, a beleaguered and muted organisation without any political mandate.

How did Abbas and his authority make things “difficult” for the US, one wonders? Would any self-respecting government agree to concessions that are made on its behalf without the opportunity to offer its input? This is exactly what the PA has repeatedly done under Abbas.

Still, many Israelis are not happy with the barter. Caroline B. Glick, writing in The Jerusalem Post, described the freezing of construction in the illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank as “discriminatory infringement on the property rights of law abiding citizens [that) is breathtaking”. She had the arrogance to consider the pitiable moratorium as equivalent to “land surrender”.

As for the major F-35 deal, it is “simply bizarre”, she argued, for after all, “Israel needs the F-35 to defend against enemies like Iran”.

Mind boggling! The US generously hands Palestinian rights to Israel on a silver platter and the far-right mentality, which now governs Israeli mainstream politics and society, still finds it unacceptable. But aside from this arrogant Israeli response, and the US media’s attempts to find the positive in Obama’s latest scandal, one question must be raised. What happens now that Obama has finally shown he really is no different from his predecessors? That the United States lost control of its own foreign poli?y in the Middle East? That, frankly, Netanyahu has proved more resilient, more steadfast and more resourceful than the American president?

Shall we go on making the same argument, over and over again, or has the time finally arrived for Palestinians to think outside the American box? Can Arabs finally venture to seek other partners and allies in the region and around the world who understand the link between peace, political stability and economic prosperity? It may perhaps be time for them to further their relationship with Turkey, to reach out to Latin America, to demand accountability from Europe and to try to understand and engage China.

The latest US elections showed that the Obama hype has run its course in the US itself. One can only hope that Palestinians, Arabs and their friends will realise that it was all indeed a hype, before it is too late.

Libya: Putting Ancient Ruins Into A Contemporary Perspective

At Leptis Magna ancient Romans, early Christians and modern Libyans meet

By Terry Hewton

This article was published in The Guardian on 23/11/2010 

Roman past ... a Medusa head at the Severan Forum at Leptis Magna in Libya. Photograph: Alamy

Given Libya's contentious past, we found it a relatively safe country to visit and we were very comfortable there. And, apart from the odd breathtaking moment, even travelling on the roads – the subject of a travel warning – seemed safe enough.

The main aim was to see the Roman ruins – specifically: the ancient cities of Leptis Magna and Sabratha. These sites are truly magnificent in their mystique. In part, this is due to their seaside setting. The Mediterranean makes a wonderful blue backdrop to the temples and theatres, heightening their feeling of awesome mystery.

It also stems from the relative absence of other tourists: visitors have the strong feeling of stumbling into an ancient setting with little between you and the people who once lived there. 

I was particularly interested in connection between these places and early Christian history. Being brought up in the Methodist church in the 1950s and 60s has left me, an open-minded non-believer, with fond memories of the church of my youth and a lingering curiosity about the real history lurking beneath the appealing, but implausible, story of the early centuries of the Christian church. These two sites were a good place to wander around ruminating on what archaeology can and can't say about that early history.

Our guides – Fathe and Mohamed – were articulate and well-informed. It was their perspective that particularly interested me. As inhabitants of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (the country's formal title since 1977) they were very conscious of the fact that the ancient monuments mark the presence of wealthy Romans more than they do plebeian ones.

And for guides in a strict Muslim country they had a delightfully robust sense of humour. I particularly enjoyed the story, narrated in one temple ruin, about the mythical figure who lost "the piece of his body necessary for reproduction" and how another mythical figure, who wanted to have his child, resolved the difficulty.

In the Roman theatre at Leptis Magna there were hordes of schoolchildren on an end-of-term excursion. They had just finished their exams and were exuberant. Even their frazzled teachers looked happy in a war-weary kind of way. It was another reminder that people are people – anywhere in the world.

An American Jolt For The Middle East

By Chester A. Crocker, Scott B. Lasensky, and Samuel W. Lewis

This Comment was published in The New York Times on 23/11/2010

Faltering Middle East peace talks need a jolt. And Washington does has a powerful potential prod: taking a firm stand on how to end the conflict.

An American declaration of principles — carefully crafted and properly marketed — could spark a debate and thereby change the political calculus for leaders. As a mediator and a world power, one of America’s strongest assets is the ability to legitimize ideas and then rally others in support. A central role for the U.S. in this conflict must be to define the zone of negotiability.

This does not mean imposing peace. Rather, it would be a statement of the basic principles the U.S. believes can guide the parties toward a negotiated solution.

America has long declared its support for “two states” but must now say more about what that means in practice.

Even if the current talks resume, without American ideas the parties are unlikely to agree on the broad trade-offs necessary to reach a peace deal. A quick deal on “borders and security,” as many have proposed, is itself unlikely without Washington addressing the endgame. Otherwise, both sides would be too exposed on issues set for later discussion, like Jerusalem and refugees. Opinion polling has consistently showed that support for peace is strongest when all the core issues are addressed.

An American statement of principles would mobilize regional support. It would provide, for the first time, a public framework for engaging sponsors of the Arab Peace Initiative. It would also strengthen America’s ability to reassert the importance of a regional support structure for the bilateral negotiations, especially by reviving multilateral contacts and meetings involving Israelis and their neighbors throughout the region. Moreover, greater regional engagement on the peace process can carry powerful benefits for regional challenges like the Iranian nuclear program.

A clearer U.S. declaration is also the surest way to protect prospects for a two-state solution from an unrelenting onslaught on the ground. An American set of ideas would anchor present-day demands on issues like Jerusalem, security and settlements in a clear vision of the future.

