Mahmoud Abbas' chronic submissiveness
By Amira Hass
In a single phone call to his man in Geneva, Mahmoud Abbas has demonstrated his disregard for popular action, and his lack of faith in its accumulative power and the place of mass movements in processes of change.
For nine months, thousands of people - Palestinians, their supporters abroad and Israeli anti-occupation activists - toiled to ensure that the legacy of Israel's military offensive against Gaza would not be consigned to the garbage bin of occupying nations obsessed with their feelings of superiority.
Thanks to the Goldstone report, even in Israel voices began to stammer about the need for an independent inquiry into the assault. But shortly after Abbas was visited by the American consul-general on Thursday, the leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization got on the phone to instruct his representative on the United Nations Human Rights Council to ask his colleagues to postpone the vote on the adoption of the report's conclusions.
Advertisement
Heavy American pressure and the resumption of peace negotiations were the reasons for Abbas' move, it was said. Palestinian spokespeople spun various versions over the weekend in an attempt to make the move kosher, explaining that it was not a cancelation but a six-month postponement that Abbas was seeking.
Will the American and European representatives in Geneva support the adoption of the report in six months' time? Will Israel heed international law in the coming months, stop building in the settlements and announce immediate negotiations on their dismantlement and the establishment of a Palestinian state in the occupied territories? Is this what adoption of the report would have endangered? Of course not.
A great deal of political folly and short-sightedness was bared by that phone call, on the eve of Hamas's celebration of its victory in securing the release of 20 female prisoners. Precisely on that day, Abbas put Gaza in the headlines within the context of the PLO's defeatism and of spitting in the face of the victims of the attack - that is how they felt in Gaza and elsewhere.
Abbas confirmed in fact that Hamas is the real national leadership, and gave ammunition to those who claim that its path - the path of armed struggle - yields results that negotiations do not.
This was not an isolated gaffe, but a pattern that has endured since the PLO leadership concocted, together with naive Norwegians and shrewd Israeli lawyers, the Oslo Accords. Disregard for, and lack of interest in the knowledge and experience accumulated in the inhabitants of the occupied territories' prolonged popular struggle led to the first errors: the absence of an explicit statement that the aim was the establishment of a state within defined borders, not insisting on a construction freeze in the settlements, forgetting about the prisoners, endorsing the Area C arrangement, etc.
The chronic submissiveness is always explained by a desire to "make progress." But for the PLO and Fatah, progress is the very continued existence of the Palestinian Authority, which is now functioning more than ever before as a subcontractor for the IDF, the Shin Bet security service and the Civil Administration.
This is a leadership that has been convinced that armed struggle - certainly in the face of Israeli military superiority - cannot bring independence. And indeed, the disastrous repercussions of the Second Intifada are proof of this position. This is a leadership that believes in negotiation as a strategic path to obtaining a state and integration in the world that the United States is shaping.
But in such a world there is personal gain that accrues from chronic submissiveness - benefits enjoyed by the leaders and their immediate circles. This personal gain shapes the tactics.
Is the choice really only between negotiations and armed-struggle theater, the way the Palestinian leadership makes it out to be? No.
The true choice is between negotiations as part of a popular struggle anchored in the language of the universal culture of equality and rights, and negotiations between business partners with the junior partner submissively expressing his gratitude to the senior partner for his generosity.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Palestinian factions call for forming committee to probe Goldstone report delay
".....In a related context, Shihab news agency quoted informed sources in Washington as saying that a meeting between PA representatives and an Israeli delegation took place in Washington to persuade the PA to withdraw its support for Goldstone’s report.
The source told Shihab that the PA officials initially rejected the Israeli request, until Israeli officer Eli Ofarham showed up and displayed on his laptop a videotaped file showing Mahmoud Abbas urging Israel war minister Ehud Barak to continue the war on Gaza.
The sources also revealed that the PA official also listened to a recorded telephone conversation between director of the general staff office Dov Weissglas and Abbas’s aide Tayeb Abdelrahim in which the latter called on Israel to invade the refugee camps of Jabaliya and Al-Shati and said that the fall of those camps would end the rule of Hamas.
Abbas urged Barak to continue the war on Gaza and Abelrahim called on the Israelis to invade Jabalya and Shati refugee camps to finish off Hamas.
Weissglas, according to the record, said that this would lead to thousands of casualties among citizens, but Abdelrahim stressed that they all elected Hamas and chose their own destiny.
The sources added that the Israeli delegation threatened to exhibit these recorded materials to the UN members and the media and demanded the PA officials to pledge in writing not to give any country a permission to adopt Goldstone’s report........"
".....In a related context, Shihab news agency quoted informed sources in Washington as saying that a meeting between PA representatives and an Israeli delegation took place in Washington to persuade the PA to withdraw its support for Goldstone’s report.
The source told Shihab that the PA officials initially rejected the Israeli request, until Israeli officer Eli Ofarham showed up and displayed on his laptop a videotaped file showing Mahmoud Abbas urging Israel war minister Ehud Barak to continue the war on Gaza.
The sources also revealed that the PA official also listened to a recorded telephone conversation between director of the general staff office Dov Weissglas and Abbas’s aide Tayeb Abdelrahim in which the latter called on Israel to invade the refugee camps of Jabaliya and Al-Shati and said that the fall of those camps would end the rule of Hamas.
Abbas urged Barak to continue the war on Gaza and Abelrahim called on the Israelis to invade Jabalya and Shati refugee camps to finish off Hamas.
Weissglas, according to the record, said that this would lead to thousands of casualties among citizens, but Abdelrahim stressed that they all elected Hamas and chose their own destiny.
The sources added that the Israeli delegation threatened to exhibit these recorded materials to the UN members and the media and demanded the PA officials to pledge in writing not to give any country a permission to adopt Goldstone’s report........"
This is an appeal for Jews to make a strong showing in support of the
Goldstone report - within 24 hours. PLEASE SEND YOUR NAME AND
ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTIFICATION TO THIS EMAIL ADDRESS:
jewssayno@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 9:28 PM
Subject: Please Join Jews Say No: Jewish Appeal to Support the
Goldstone Report
Dear Friends,
We are circulating the following letter and hope you and/or your
organization will sign it. We'd like to get as many signatures over the
next 24 hours and then try to get it placed as a letter or piece in one
of the Jewish (and maybe international) newspapers. We hope you agree
with us that it is critical for our voices to be heard!
Please email us at (jewssayno@gmail.com) if we can add your name.
Thank-you,
Jews Say No
Nicholas Abramson
Elly Bulkin
Nina Felshin
Sherry Gorelick
Jane Hirschmann
Carol Horwitz
Alan Levine
Helaine Meisler
Gail Miller
Carol Munter
Donna Nevel
Ray Wofsky
Dorothy Zellner
Jewish Appeal to Support the Goldstone Report
The primary author of the recently released UN Report on Gaza, the
internationally respected jurist Richard Goldstone, has been attacked
by establishment voices within the Jewish community. When those within
a community try to “excommunicate” and dishonor a truth-teller, it is
our obligation and responsibility to speak out vehemently on their
behalf and on behalf of the truth they bring.
By all accounts, Judge Goldstone, who has a deep connection to Israel,
approached his task with no pre-conceptions about what he and his team
would find as they investigated the circumstances and aftermath of the
Israeli attack on Gaza. Goldstone is a former South African
constitutional law court judge who also served as a prosecutor of the
Yugoslav and Rwandan war crimes tribunals. His credentials for this
task are impeccable.
For following where the truth led him and releasing a report
detailing human rights abuses and violations of international law by
Israel, as well as Hamas, Judge Goldstone should be applauded for his
honesty and integrity. Instead, he and the report have been viciously
and relentlessly attacked by many within the Jewish community.
When it comes to Israel, hard-core censorship and intimidation by those
claiming to speak in the name of the Jewish people have been the order
of the day. Our saying, "Three Jews--four opinions," reflects the
traditional Jewish encouragement to argue and debate. But the reality,
sadly, is that diverse opinions are welcome--except when it comes to
Israel.
We must hold the Israeli government and the Jewish establishment
accountable for attempting to vilify a truth-teller and for suppressing
the truth about Israeli government crimes against the Palestinian
people. We call upon each and every one of us to speak out at every
opportunity--at our community centers and synagogues, in our homes, in
the street, wherever we go.
We must demand that the truth be heard and that those claiming to speak
in our name stop manipulating truths that have been well-documented for
years, long before the Goldstone report. We are also appalled by the
Obama Administration’s reaction to the report. We call for a fair and
impartial investigation of the report’s allegations by non-military
institutions in Israel. Failing that, we call for an investigation by
the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Let us begin the New Year in the pursuit of justice.
Goldstone report - within 24 hours. PLEASE SEND YOUR NAME AND
ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTIFICATION TO THIS EMAIL ADDRESS:
jewssayno@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 9:28 PM
Subject: Please Join Jews Say No: Jewish Appeal to Support the
Goldstone Report
Dear Friends,
We are circulating the following letter and hope you and/or your
organization will sign it. We'd like to get as many signatures over the
next 24 hours and then try to get it placed as a letter or piece in one
of the Jewish (and maybe international) newspapers. We hope you agree
with us that it is critical for our voices to be heard!
Please email us at (jewssayno@gmail.com) if we can add your name.
Thank-you,
Jews Say No
Nicholas Abramson
Elly Bulkin
Nina Felshin
Sherry Gorelick
Jane Hirschmann
Carol Horwitz
Alan Levine
Helaine Meisler
Gail Miller
Carol Munter
Donna Nevel
Ray Wofsky
Dorothy Zellner
Jewish Appeal to Support the Goldstone Report
The primary author of the recently released UN Report on Gaza, the
internationally respected jurist Richard Goldstone, has been attacked
by establishment voices within the Jewish community. When those within
a community try to “excommunicate” and dishonor a truth-teller, it is
our obligation and responsibility to speak out vehemently on their
behalf and on behalf of the truth they bring.