Perhaps most urgently, it would broaden the debate from the narrow confines of the settlements question.

At a minimum, the American declaration should be based on the 1967 lines, with agreed territorial swaps; support a compromise on Jerusalem that allows for two capitals for two states; include provisions about security limitations and guarantees; reiterate America’s support for an agreed solution to the refugee problem; and reaffirm our long-standing commitment to the state of Israel. But American principles should also include some caveats, given that our ultimate interest is in an agreed, viable solution — not in any particular formula.

What would it take for American ideas to succeed? Unlike some past efforts, Washington should not try to “pre-cook” this declaration with one or more parties or to choreograph their reactions. In fact, the U.S. statement of principles would be explicitly described as what our own country believes in and can support; and by implication what it cannot support.

Thus the U.S. statement would not be designed to achieve immediate approval or adoption by the parties. Its purpose would be to clarify where America stands, how we define our interests and what we can work for. It would aim at influencing the climate of thinking in the region, sobering up those with illusions and encouraging those who need our support.

Timing and context are of course key considerations. Assuming the current gridlock in negotiations persists, sometime must elapse until our election results have been digested, here and abroad, and before public attention can be redirected toward the foreboding and increasingly dangerous Arab-Israel stalemate.

A presidential speech will then be essential to dramatize the seriousness of our purpose and to lay out the principles. It should be immediately followed by a major, high-level diplomatic effort to persuade key Middle East leaders and our Quartet and U.N. allies of our genuine desire to regionalize the peacemaking effort.

To maximize support from key members of Congress, the speech should occur before Congress adjourns. No further consultation with the stalemated parties beyond the routine should precede the speech, and leaks of its contents must be kept to an absolute minimum if our purpose is not to be undermined.

The speech could usefully also remove some of the veil of silence that shrouds breakthroughs in past negotiations.

As for the substance, in its endorsement of a two-state solution and comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace, the Obama administration has hinted that a Palestinian settlement should also accompany normalized relations between Israel and the Arab states, putting a broader frame around what has traditionally been defined as a conflict between Israel and its immediate neighbors.

The normalization piece of the puzzle should be more fully articulated as part of a new strategy based on presenting American ideas to the parties. It is a way to entice skeptical Israelis, but it also leads back to a long overdue need for Washington to engage on the Arab Peace Initiative.

If the U.S. puts forward its own peace principles, American leadership can ensure that any diplomatic process is defined by as clear a picture as possible of what the parties can expect to gain through a negotiated settlement, and of what they will never gain without one.

Skeptics say it is too risky to present American ideas to the parties, that it would pull the rug out from under current leaders, exposing them to withering domestic criticism. Others argue that it will galvanize obstructionists rather than those who support compromise, and could very well precipitate a crisis. Yet others simply worry about the cost to American prestige should any of the key players react negatively.

But the risks are overstated, and a complete collapse of the process would be far more dangerous, particularly as the strategic environment shifts in favor of regional forces that seek to undermine, rather than promote peace.

America can and must do more than limit itself to managing a conflict that has all too often upended our shared interests in peace and stability.

Chester A. Crocker is professor of strategic studies at the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service. Scott Lasensky is senior research associate at the U.S. Institute of Peace. Samuel W. Lewis is a retired diplomat and former U.S. ambassador to Israel.

A new way to embitter Palestinian lives

Settlers in the occupied territories are converting springs and other water sources into memorials and tourism sites.

This Editorial was published in Haaretz on 23/11/2010

Settlers in the occupied territories have found a new way to embitter Palestinians' lives: converting springs and other water sources into memorials and tourism sites, as Zafrir Rinat reported in yesterday's Haaretz. As if it were not bad enough that Palestinians have no access to most of these springs since they are barred from using roads near the settlements, Israeli flags now fly over these water sources and they are walled off by fences and guards.

"Over the last two years there has been great development in the tourism field, and as part of the development program [sponsored] by the Tourism Ministry and the council, fouled springs are being turned into pleasant tourism sites ... and opened to the general public," the Mateh Binyamin Regional Council wrote in one of its publicity brochures.

But they aren't open to the entire public. The whitewashed language used to justify the new venture is only a prelude to this statement: "For obvious security reasons, and due to the terrorist attacks that have occurred in the past, the Israel Defense Forces do not allow Arabs access to springs near the settlements."

This is the time-honored system for abusing the Palestinians and driving them off their lands, under the settlers' dubious orchestration. First they set up a settlement (which is ostensibly legal ) or an outpost (which is illegal even by Israeli standards ). Next, the IDF, which is committed to ensuring the settlers' safety, refuses to allow Palestinians to travel in that vicinity.

But even this is not enough for the settlers, so they create provocations. For their takeover of the springs does not just deny the Palestinians access to water sources; it also, and primarily, creates a violent provocation. Putting up a sign that erases a spring's Arab name and invents a Hebrew name to replace it, or destroying an ancient building and putting up a memorial in its place in an attempt to create an exclusive Jewish settler memory, are provocations solely for the sake of provocation.

"Access to the springs is liable to change, in order to prevent violent friction," the IDF Spokesman's Office says. So the settlers are being rewarded twice over: Instead of punishing them for their Wild West behavior, the state is standing behind them and supplying them with protection and funding.

The Tourism Ministry must understand that such shameful colonialist acts are liable to make it hard to market Israel as an open democracy. The ministry would do better to reconsider the costs and benefits of this project and remove its aegis from the settlers' disruptive behavior.