By all accounts, Judge Goldstone, who has a deep connection to Israel,
approached his task with no pre-conceptions about what he and his team
would find as they investigated the circumstances and aftermath of the
Israeli attack on Gaza. Goldstone is a former South African
constitutional law court judge who also served as a prosecutor of the
Yugoslav and Rwandan war crimes tribunals. His credentials for this
task are impeccable.
For following where the truth led him and releasing a report
detailing human rights abuses and violations of international law by
Israel, as well as Hamas, Judge Goldstone should be applauded for his
honesty and integrity. Instead, he and the report have been viciously
and relentlessly attacked by many within the Jewish community.
When it comes to Israel, hard-core censorship and intimidation by those
claiming to speak in the name of the Jewish people have been the order
of the day. Our saying, "Three Jews--four opinions," reflects the
traditional Jewish encouragement to argue and debate. But the reality,
sadly, is that diverse opinions are welcome--except when it comes to
Israel.
We must hold the Israeli government and the Jewish establishment
accountable for attempting to vilify a truth-teller and for suppressing
the truth about Israeli government crimes against the Palestinian
people. We call upon each and every one of us to speak out at every
opportunity--at our community centers and synagogues, in our homes, in
the street, wherever we go.
We must demand that the truth be heard and that those claiming to speak
in our name stop manipulating truths that have been well-documented for
years, long before the Goldstone report. We are also appalled by the
Obama Administration’s reaction to the report. We call for a fair and
impartial investigation of the report’s allegations by non-military
institutions in Israel. Failing that, we call for an investigation by
the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Let us begin the New Year in the pursuit of justice.
Working for peace is a form of prayer
By Bradley Burston
It's been a decade and a half that fanatics on both sides have ruined our lives. But there's a change coming. Whether the extremists like it or not. The sign came on the eve of the Sukkot festival, when Israel freed a group of Palestinian women prisoners in exchange for a video of IDF soldier Gilad Shalit, held by Hamas for well over three years.
The exchange was a quiet tectonic shift. The families of the Palestinian women told Israel television that they hoped that the Shalit family would soon be as happy as they were. A natural response, to be sure, but shocking in contrast to the tone of years past.
The exchange came about not because Ismail Haniyeh and Benjamin Netanyahu wanted it, and certainly not Avigdor Lieberman and Mahmoud Zahar. It came about because Palestinians and Israelis wanted it. They want to see their loved ones come home. And the result may well be a tectonic shift in the peace process, deriving from an issue of crucial importance to huge numbers of Israelis and Palestinians, one overshadowed in most accounts of the Mideast impasse, which is often portrayed as confined largely to questions of borders, holy sites, refugee repatriation and settler repatriation.
A prisoner exchange, in the context of a wider deal encompassing the Israeli siege on Gaza, rocket fire against Israel, and accompanied by Fatah-Hamas rapprochement and close Quartet involvement, could spark powerful, publicly supported momentum toward the establishment of Palestinian statehood and an eventual solution of the conflict.
There was something propitious about the timing of the release of the prisoners and of proof that Gilad Shalit was alive. Another sign may well come later this month. An unapologetically pro-peace and pro-Israel political convention may prove to be a landmark event in American Jewish history, and a turning point in the relationship between Israel and the largest Jewish community in the Diaspora.
The national conference of J Street will see an unprecedented North
American gathering of activists seeking a Mideast future anchored by the co-existence of a safely independent Israel and a justly independent Palestine.
Then there is the matter of Sukkot, a time of deep gladness and imminent judgment. It is a time for leaving the armor of the comfort zone, for going out and setting up a vulnerable shelter which allows neighbors to come not only as guests, but as equals.
May we take the opportunity to forget, for the moment, to hate. May we take our stomped expectations, our crumpled wish lists, our boiling blood and our lanced dreams, and still have the vision to seek a future in which two curiously similar, wholly incompatible peoples can be themselves, both secure, both self-governing, both truly independent. Two states.
Do people outside of the Holy Land have the right to push for changes in the Israeli-Palestinian equation? Absolutely. There are more Palestinians living outside of Palestine than within it, and more Jews living outside of the Jewish state than within it. For those who feel it, Palestine and Israel are certainly part of them, a core of their identity.
But in a region which needs healing much more than it needs hatred, it is more important than ever that activism be oriented toward a goal that can work. God knows, there are enough well-financed extremists working on both sides for a one-state solution that disenfranchises the other. As the real common enemy of both sides, fanatics don't need more help. They are more than capable of delaying peace on their own. They're praying as hard as they can that the two-state solution fails.
Yet prayer can also arouse new awareness, recover lost hope, and broaden compassion, and that is what the two-state solution requires. If it is to succeed, this is the time. If it is to succeed, the groups mentioned below are some of the people who could make it happen. They'll need all the help, and prayers, they can get.
It's only fitting. Working for peace is itself a form of prayer. Bearing the taunts, the frustration, the abuse from your own side and the distrust of the other, and yet retaining the faith and the power to keep on, is worship at its core. Working for peace is doing God's work.
Especially now. Now that extremism has corrupted two of the world's great religions. It has distorted them, taken them over, driven them as tools and engines of fanaticism. It has taken the two religions most zealous in their opposition to idolatry, and commanded them to hold certain collections of stones, certain parcels of soil, sacred beyond human life.
It has taken two peoples descended from one man, and turned them into mortal enemies. It has taken two peoples schooled and skilled as no others in the art of bargaining, negotiation, and reaching agreements, and has forbidden compromise, openness, creativity, compassion, accommodation, as forms of treason and mortal sin. It has taken one God, and taught Jews that Allah is not their Almighty, and Muslims that Elohim is not their All Merciful.
Working for peace is a form of reclaiming holiness lost. Like prayer, working for peace is a way of meeting, at long last, and often in surprise, our own hearts. The heart, that fist of muscle which appears from the outside to be in a continual fight with itself. Working for peace is a way to find out what that fight is really for.
By Bradley Burston
It's been a decade and a half that fanatics on both sides have ruined our lives. But there's a change coming. Whether the extremists like it or not. The sign came on the eve of the Sukkot festival, when Israel freed a group of Palestinian women prisoners in exchange for a video of IDF soldier Gilad Shalit, held by Hamas for well over three years.
The exchange was a quiet tectonic shift. The families of the Palestinian women told Israel television that they hoped that the Shalit family would soon be as happy as they were. A natural response, to be sure, but shocking in contrast to the tone of years past.
The exchange came about not because Ismail Haniyeh and Benjamin Netanyahu wanted it, and certainly not Avigdor Lieberman and Mahmoud Zahar. It came about because Palestinians and Israelis wanted it. They want to see their loved ones come home. And the result may well be a tectonic shift in the peace process, deriving from an issue of crucial importance to huge numbers of Israelis and Palestinians, one overshadowed in most accounts of the Mideast impasse, which is often portrayed as confined largely to questions of borders, holy sites, refugee repatriation and settler repatriation.
A prisoner exchange, in the context of a wider deal encompassing the Israeli siege on Gaza, rocket fire against Israel, and accompanied by Fatah-Hamas rapprochement and close Quartet involvement, could spark powerful, publicly supported momentum toward the establishment of Palestinian statehood and an eventual solution of the conflict.
There was something propitious about the timing of the release of the prisoners and of proof that Gilad Shalit was alive. Another sign may well come later this month. An unapologetically pro-peace and pro-Israel political convention may prove to be a landmark event in American Jewish history, and a turning point in the relationship between Israel and the largest Jewish community in the Diaspora.
The national conference of J Street will see an unprecedented North
American gathering of activists seeking a Mideast future anchored by the co-existence of a safely independent Israel and a justly independent Palestine.
Then there is the matter of Sukkot, a time of deep gladness and imminent judgment. It is a time for leaving the armor of the comfort zone, for going out and setting up a vulnerable shelter which allows neighbors to come not only as guests, but as equals.
May we take the opportunity to forget, for the moment, to hate. May we take our stomped expectations, our crumpled wish lists, our boiling blood and our lanced dreams, and still have the vision to seek a future in which two curiously similar, wholly incompatible peoples can be themselves, both secure, both self-governing, both truly independent. Two states.
Do people outside of the Holy Land have the right to push for changes in the Israeli-Palestinian equation? Absolutely. There are more Palestinians living outside of Palestine than within it, and more Jews living outside of the Jewish state than within it. For those who feel it, Palestine and Israel are certainly part of them, a core of their identity.
But in a region which needs healing much more than it needs hatred, it is more important than ever that activism be oriented toward a goal that can work. God knows, there are enough well-financed extremists working on both sides for a one-state solution that disenfranchises the other. As the real common enemy of both sides, fanatics don't need more help. They are more than capable of delaying peace on their own. They're praying as hard as they can that the two-state solution fails.
Yet prayer can also arouse new awareness, recover lost hope, and broaden compassion, and that is what the two-state solution requires. If it is to succeed, this is the time. If it is to succeed, the groups mentioned below are some of the people who could make it happen. They'll need all the help, and prayers, they can get.
It's only fitting. Working for peace is itself a form of prayer. Bearing the taunts, the frustration, the abuse from your own side and the distrust of the other, and yet retaining the faith and the power to keep on, is worship at its core. Working for peace is doing God's work.
Especially now. Now that extremism has corrupted two of the world's great religions. It has distorted them, taken them over, driven them as tools and engines of fanaticism. It has taken the two religions most zealous in their opposition to idolatry, and commanded them to hold certain collections of stones, certain parcels of soil, sacred beyond human life.
It has taken two peoples descended from one man, and turned them into mortal enemies. It has taken two peoples schooled and skilled as no others in the art of bargaining, negotiation, and reaching agreements, and has forbidden compromise, openness, creativity, compassion, accommodation, as forms of treason and mortal sin. It has taken one God, and taught Jews that Allah is not their Almighty, and Muslims that Elohim is not their All Merciful.
Working for peace is a form of reclaiming holiness lost. Like prayer, working for peace is a way of meeting, at long last, and often in surprise, our own hearts. The heart, that fist of muscle which appears from the outside to be in a continual fight with itself. Working for peace is a way to find out what that fight is really for.
Palestinian official: Israel deliberately sparking fire in Jerusalem
By Avi Issacharoff Haaretz Correspondent
A senior Palestinian official on Tuesday accused Israel of deliberately creating "an extremely dangerous situation" in East Jerusalem, to trigger violence, justify a crackdown and tighten its grip on the disputed city.
"Israel is lighting matches in the hope of sparking a fire, deliberately escalating tensions in occupied East Jerusalem rather than taking steps to placate the situation," chief peace negotiator Saeb Erekat said in a statement before meetings later this week with U.S. President Barack Obama's envoy.
Palestinian leaders have issued a series of warnings in the past week after clashes at Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem's Old City between Israeli police and protesters, over alleged attempts by Jewish religious activists to enter the site.
Advertisement
The Western-backed Palestinian government on Monday said it would "confront Israel" diplomatically over the rise in tension, after another day of clashes between groups of stone-throwing youths and police firing tear-gas and plastic bullets.
The United States and Jordan are trying to ease the tensions surrounding the Temple Mount area in Jerusalem, with Jordan asking Israel to prevent the entry of Jews and tourists to the site until the situation calms down, sources close to the situation told Haaretz.
Confrontations continued Monday between Palestinian demonstrators and security forces. One Israeli soldier was stabbed and the number of people detained since the latest disturbances began reached 50.
Since 2003 the Israel Police has allowed free access to the Temple Mount to Jews and tourists from 7:30 to 10 A.M. and from 12:30 to 1:30 P.M., via the Mugrabi Gate.
Before the outbreak of the second intifada in September 2000, these visits had to be coordinated with the Waqf religious trust, which is under Jordanian control. Between 2000 and 2003, non-Muslims were completely barred from the Temple Mount area, until the Israel Police decided unilaterally to reverse the ban.
A senior Jordanian source told Haaretz that the police must keep Jewish religious extremists away from the Temple Mount and keep the Mugrabi Gate closed. "That will calm the atmosphere while respecting the Jordanian role in Al-Aqsa Mosque," he said.
The Palestinian Authority, which also has an interest in calming the situation, is to hold negotiations on the rules for visiting the compound with Israel and the Waqf, with the aim of forging an agreement that will allow tourists to visit under the sole supervision of the Waqf.
Hatem Abdel Qader, PA adviser on Jerusalem affairs, who was arrested on suspicion of incitement three days ago and later released, approves of such an agreement. He says Israel's unilateral decision to let non-Muslims enter the Temple Mount offends Muslim worshipers because the women among the former often dress inappropriately.
U.S. diplomats, meanwhile, are pressuring both the PA and Israel to work to reduce tensions. U.S. officials have spoken with Abdel Qader and stressed that everyone involved must take action to prevent the situation from worsening. "We're not interested in an escalation," one Fatah official said, praising the decision by the Israel Police to keep the Mugrabi Gate closed on Monday.
There were a number of incidents across Jerusalem Monday: Near the Anata (Shuafat) refugee camp a Palestinian teen stabbed a Border Police officer, wounding him moderately, before being arrested. In the evening Palestinians threw rocks at police officers near the checkpoint at the camp's entrance.
In Ras al Amud, east of the Old City, four police officers were injured when Palestinian teenagers threw rocks at them; 10 suspects were arrested. Police officers dressed as Arabs arrested masked Palestinian teens who threw rocks at police after officers kept a large number of Palestinians from approaching the Old City and Temple Mount.
In the Wadi Joz neighborhood there was a confrontation between police officers and about 100 supporters of the Islamic Movement's northern branch when the police tried to approach the Old City. The crowd was dispersed with little violence.
It now appears, however, that the Islamic Movement's northern branch is trying to fan the flames. Sheikh Ra'ad Salah, the branch's leader, called on all Muslims on Monday to come to Al-Aqsa Mosque and remain inside for as long as it takes "to protect Al-Aqsa." He told an Arab television station that the Israeli occupation seeks to build a synagogue on Al-Aqsa Mosque.
"We call on everyone who is able to enter Al-Aqsa Mosque immediately and remain there for as long as required, for the sake of Al-Quds [Jerusalem] and for the sake of Al-Aqsa," Salah said in an interview.
"As long as there is occupation [by Israel], there is danger [to the mosque]. We must be in a state of constant readiness because of the potential damage to 1 billion Muslims. Al-Quds is ours and was, and is, sacred ground for Muslims. That is our position. We will not concede even if we die for this position. We will continue with these measures for as long as Al-Aqsa is under threat."
By Avi Issacharoff Haaretz Correspondent
A senior Palestinian official on Tuesday accused Israel of deliberately creating "an extremely dangerous situation" in East Jerusalem, to trigger violence, justify a crackdown and tighten its grip on the disputed city.
"Israel is lighting matches in the hope of sparking a fire, deliberately escalating tensions in occupied East Jerusalem rather than taking steps to placate the situation," chief peace negotiator Saeb Erekat said in a statement before meetings later this week with U.S. President Barack Obama's envoy.
Palestinian leaders have issued a series of warnings in the past week after clashes at Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem's Old City between Israeli police and protesters, over alleged attempts by Jewish religious activists to enter the site.
Advertisement
The Western-backed Palestinian government on Monday said it would "confront Israel" diplomatically over the rise in tension, after another day of clashes between groups of stone-throwing youths and police firing tear-gas and plastic bullets.
The United States and Jordan are trying to ease the tensions surrounding the Temple Mount area in Jerusalem, with Jordan asking Israel to prevent the entry of Jews and tourists to the site until the situation calms down, sources close to the situation told Haaretz.
Confrontations continued Monday between Palestinian demonstrators and security forces. One Israeli soldier was stabbed and the number of people detained since the latest disturbances began reached 50.
Since 2003 the Israel Police has allowed free access to the Temple Mount to Jews and tourists from 7:30 to 10 A.M. and from 12:30 to 1:30 P.M., via the Mugrabi Gate.
Before the outbreak of the second intifada in September 2000, these visits had to be coordinated with the Waqf religious trust, which is under Jordanian control. Between 2000 and 2003, non-Muslims were completely barred from the Temple Mount area, until the Israel Police decided unilaterally to reverse the ban.
A senior Jordanian source told Haaretz that the police must keep Jewish religious extremists away from the Temple Mount and keep the Mugrabi Gate closed. "That will calm the atmosphere while respecting the Jordanian role in Al-Aqsa Mosque," he said.
The Palestinian Authority, which also has an interest in calming the situation, is to hold negotiations on the rules for visiting the compound with Israel and the Waqf, with the aim of forging an agreement that will allow tourists to visit under the sole supervision of the Waqf.
Hatem Abdel Qader, PA adviser on Jerusalem affairs, who was arrested on suspicion of incitement three days ago and later released, approves of such an agreement. He says Israel's unilateral decision to let non-Muslims enter the Temple Mount offends Muslim worshipers because the women among the former often dress inappropriately.
U.S. diplomats, meanwhile, are pressuring both the PA and Israel to work to reduce tensions. U.S. officials have spoken with Abdel Qader and stressed that everyone involved must take action to prevent the situation from worsening. "We're not interested in an escalation," one Fatah official said, praising the decision by the Israel Police to keep the Mugrabi Gate closed on Monday.
There were a number of incidents across Jerusalem Monday: Near the Anata (Shuafat) refugee camp a Palestinian teen stabbed a Border Police officer, wounding him moderately, before being arrested. In the evening Palestinians threw rocks at police officers near the checkpoint at the camp's entrance.
In Ras al Amud, east of the Old City, four police officers were injured when Palestinian teenagers threw rocks at them; 10 suspects were arrested. Police officers dressed as Arabs arrested masked Palestinian teens who threw rocks at police after officers kept a large number of Palestinians from approaching the Old City and Temple Mount.
In the Wadi Joz neighborhood there was a confrontation between police officers and about 100 supporters of the Islamic Movement's northern branch when the police tried to approach the Old City. The crowd was dispersed with little violence.
It now appears, however, that the Islamic Movement's northern branch is trying to fan the flames. Sheikh Ra'ad Salah, the branch's leader, called on all Muslims on Monday to come to Al-Aqsa Mosque and remain inside for as long as it takes "to protect Al-Aqsa." He told an Arab television station that the Israeli occupation seeks to build a synagogue on Al-Aqsa Mosque.
"We call on everyone who is able to enter Al-Aqsa Mosque immediately and remain there for as long as required, for the sake of Al-Quds [Jerusalem] and for the sake of Al-Aqsa," Salah said in an interview.
"As long as there is occupation [by Israel], there is danger [to the mosque]. We must be in a state of constant readiness because of the potential damage to 1 billion Muslims. Al-Quds is ours and was, and is, sacred ground for Muslims. That is our position. We will not concede even if we die for this position. We will continue with these measures for as long as Al-Aqsa is under threat."
More than 40 Palestinians from 10 cities across the United States met in Chicago, IL on September 26, 2009 for the first major USPCN convening since the Popular Conference in 2008 and several national events in 2009 including the Hanien tour, Bishop Attallah Hanna's visit and our participation in the Viva Palestina convoy to Gaza. Grounded in our attachment to Palestine and justice for all Palestinians, USPCN members and participants reaffirmed our commitment to continue the work of USPCN as a networking body giving a voice and representation to Palestinians in the United States.
Given the current lack of responsible and accountable Palestinian leadership and its absolute complicity to U.S. and Israeli demands violating International law on the ground today, participants voiced the critical need for a democratically elected Palestinian body in Palestine and the Diaspora, including the US. Mahmud Abbas and the PA must be held accountable for their disastrous policies, including the decision to withdraw PA support for the Goldstone Report at the UN Human Rights Council. The Palestinian "government's" failure to challenge Israel's policies towards Gaza, the Aqsa Mosque, and Palestinian prisoners testifies to its utter impotence. Furthermore, Abbas, Fayyad and their inner circle bear complete responsibility for undermining, at the behest of the US and Israel, Palestinian calls for unification.
USPCN upholds and supports all attempts to reach Palestinian national unity as a primary step to defend our national rights as a people. We ask all factions, especially Fateh and Hamas, to make unity against plans to liquidate the Palestinian struggle a top priority, and to remain committed to the principles that unite Palestinians inside Palestine and in exile, namely the right of return, right to self determination, and the end of the colonization and occupation of Palestine.
Steadfast in our commitment to the principles of liberation and return, the meeting in Chicago was productive, with several critical decisions made and projects initiated.
These decisions and projects are as follows:
USPCN Structure
Reviewed and affirmed New York Meeting summary: "We continue working as a network among different individuals and organization, establishing new contacts and local chapters; and the CC (Coordinating Committee) will be the primary resource for coordination".
Adopted a structure for the USPCN body.
Formed and elected a new National Coordinating Committee of 19 members, 16 were elected from their local communities and 3 special skills members are yet to be determined.
USPCN Projects
Participation in the United States Social Forum (USSF) in 2010.
Sponsoring youth camps in the Eastern and Western regions of the U.S. followed by a national youth delegation to Palestine.
Convening a second Popular Conference to take place in 2010.
USPCN Committees
Establishing the Jerusalem Committee: connecting Palestinians in the US to national figures in Palestine (Mosques, churches and social justice groups) to protect Jerusalem from the continuous Israeli attacks and land confiscations.
Resisting visa restrictions on Palestinians: campaign to lift restrictions on Palestinian U.S. citizens' visas to visit Jerusalem and other parts of Palestine
Sister City projects: supporting local family sponsorship programs and encouraging programs that aim at twinning US and Palestinian cities and towns.
Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS): supporting the BDS movement by providing outreach and networking assistance when possible in all cities where the USPCN has local committees.
Securing scholarships for Palestinian refugees to attend universities inside Palestine.
Breaking the Siege on Gaza: assist, participate and sponsor solidarity attempts to help lift the siege on Gaza.
USPCN Next Planning Meeting
The participants agreed to hold their next planning meeting in the city of San Francisco on December 11-12, 2009.
For more information or to get involved with the USPCN, please email uspcn@palestineconference.org
Given the current lack of responsible and accountable Palestinian leadership and its absolute complicity to U.S. and Israeli demands violating International law on the ground today, participants voiced the critical need for a democratically elected Palestinian body in Palestine and the Diaspora, including the US. Mahmud Abbas and the PA must be held accountable for their disastrous policies, including the decision to withdraw PA support for the Goldstone Report at the UN Human Rights Council. The Palestinian "government's" failure to challenge Israel's policies towards Gaza, the Aqsa Mosque, and Palestinian prisoners testifies to its utter impotence. Furthermore, Abbas, Fayyad and their inner circle bear complete responsibility for undermining, at the behest of the US and Israel, Palestinian calls for unification.
USPCN upholds and supports all attempts to reach Palestinian national unity as a primary step to defend our national rights as a people. We ask all factions, especially Fateh and Hamas, to make unity against plans to liquidate the Palestinian struggle a top priority, and to remain committed to the principles that unite Palestinians inside Palestine and in exile, namely the right of return, right to self determination, and the end of the colonization and occupation of Palestine.
Steadfast in our commitment to the principles of liberation and return, the meeting in Chicago was productive, with several critical decisions made and projects initiated.
These decisions and projects are as follows:
USPCN Structure
Reviewed and affirmed New York Meeting summary: "We continue working as a network among different individuals and organization, establishing new contacts and local chapters; and the CC (Coordinating Committee) will be the primary resource for coordination".
Adopted a structure for the USPCN body.
Formed and elected a new National Coordinating Committee of 19 members, 16 were elected from their local communities and 3 special skills members are yet to be determined.
USPCN Projects
Participation in the United States Social Forum (USSF) in 2010.
Sponsoring youth camps in the Eastern and Western regions of the U.S. followed by a national youth delegation to Palestine.
Convening a second Popular Conference to take place in 2010.
USPCN Committees
Establishing the Jerusalem Committee: connecting Palestinians in the US to national figures in Palestine (Mosques, churches and social justice groups) to protect Jerusalem from the continuous Israeli attacks and land confiscations.
Resisting visa restrictions on Palestinians: campaign to lift restrictions on Palestinian U.S. citizens' visas to visit Jerusalem and other parts of Palestine
Sister City projects: supporting local family sponsorship programs and encouraging programs that aim at twinning US and Palestinian cities and towns.
Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS): supporting the BDS movement by providing outreach and networking assistance when possible in all cities where the USPCN has local committees.
Securing scholarships for Palestinian refugees to attend universities inside Palestine.
Breaking the Siege on Gaza: assist, participate and sponsor solidarity attempts to help lift the siege on Gaza.
USPCN Next Planning Meeting
The participants agreed to hold their next planning meeting in the city of San Francisco on December 11-12, 2009.
For more information or to get involved with the USPCN, please email uspcn@palestineconference.org
Palestinians outraged over Abbas bowing to Israel, US
Ramallah, West Bank – Demonstrators descended Monday on this city's most famous traffic circle, Manara Square, which for years was a launching point of Palestinian protests against the Israeli occupation.
This time, however, the demonstrators were directing their ire against Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Local leaders bellowed into the flag-waving crowd, accusing Mr. Abbas of capitulating to US and Israeli pressure. While frustration has been building for several weeks, the catalyst was the PA's decision late last week to delay a vote on the Goldstone report, the most comprehensive international investigation to date of Israeli conduct in the devastating Gaza war.
"This report was an opportunity to expose Israel's behavior," says protestor Omar Mansour, who traveled from Jenin to participate. "This postponement is embarrassing not just for Palestinians, but for everyone in the world who tried to help us attain justice. Even worse, the PA leadership put itself in this position at a time when there are no negotiations to save."
While the demonstration was small – several hundred men and women participated – Abbas faces a serious threat to his credibility and to his ability to enforce public compliance with any promises Palestinian negotiators make in renewed talks with Israel. Mr. Abbas's decision to ask the Palestinian Authority to delay a United Nations Human Rights Council vote on the recommendations of the Goldstone report has sparked widespread anger in the West Bank and Gaza.
"The extent of outrage over this is really tremendous," says Mamdouh Aker, the Commissioner-General of the Palestinian Independent Commission for Human Rights.
The anger appears to extend beyond the Palestinian territories. A day after criticizing the Palestinian Authority for backing down against Israel, Syria canceled an Abbas visit scheduled for Tuesday, reported the Associated Press in Damascus.
Abbas faces censure
The UN investigation, led by South African Judge Richard Goldstone, produced a 575-page document that says there is sufficient evidence that both the Israeli army and Hamas committed war crimes. But the report reserves the bulk of its criticism for Israel.
The UN Human Rights Council was set to approve the report's recommendations – which included asking the UN Security Council to refer war crimes cases to the International Criminal Court if either side failed to launch investigations into their alleged crimes within six months.
Israel has gone on a diplomatic offensive since the report's release in mid-September, challenging its credibility and saying it is full of bias and inaccuracies. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared last week that if the report were to be adopted and forwarded to the UN Security Council, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process would be plunged into a deep freeze.
Under pressure from both Jerusalem and Washington to give the peace process top priority, Abbas asked the Palestinian leadership at UN headquarters in Geneva to postpone a vote until the council next meets in March. Without Palestinian participation, other Arab and Muslim nations didn't press the matter further.
The deluge of censure that has emanated from almost all major Palestinian political factions since the decision led Mr. Abbas to announce on Sunday the creation of a committee to investigate his decision to postpone. But many Palestinians said that seemed to be an attempt to avoid taking responsibility.
"When we look at this issue, it seems that no one could have taken this decision but Abbas. He should accept responsibility and try to explain what happened," says Dr. Aker of the Palestinian Independent Commission for Human Rights.
Aker said that the three-member committee Abbas announced Sunday would only have teeth if it were run by an independent figure, preferably a judge. "It can't be headed by an insider. It should be headed by a judge and include a representative from the human rights community," he says.
The Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) met on Monday to discuss the issue. One of the members said the council had denounced the PA leadership's decision to postpone the Gaza report.
"What we see is that this opportunity to seek clarity on the events in Gaza has been deferred, and that makes it much more difficult to follow up," says Qais Abdul-Karim Abu Leila, a PLC member from Ramallah.
Hamas has issued perhaps the most stinging criticism of all. On Monday, Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh accused Abbas of personally instructing his representative in Geneva to revoke the representative's demand that the Goldstone Report be adopted, and accused him of "betrayal" of his people. Haniyeh said that this was typical of the PA and that Palestinian unity talks would not succeed unless there was change in Ramallah.
Palestinian anger over Arafat-style diktats
The public anger over the delayed vote on the Goldstone report comes on the heels of other incidents in which Palestinians believe their leaders capitulated to external pressures. Foremost among these was Abbas' agreement to meet last month in New York with Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama at the UN General Assembly. Since then, indirect talks have continued in the US under the aegis of US Middle East envoy George Mitchell.
Abbas had initially vowed that neither of these would happen unless Israel agreed to a settlement freeze, which it has not.
"For the Palestinian public, there are three errors we see," explains Khalil Shaheen, a columnist with Al-Ayyam, a Palestinian newspaper.
"The first is that Abbas took the decision to participate in the trilateral summit in New York, and the second was breaking the promise not to conduct any negotiations with the Israelis until they agree to a settlement freeze," he says. Finally, he says, was the decision to postpone the Goldstone report. "This was against the will of the Palestinians. The Palestinian leadership needs to reevaluate the situation and regain trust with the Palestinian public."
Mr. Shaheen says there is a sense that PA decisionmaking does not include consultations with legislators or PLO bodies like the Fatah Central Committee, which was promised more influence at a party-wide conference in August.
"What's important here is that the decisionmaking is taking place outside the government," he says. "I'm afraid we're repeating the same patterns of the Arafat era, in which decisions were taken by one person. I think this is the core issue of the anger over the Goldstone report. There is a problem of taking decisions in the Palestinian Authority, and a feeling that Abbas is leaving the political establishment in the margins."
Ramallah, West Bank – Demonstrators descended Monday on this city's most famous traffic circle, Manara Square, which for years was a launching point of Palestinian protests against the Israeli occupation.
This time, however, the demonstrators were directing their ire against Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Local leaders bellowed into the flag-waving crowd, accusing Mr. Abbas of capitulating to US and Israeli pressure. While frustration has been building for several weeks, the catalyst was the PA's decision late last week to delay a vote on the Goldstone report, the most comprehensive international investigation to date of Israeli conduct in the devastating Gaza war.
"This report was an opportunity to expose Israel's behavior," says protestor Omar Mansour, who traveled from Jenin to participate. "This postponement is embarrassing not just for Palestinians, but for everyone in the world who tried to help us attain justice. Even worse, the PA leadership put itself in this position at a time when there are no negotiations to save."
While the demonstration was small – several hundred men and women participated – Abbas faces a serious threat to his credibility and to his ability to enforce public compliance with any promises Palestinian negotiators make in renewed talks with Israel. Mr. Abbas's decision to ask the Palestinian Authority to delay a United Nations Human Rights Council vote on the recommendations of the Goldstone report has sparked widespread anger in the West Bank and Gaza.
"The extent of outrage over this is really tremendous," says Mamdouh Aker, the Commissioner-General of the Palestinian Independent Commission for Human Rights.
The anger appears to extend beyond the Palestinian territories. A day after criticizing the Palestinian Authority for backing down against Israel, Syria canceled an Abbas visit scheduled for Tuesday, reported the Associated Press in Damascus.
Abbas faces censure
The UN investigation, led by South African Judge Richard Goldstone, produced a 575-page document that says there is sufficient evidence that both the Israeli army and Hamas committed war crimes. But the report reserves the bulk of its criticism for Israel.
The UN Human Rights Council was set to approve the report's recommendations – which included asking the UN Security Council to refer war crimes cases to the International Criminal Court if either side failed to launch investigations into their alleged crimes within six months.
Israel has gone on a diplomatic offensive since the report's release in mid-September, challenging its credibility and saying it is full of bias and inaccuracies. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared last week that if the report were to be adopted and forwarded to the UN Security Council, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process would be plunged into a deep freeze.
Under pressure from both Jerusalem and Washington to give the peace process top priority, Abbas asked the Palestinian leadership at UN headquarters in Geneva to postpone a vote until the council next meets in March. Without Palestinian participation, other Arab and Muslim nations didn't press the matter further.
The deluge of censure that has emanated from almost all major Palestinian political factions since the decision led Mr. Abbas to announce on Sunday the creation of a committee to investigate his decision to postpone. But many Palestinians said that seemed to be an attempt to avoid taking responsibility.
"When we look at this issue, it seems that no one could have taken this decision but Abbas. He should accept responsibility and try to explain what happened," says Dr. Aker of the Palestinian Independent Commission for Human Rights.
Aker said that the three-member committee Abbas announced Sunday would only have teeth if it were run by an independent figure, preferably a judge. "It can't be headed by an insider. It should be headed by a judge and include a representative from the human rights community," he says.
The Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) met on Monday to discuss the issue. One of the members said the council had denounced the PA leadership's decision to postpone the Gaza report.
"What we see is that this opportunity to seek clarity on the events in Gaza has been deferred, and that makes it much more difficult to follow up," says Qais Abdul-Karim Abu Leila, a PLC member from Ramallah.
Hamas has issued perhaps the most stinging criticism of all. On Monday, Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh accused Abbas of personally instructing his representative in Geneva to revoke the representative's demand that the Goldstone Report be adopted, and accused him of "betrayal" of his people. Haniyeh said that this was typical of the PA and that Palestinian unity talks would not succeed unless there was change in Ramallah.
Palestinian anger over Arafat-style diktats
The public anger over the delayed vote on the Goldstone report comes on the heels of other incidents in which Palestinians believe their leaders capitulated to external pressures. Foremost among these was Abbas' agreement to meet last month in New York with Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama at the UN General Assembly. Since then, indirect talks have continued in the US under the aegis of US Middle East envoy George Mitchell.
Abbas had initially vowed that neither of these would happen unless Israel agreed to a settlement freeze, which it has not.
"For the Palestinian public, there are three errors we see," explains Khalil Shaheen, a columnist with Al-Ayyam, a Palestinian newspaper.
"The first is that Abbas took the decision to participate in the trilateral summit in New York, and the second was breaking the promise not to conduct any negotiations with the Israelis until they agree to a settlement freeze," he says. Finally, he says, was the decision to postpone the Goldstone report. "This was against the will of the Palestinians. The Palestinian leadership needs to reevaluate the situation and regain trust with the Palestinian public."
Mr. Shaheen says there is a sense that PA decisionmaking does not include consultations with legislators or PLO bodies like the Fatah Central Committee, which was promised more influence at a party-wide conference in August.
"What's important here is that the decisionmaking is taking place outside the government," he says. "I'm afraid we're repeating the same patterns of the Arafat era, in which decisions were taken by one person. I think this is the core issue of the anger over the Goldstone report. There is a problem of taking decisions in the Palestinian Authority, and a feeling that Abbas is leaving the political establishment in the margins."
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Sisterhood is Islamic: an Interview with Daisy Khan
By Rene Rosechild
August 25, 2009
The face of modern global feminism is wearing hijab. The director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement talks to us about the new "Jihad Against Violence" and other developments in the worldwide Muslim women's movement.
A month ago, in late July, over 200 Muslim women leaders and activists met at the Women’s Islamic Initiative in Spirituality and Equality conference in Kuala Lumpur. The women launched a Global Muslim Women’s Shura Council, an all-women’s advisory council that will promote women’s rights within an Islamic framework. The first action of the Shura Council was to launch a “Jihad Against Violence.”
I spoke with Daisy Khan, executive director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement, (and member of the Religion Dispatches Advisory Council) about the conference and the worldwide Muslim women’s movement.
What’s the impetus behind the WISE conference? Its long-term goals?
It’s change through institution-building. One of the gaping holes that we’ve seen is that we have a very large constituency of Muslim women that are left unrepresented through institutions; so we don’t have an institution that really speaks for us, even though we are half a billion around the globe.
What do you see as the greatest obstacles to Muslim women’s advancement?
I was quite shocked that when polled, 93% of the women at the conference said the greatest barrier to their advancement was distorted religious interpretation.
That’s almost a consensus.
And I think that 97% said that women should be in the forefront of interpreting and becoming authorities on interpretation.
You have to organize in such a way: you have to create women who have the authority to interpret, and that requires a longer-term educational program, which we did launch and have already seeded here, called the Muslim Women’s Muftiyya Program. Basically a Muslim woman jurist, a scholar; a woman who would be able to look at religious text, interpret it, and give a legal opinion, also known as a fatwa.
And if a woman achieves that level of scholarship, is there any barrier to her authority being recognized?
No—the recognition, the authority, lies in her scholarship.
So in a way you could say that Islam is non-sexist in that if the individual achieves the correct level of learning, she has authority.
It has always been that way. Because of social pressures women have not entered that field, and this is the one area in which we want to revive this tradition. There has never been any objection to women being jurists. What we are doing is we’re just reviving the tradition of women being such authorities.
Are you getting resistance?
We have not really received resistance in this area yet because we are doing it in a very thoughtful way. But the consensus that we have heard is that women themselves, the constituency—and they’re grassroots women, very tapped into their local communities—they know what is needed. And given that, we do not believe that we will be resisted. In fact we believe we’ll be welcomed, because the world needs it.
It seems that in various different countries Muslim women are seeking specific change, and are making some big changes. What progress do you see being made on those fronts?
The challenges for Muslim women in different countries are different. Some who are living in conflict-ridden zones are literally working toward survival threats; for instance in Afghanistan. They are concerned about basic education of their children, they are considering home-schooling, they need assistance with how to maintain their basic standard of living.
Then we have countries like Iran where women are highly educated and want their rightful place in society. For them, the challenge is how to get more equal status within society. You have women in Turkey who are struggling to express their religion; they want that recognition. The landscape of the Muslim world is different and the challenges are different from region to region, country to country, because of the political instability or economic development of that country.
What we are trying to do through WISE is create a little bit of a level field through education, through a compact that we have signed as women that we must lift up the status of women throughout societies; and that there must be consistency of how women are to be seen and are to be treated in every society that calls itself Muslim.
Do you see any inherent conflict between Islam itself and full women’s equality?
No, actually we declare gender equality to be an intrinsic part of the Islamic faith. It’s something that people have long forgotten. And this is why we are stating our case from an Islamic jurisprudence point of view. We believe that Muslim women are worthy of respect and dignity. According to Islam, they’re legal individuals; they’re spiritual beings; they’re social people. These are all God-given responsibilities.
They are even responsible agents, so they are held accountable for their actions. They are free citizens. True, they’re servants of God; but they hold fundamental equal rights to exercise their abilities and talents in all human areas of activity.
And we can prove this through our scripture. This is not something we made up; this is not a 21st-century concept. Societies may have forgotten these concepts. We understand that some people may think that women have different roles. Different roles doesn’t mean that she is inferior. It just means that men have certain qualities; women have other qualities, but we are partners. This is how we’re referred to in the Qur’an. So we need to revive that.
As women, we have a responsibility to make our case; because if we don’t make our case, others won’t be able to. This is not to say that because we are equal it is in any way to be seen as a threat to other people.
We will need to educate people about what women’s rights are, and how when women exercise these, they become a very important part of society’s flourishing. We want women to be seen as assets, not as burdens anymore. This is critical because women represent half of the population, if not more, especially in the Muslim world. They are the glue that holds the family together. They are the glue that holds the community together, and ultimately a good woman produces a good child produces a good citizen produces a good future. So we want people to understand and recognize that women are central to the society flourishing.
They have always had a very high status in the eyes of the prophet. The Qur’an says that paradise lies at the feet of the mother, and what does that mean? Why does a mother have such a high status, and then people think that women are inferior? The two just don’t make sense—they’re not parallel. So we’re just remaking our case in such a way that it is accepted.
We did a test on several male scholars: we asked them to review this document and we were quite shocked at some of the responses we got. One of the imams said, “Not only do I agree with this entire thing, I’m also going to give a Friday sermon on this, and then I’m going to translate it into Urdu, and I’m going to have it sent to every madrassah so every young boy knows who women are and what their rights are.”
So people see this as a welcome sign, because some male scholars and male imams need our help to make our case for them.
The women’s jihad against violence—let’s talk about that. First the goals?
We first started with domestic violence because that was something that we wanted to rid our communities of, especially when it’s done in the name of our religion. We wanted to make sure that we let everybody know that there is no justification for domestic violence.
That verse [4:34] people cite that claims that men have ultimate authority in marriage—what do you say about that?
I think the general consensus in that verse is that the purpose of marriage is to create harmony in the home; not to create this kind of discord and pain and suffering. The prophet was known to be the walking Qur’an. When he had a family dispute, he never struck a woman; in fact he was very respectful to women. He always walked away. So number one, there is no prophetic precedent.
So again, that’s a point where scholarship is going to help.
And that is where great minds can come in and say, “What does this really mean?” and Laleh Bakhtiar, a Saudi scholar, has gone through the entire Qur’an in analysis and said that daraba has several meanings: yes, one of them is “beat,” but it has also been translated as “go away.” So that seems to be the more appropriate one.
When you present that to women, they say, “Of course. That’s what it should be.” And that’s what makes sense, and that’s what the prophet did. So why was this verse translated differently?
So you started with domestic violence, that’s an important issue...
It’s an important issue, but what is really pressing right now for the entire global community—and most importantly for the Muslim community, because Muslims are getting impacted by violence more than anybody else—is violent extremism. We believe that violence is creating great suffering and pain everywhere. It’s not only devastating individual lives, it’s crippling entire societies. It destroys property, it’s impoverishing nations because there’s no economic development, and it’s violating the essential dignity of all humans. What it does to the future is even more dangerous, because it develops and generates a lot of mistrust and intolerance which poison an entire generation. It mars the name and reputation of Islam. Islam gets linked to terrorism and violence as if the two are so integrally married, and that’s bad for Islam.
And also, finally, it’s un-Islamic.
It’s un-Islamic because you’re not supposed to take an innocent life; that’s it! So why has it become the norm? The norm should be peace. Violence—when it has to be done—there is a process, there is an entire theory on what is just war, and those are all rules that have to be followed. Killing innocents is not part of that.
On the other hand, what peace brings: Human development is taking place, people are getting educated, minds are expanding. You are creating relative tranquility in the home. It increases wealth and builds prosperity in the nation.
It heightens respect and appreciation of others; you’re not suspicious of your neighbor, you have respect and tolerance for others. For us it also affirms that Islam truly is a religion of peace.
This is why we juxtapose the two against one another. Violence is bringing nothing—there is nothing in it, it has no solutions. And look at what peace can bring! Let’s pledge that we will join the movement, to take a pledge, to ask everybody to join this jihad against violence, or jihad for peace.
There’s a feeling that women have a special role or special opportunity to have a positive impact by taking leadership.
Yes. We decided to start it with the individual first. Each woman will take a pledge herself. Then she will extend that pledge to her family. Then that pledge they will continue to their community. So we would like to start this movement in Ramadan of this year, when it’s fasting month, and there’s also an international day of peace where we will ask people to create small gatherings where they can extend this pledge.
It’s such a resonant word, jihad, for both Muslims and non-Muslims. The decision to choose that word—what do you think about that?
We chose that word because we felt the word has been hijacked by others. The word, “jihad” is something that Muslims use in their vernacular as a way of saying “this is my big struggle, or my big challenge in life,” but it has been completely hijacked by people: the word has been distorted, it has only been given one meaning, and so we wanted to reclaim the word for ourselves and give it the true meaning, which is that it’s going to be a big struggle to even push away violence from our communities and to usher in an era of peace. We felt that a strong word like that would be important.
A question that might be a little trivial, but comes up in any discussion of modern Muslim women is the issue concerning dress, freedom of dress both ways. Is it something that comes up within your movement? Do you think it’s even something that needs to be talked about?
People have gone beyond the issue of dress, because there are more pressing issues; there are some women who are struggling to survive. We have to focus on big issues that really impact us all. We have to once and for all improve the status of Muslim women, how they are seen and how they are treated around the world.
There is a radical internal debate going on in the Muslim community that is not being recognized by anybody out there. It’s not even about projecting ourselves any more. It’s about who we are, and how we define ourselves as a global community. Where are we falling short? Where do we need to improve? We women, who are usually very secure in our faith; we are more nurturing, we are open to collaborating, we are prepared to have this discussion. We are not afraid to have this discussion. And we think it’s critical to have this discussion.
One thing that occurs to me is that a huge percentage of people in the world are Muslim; at least half are women. If all of those women’s lives can be improved, and if they can speak as a voice for peace, then that will also have a positive impact on the rest of the world.
It’s important that women begin to talk of peace and to resist collectively, because if we can bring together an ambiance where we talk to one another, we create a buzz for ushering in an era of peace. Islam actually means peace; so why shouldn’t we work toward peace?
By Rene Rosechild
August 25, 2009
The face of modern global feminism is wearing hijab. The director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement talks to us about the new "Jihad Against Violence" and other developments in the worldwide Muslim women's movement.
A month ago, in late July, over 200 Muslim women leaders and activists met at the Women’s Islamic Initiative in Spirituality and Equality conference in Kuala Lumpur. The women launched a Global Muslim Women’s Shura Council, an all-women’s advisory council that will promote women’s rights within an Islamic framework. The first action of the Shura Council was to launch a “Jihad Against Violence.”
I spoke with Daisy Khan, executive director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement, (and member of the Religion Dispatches Advisory Council) about the conference and the worldwide Muslim women’s movement.
What’s the impetus behind the WISE conference? Its long-term goals?
It’s change through institution-building. One of the gaping holes that we’ve seen is that we have a very large constituency of Muslim women that are left unrepresented through institutions; so we don’t have an institution that really speaks for us, even though we are half a billion around the globe.
What do you see as the greatest obstacles to Muslim women’s advancement?
I was quite shocked that when polled, 93% of the women at the conference said the greatest barrier to their advancement was distorted religious interpretation.
That’s almost a consensus.
And I think that 97% said that women should be in the forefront of interpreting and becoming authorities on interpretation.
You have to organize in such a way: you have to create women who have the authority to interpret, and that requires a longer-term educational program, which we did launch and have already seeded here, called the Muslim Women’s Muftiyya Program. Basically a Muslim woman jurist, a scholar; a woman who would be able to look at religious text, interpret it, and give a legal opinion, also known as a fatwa.
And if a woman achieves that level of scholarship, is there any barrier to her authority being recognized?
No—the recognition, the authority, lies in her scholarship.
So in a way you could say that Islam is non-sexist in that if the individual achieves the correct level of learning, she has authority.
It has always been that way. Because of social pressures women have not entered that field, and this is the one area in which we want to revive this tradition. There has never been any objection to women being jurists. What we are doing is we’re just reviving the tradition of women being such authorities.
Are you getting resistance?
We have not really received resistance in this area yet because we are doing it in a very thoughtful way. But the consensus that we have heard is that women themselves, the constituency—and they’re grassroots women, very tapped into their local communities—they know what is needed. And given that, we do not believe that we will be resisted. In fact we believe we’ll be welcomed, because the world needs it.
It seems that in various different countries Muslim women are seeking specific change, and are making some big changes. What progress do you see being made on those fronts?
The challenges for Muslim women in different countries are different. Some who are living in conflict-ridden zones are literally working toward survival threats; for instance in Afghanistan. They are concerned about basic education of their children, they are considering home-schooling, they need assistance with how to maintain their basic standard of living.
Then we have countries like Iran where women are highly educated and want their rightful place in society. For them, the challenge is how to get more equal status within society. You have women in Turkey who are struggling to express their religion; they want that recognition. The landscape of the Muslim world is different and the challenges are different from region to region, country to country, because of the political instability or economic development of that country.
What we are trying to do through WISE is create a little bit of a level field through education, through a compact that we have signed as women that we must lift up the status of women throughout societies; and that there must be consistency of how women are to be seen and are to be treated in every society that calls itself Muslim.
Do you see any inherent conflict between Islam itself and full women’s equality?
No, actually we declare gender equality to be an intrinsic part of the Islamic faith. It’s something that people have long forgotten. And this is why we are stating our case from an Islamic jurisprudence point of view. We believe that Muslim women are worthy of respect and dignity. According to Islam, they’re legal individuals; they’re spiritual beings; they’re social people. These are all God-given responsibilities.
They are even responsible agents, so they are held accountable for their actions. They are free citizens. True, they’re servants of God; but they hold fundamental equal rights to exercise their abilities and talents in all human areas of activity.
And we can prove this through our scripture. This is not something we made up; this is not a 21st-century concept. Societies may have forgotten these concepts. We understand that some people may think that women have different roles. Different roles doesn’t mean that she is inferior. It just means that men have certain qualities; women have other qualities, but we are partners. This is how we’re referred to in the Qur’an. So we need to revive that.
As women, we have a responsibility to make our case; because if we don’t make our case, others won’t be able to. This is not to say that because we are equal it is in any way to be seen as a threat to other people.
We will need to educate people about what women’s rights are, and how when women exercise these, they become a very important part of society’s flourishing. We want women to be seen as assets, not as burdens anymore. This is critical because women represent half of the population, if not more, especially in the Muslim world. They are the glue that holds the family together. They are the glue that holds the community together, and ultimately a good woman produces a good child produces a good citizen produces a good future. So we want people to understand and recognize that women are central to the society flourishing.
They have always had a very high status in the eyes of the prophet. The Qur’an says that paradise lies at the feet of the mother, and what does that mean? Why does a mother have such a high status, and then people think that women are inferior? The two just don’t make sense—they’re not parallel. So we’re just remaking our case in such a way that it is accepted.
We did a test on several male scholars: we asked them to review this document and we were quite shocked at some of the responses we got. One of the imams said, “Not only do I agree with this entire thing, I’m also going to give a Friday sermon on this, and then I’m going to translate it into Urdu, and I’m going to have it sent to every madrassah so every young boy knows who women are and what their rights are.”
So people see this as a welcome sign, because some male scholars and male imams need our help to make our case for them.
The women’s jihad against violence—let’s talk about that. First the goals?
We first started with domestic violence because that was something that we wanted to rid our communities of, especially when it’s done in the name of our religion. We wanted to make sure that we let everybody know that there is no justification for domestic violence.
That verse [4:34] people cite that claims that men have ultimate authority in marriage—what do you say about that?
I think the general consensus in that verse is that the purpose of marriage is to create harmony in the home; not to create this kind of discord and pain and suffering. The prophet was known to be the walking Qur’an. When he had a family dispute, he never struck a woman; in fact he was very respectful to women. He always walked away. So number one, there is no prophetic precedent.
So again, that’s a point where scholarship is going to help.
And that is where great minds can come in and say, “What does this really mean?” and Laleh Bakhtiar, a Saudi scholar, has gone through the entire Qur’an in analysis and said that daraba has several meanings: yes, one of them is “beat,” but it has also been translated as “go away.” So that seems to be the more appropriate one.
When you present that to women, they say, “Of course. That’s what it should be.” And that’s what makes sense, and that’s what the prophet did. So why was this verse translated differently?
So you started with domestic violence, that’s an important issue...
It’s an important issue, but what is really pressing right now for the entire global community—and most importantly for the Muslim community, because Muslims are getting impacted by violence more than anybody else—is violent extremism. We believe that violence is creating great suffering and pain everywhere. It’s not only devastating individual lives, it’s crippling entire societies. It destroys property, it’s impoverishing nations because there’s no economic development, and it’s violating the essential dignity of all humans. What it does to the future is even more dangerous, because it develops and generates a lot of mistrust and intolerance which poison an entire generation. It mars the name and reputation of Islam. Islam gets linked to terrorism and violence as if the two are so integrally married, and that’s bad for Islam.
And also, finally, it’s un-Islamic.
It’s un-Islamic because you’re not supposed to take an innocent life; that’s it! So why has it become the norm? The norm should be peace. Violence—when it has to be done—there is a process, there is an entire theory on what is just war, and those are all rules that have to be followed. Killing innocents is not part of that.
On the other hand, what peace brings: Human development is taking place, people are getting educated, minds are expanding. You are creating relative tranquility in the home. It increases wealth and builds prosperity in the nation.
It heightens respect and appreciation of others; you’re not suspicious of your neighbor, you have respect and tolerance for others. For us it also affirms that Islam truly is a religion of peace.
This is why we juxtapose the two against one another. Violence is bringing nothing—there is nothing in it, it has no solutions. And look at what peace can bring! Let’s pledge that we will join the movement, to take a pledge, to ask everybody to join this jihad against violence, or jihad for peace.
There’s a feeling that women have a special role or special opportunity to have a positive impact by taking leadership.
Yes. We decided to start it with the individual first. Each woman will take a pledge herself. Then she will extend that pledge to her family. Then that pledge they will continue to their community. So we would like to start this movement in Ramadan of this year, when it’s fasting month, and there’s also an international day of peace where we will ask people to create small gatherings where they can extend this pledge.
It’s such a resonant word, jihad, for both Muslims and non-Muslims. The decision to choose that word—what do you think about that?
We chose that word because we felt the word has been hijacked by others. The word, “jihad” is something that Muslims use in their vernacular as a way of saying “this is my big struggle, or my big challenge in life,” but it has been completely hijacked by people: the word has been distorted, it has only been given one meaning, and so we wanted to reclaim the word for ourselves and give it the true meaning, which is that it’s going to be a big struggle to even push away violence from our communities and to usher in an era of peace. We felt that a strong word like that would be important.
A question that might be a little trivial, but comes up in any discussion of modern Muslim women is the issue concerning dress, freedom of dress both ways. Is it something that comes up within your movement? Do you think it’s even something that needs to be talked about?
People have gone beyond the issue of dress, because there are more pressing issues; there are some women who are struggling to survive. We have to focus on big issues that really impact us all. We have to once and for all improve the status of Muslim women, how they are seen and how they are treated around the world.
There is a radical internal debate going on in the Muslim community that is not being recognized by anybody out there. It’s not even about projecting ourselves any more. It’s about who we are, and how we define ourselves as a global community. Where are we falling short? Where do we need to improve? We women, who are usually very secure in our faith; we are more nurturing, we are open to collaborating, we are prepared to have this discussion. We are not afraid to have this discussion. And we think it’s critical to have this discussion.
One thing that occurs to me is that a huge percentage of people in the world are Muslim; at least half are women. If all of those women’s lives can be improved, and if they can speak as a voice for peace, then that will also have a positive impact on the rest of the world.
It’s important that women begin to talk of peace and to resist collectively, because if we can bring together an ambiance where we talk to one another, we create a buzz for ushering in an era of peace. Islam actually means peace; so why shouldn’t we work toward peace?
Boycott Israel
An Israeli comes to the painful conclusion that it's the only way to save his country.
By Neve Gordon
August 20, 2009
Israeli newspapers this summer are filled with angry articles about the push for an international boycott of Israel. Films have been withdrawn from Israeli film festivals, Leonard Cohen is under fire around the world for his decision to perform in Tel Aviv, and Oxfam has severed ties with a celebrity spokesperson, a British actress who also endorses cosmetics produced in the occupied territories. Clearly, the campaign to use the kind of tactics that helped put an end to the practice of apartheid in South Africa is gaining many followers around the world.
Not surprisingly, many Israelis -- even peaceniks -- aren't signing on. A global boycott can't help but contain echoes of anti-Semitism. It also brings up questions of a double standard (why not boycott China for its egregious violations of human rights?) and the seemingly contradictory position of approving a boycott of one's own nation.
It is indeed not a simple matter for me as an Israeli citizen to call on foreign governments, regional authorities, international social movements, faith-based organizations, unions and citizens to suspend cooperation with Israel. But today, as I watch my two boys playing in the yard, I am convinced that it is the only way that Israel can be saved from itself.
I say this because Israel has reached a historic crossroads, and times of crisis call for dramatic measures. I say this as a Jew who has chosen to raise his children in Israel, who has been a member of the Israeli peace camp for almost 30 years and who is deeply anxious about the country's future.
The most accurate way to describe Israel today is as an apartheid state. For more than 42 years, Israel has controlled the land between the Jordan Valley and the Mediterranean Sea. Within this region about 6 million Jews and close to 5 million Palestinians reside. Out of this population, 3.5 million Palestinians and almost half a million Jews live in the areas Israel occupied in 1967, and yet while these two groups live in the same area, they are subjected to totally different legal systems. The Palestinians are stateless and lack many of the most basic human rights. By sharp contrast, all Jews -- whether they live in the occupied territories or in Israel -- are citizens of the state of Israel.
The question that keeps me up at night, both as a parent and as a citizen, is how to ensure that my two children as well as the children of my Palestinian neighbors do not grow up in an apartheid regime.
There are only two moral ways of achieving this goal.
The first is the one-state solution: offering citizenship to all Palestinians and thus establishing a bi-national democracy within the entire area controlled by Israel. Given the demographics, this would amount to the demise of Israel as a Jewish state; for most Israeli Jews, it is anathema.
The second means of ending our apartheid is through the two-state solution, which entails Israel's withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders (with possible one-for-one land swaps), the division of Jerusalem, and a recognition of the Palestinian right of return with the stipulation that only a limited number of the 4.5 million Palestinian refugees would be allowed to return to Israel, while the rest can return to the new Palestinian state.
Geographically, the one-state solution appears much more feasible because Jews and Palestinians are already totally enmeshed; indeed, "on the ground," the one-state solution (in an apartheid manifestation) is a reality.
Ideologically, the two-state solution is more realistic because fewer than 1% of Jews and only a minority of Palestinians support binationalism.
For now, despite the concrete difficulties, it makes more sense to alter the geographic realities than the ideological ones. If at some future date the two peoples decide to share a state, they can do so, but currently this is not something they want.
So if the two-state solution is the way to stop the apartheid state, then how does one achieve this goal?
I am convinced that outside pressure is the only answer. Over the last three decades, Jewish settlers in the occupied territories have dramatically increased their numbers. The myth of the united Jerusalem has led to the creation of an apartheid city where Palestinians aren't citizens and lack basic services. The Israeli peace camp has gradually dwindled so that today it is almost nonexistent, and Israeli politics are moving more and more to the extreme right.
It is therefore clear to me that the only way to counter the apartheid trend in Israel is through massive international pressure. The words and condemnations from the Obama administration and the European Union have yielded no results, not even a settlement freeze, let alone a decision to withdraw from the occupied territories.
I consequently have decided to support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement that was launched by Palestinian activists in July 2005 and has since garnered widespread support around the globe. The objective is to ensure that Israel respects its obligations under international law and that Palestinians are granted the right to self-determination.
In Bilbao, Spain, in 2008, a coalition of organizations from all over the world formulated the 10-point Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign meant to pressure Israel in a "gradual, sustainable manner that is sensitive to context and capacity." For example, the effort begins with sanctions on and divestment from Israeli firms operating in the occupied territories, followed by actions against those that help sustain and reinforce the occupation in a visible manner. Along similar lines, artists who come to Israel in order to draw attention to the occupation are welcome, while those who just want to perform are not.
Nothing else has worked. Putting massive international pressure on Israel is the only way to guarantee that the next generation of Israelis and Palestinians -- my two boys included -- does not grow up in an apartheid regime.
Neve Gordon is the author of "Israel's Occupation" and teaches politics at Ben-Gurion University in Beersheba, Israel.
Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times
An Israeli comes to the painful conclusion that it's the only way to save his country.
By Neve Gordon
August 20, 2009
Israeli newspapers this summer are filled with angry articles about the push for an international boycott of Israel. Films have been withdrawn from Israeli film festivals, Leonard Cohen is under fire around the world for his decision to perform in Tel Aviv, and Oxfam has severed ties with a celebrity spokesperson, a British actress who also endorses cosmetics produced in the occupied territories. Clearly, the campaign to use the kind of tactics that helped put an end to the practice of apartheid in South Africa is gaining many followers around the world.
Not surprisingly, many Israelis -- even peaceniks -- aren't signing on. A global boycott can't help but contain echoes of anti-Semitism. It also brings up questions of a double standard (why not boycott China for its egregious violations of human rights?) and the seemingly contradictory position of approving a boycott of one's own nation.
It is indeed not a simple matter for me as an Israeli citizen to call on foreign governments, regional authorities, international social movements, faith-based organizations, unions and citizens to suspend cooperation with Israel. But today, as I watch my two boys playing in the yard, I am convinced that it is the only way that Israel can be saved from itself.
I say this because Israel has reached a historic crossroads, and times of crisis call for dramatic measures. I say this as a Jew who has chosen to raise his children in Israel, who has been a member of the Israeli peace camp for almost 30 years and who is deeply anxious about the country's future.
The most accurate way to describe Israel today is as an apartheid state. For more than 42 years, Israel has controlled the land between the Jordan Valley and the Mediterranean Sea. Within this region about 6 million Jews and close to 5 million Palestinians reside. Out of this population, 3.5 million Palestinians and almost half a million Jews live in the areas Israel occupied in 1967, and yet while these two groups live in the same area, they are subjected to totally different legal systems. The Palestinians are stateless and lack many of the most basic human rights. By sharp contrast, all Jews -- whether they live in the occupied territories or in Israel -- are citizens of the state of Israel.
The question that keeps me up at night, both as a parent and as a citizen, is how to ensure that my two children as well as the children of my Palestinian neighbors do not grow up in an apartheid regime.
There are only two moral ways of achieving this goal.
The first is the one-state solution: offering citizenship to all Palestinians and thus establishing a bi-national democracy within the entire area controlled by Israel. Given the demographics, this would amount to the demise of Israel as a Jewish state; for most Israeli Jews, it is anathema.
The second means of ending our apartheid is through the two-state solution, which entails Israel's withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders (with possible one-for-one land swaps), the division of Jerusalem, and a recognition of the Palestinian right of return with the stipulation that only a limited number of the 4.5 million Palestinian refugees would be allowed to return to Israel, while the rest can return to the new Palestinian state.
Geographically, the one-state solution appears much more feasible because Jews and Palestinians are already totally enmeshed; indeed, "on the ground," the one-state solution (in an apartheid manifestation) is a reality.
Ideologically, the two-state solution is more realistic because fewer than 1% of Jews and only a minority of Palestinians support binationalism.
For now, despite the concrete difficulties, it makes more sense to alter the geographic realities than the ideological ones. If at some future date the two peoples decide to share a state, they can do so, but currently this is not something they want.
So if the two-state solution is the way to stop the apartheid state, then how does one achieve this goal?
I am convinced that outside pressure is the only answer. Over the last three decades, Jewish settlers in the occupied territories have dramatically increased their numbers. The myth of the united Jerusalem has led to the creation of an apartheid city where Palestinians aren't citizens and lack basic services. The Israeli peace camp has gradually dwindled so that today it is almost nonexistent, and Israeli politics are moving more and more to the extreme right.
It is therefore clear to me that the only way to counter the apartheid trend in Israel is through massive international pressure. The words and condemnations from the Obama administration and the European Union have yielded no results, not even a settlement freeze, let alone a decision to withdraw from the occupied territories.
I consequently have decided to support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement that was launched by Palestinian activists in July 2005 and has since garnered widespread support around the globe. The objective is to ensure that Israel respects its obligations under international law and that Palestinians are granted the right to self-determination.
In Bilbao, Spain, in 2008, a coalition of organizations from all over the world formulated the 10-point Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign meant to pressure Israel in a "gradual, sustainable manner that is sensitive to context and capacity." For example, the effort begins with sanctions on and divestment from Israeli firms operating in the occupied territories, followed by actions against those that help sustain and reinforce the occupation in a visible manner. Along similar lines, artists who come to Israel in order to draw attention to the occupation are welcome, while those who just want to perform are not.
Nothing else has worked. Putting massive international pressure on Israel is the only way to guarantee that the next generation of Israelis and Palestinians -- my two boys included -- does not grow up in an apartheid regime.
Neve Gordon is the author of "Israel's Occupation" and teaches politics at Ben-Gurion University in Beersheba, Israel.
Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Op-Ed Contributors
The Two-State Solution Doesn’t Solve Anything
THE two-state solution has welcomed two converts. In recent weeks, Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, and Khaled Meshal, the head of Hamas’s political bureau, have indicated they now accept what they had long rejected. This nearly unanimous consensus is the surest sign to date that the two-state solution has become void of meaning, a catchphrase divorced from the contentious issues it is supposed to resolve. Everyone can say yes because saying yes no longer says much, and saying no has become too costly. Acceptance of the two-state solution signals continuation of the Israeli-Palestinian struggle by other means.
Bowing to American pressure, Mr. Netanyahu conceded the principle of a Palestinian state, but then described it in a way that stripped it of meaningful sovereignty. In essence, and with minor modifications, his position recalled that of Israeli leaders who preceded him. A state, he pronounced, would have to be demilitarized, without control over borders or airspace. Jerusalem would remain under Israeli sovereignty, and no Palestinian refugees would be allowed back to Israel. His emphasis was on the caveats rather than the concession.
As Mr. Netanyahu was fond of saying, you can call that a state if you wish, but whom are you kidding?
As for Hamas, recognition of the state of Israel has always been and remains taboo. Until recently, the movement had hinted it might acquiesce to Israel’s de facto existence and resign itself to establishing a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. This sentiment has now grown from hint to certitude.
President Obama’s June address in Cairo provoked among Hamas leaders a mixture of anticipation and apprehension. The American president criticized the movement but did not couple his mention of Hamas with the term terrorism, his recitation of the prerequisites for engagement bore the sound of a door cracked open rather than one slammed shut, and his acknowledgment that the Islamists enjoyed the support of some Palestinians was grudging but charitable by American standards. All of which was promising but also foreboding, prompting reflection within the Hamas movement over how to escape international confinement without betraying core beliefs.
The result of this deliberation was Hamas’s message that it would adhere to the internationally accepted wisdom — a Palestinian state within the borders of 1967, the year Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza. Hamas also coupled its concession with caveats aplenty, demanding full Israeli withdrawal, full Palestinian sovereignty and respect for the refugees’ rights. In this, there was little to distinguish its position from conventional Palestinian attitudes.
The dueling discourses speak to something far deeper than and separate from Palestinian statehood. Mr. Netanyahu underscores that Israel must be recognized as a Jewish state — and recalls that the conflict began before the West Bank or Gaza were occupied. Palestinians, in turn, reject recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, uphold the refugees’ rights and maintain that if Israel wants real closure, it will need to pay with more than mere statehood.
The exchange, for the first time in a long while, brings the conflict back to its historical roots, distills its political essence and touches its raw emotional core. It can be settled, both sides implicitly concur, only by looking past the occupation to questions born in 1948 — Arab rejection of the newborn Jewish state and the dispossession and dislocation of Palestinian refugees.
Both positions enjoy broad support within their respective communities. Few Israelis quarrel with the insistence that Israel be recognized as a Jewish state. It encapsulates their profound aspiration, rooted in the history of the Jewish people, for a fully accepted presence in the land of their forebears — for an end to Arab questioning of Israel’s legitimacy, the specter of the Palestinian refugees’ return and any irredentist sentiment among Israel’s Arab citizens.
Even fewer Palestinians take issue with the categorical rebuff of that demand, as the recent Fatah congress in Bethlehem confirmed. In their eyes, to accept Israel as a Jewish state would legitimize the Zionist enterprise that brought about their tragedy. It would render the Palestinian national struggle at best meaningless, at worst criminal. Their firmness on the principle of their right of return flows from the belief that the 1948 war led to unjust displacement and that, whether or not refugees choose or are allowed to return to their homes, they can never be deprived of that natural right. The modern Palestinian national movement, embodied in the Palestine Liberation Organization, has been, above all, a refugee movement — led by refugees and focused on their plight.
Its easy to wince at these stands. They run against the grain of a peace process whose central premise is that ending the occupation and establishing a viable Palestinian state will bring this matter to a close. But to recall the origins of the Israeli-Palestinian clash is not to invent a new battle line. It is to resurrect an old one that did not disappear simply because powerful parties acted for some time as if it had ceased to exist.
Over the past two decades, the origins of the conflict were swept under the carpet, gradually repressed as the struggle assumed the narrower shape of the post-1967 territorial tug-of-war over the West Bank and Gaza. The two protagonists, each for its own reason, along with the international community, implicitly agreed to deal with the battle’s latest, most palpable expression. Palestinians saw an opportunity to finally exercise authority over a part of their patrimony; Israelis wanted to free themselves from the burdens of occupation; and foreign parties found that it was the easier, tidier thing to do. The hope was that, somehow, addressing the status of the West Bank and Gaza would dispense with the need to address the issues that predated the occupation and could outlast it.
That so many attempts to resolve the conflict have failed is reason to be wary. It is almost as if the parties, whenever they inch toward an artful compromise over the realities of the present, are inexorably drawn back to the ghosts of the past. It is hard today to imagine a resolution that does not entail two states. But two states may not be a true resolution if the roots of this clash are ignored. The ultimate territorial outcome almost certainly will be found within the borders of 1967. To be sustainable, it will need to grapple with matters left over since 1948. The first step will be to recognize that in the hearts and minds of Israelis and Palestinians, the fundamental question is not about the details of an apparently practical solution. It is an existential struggle between two worldviews.
For years, virtually all attention has been focused on the question of a future Palestinian state, its borders and powers. As Israelis make plain by talking about the imperative of a Jewish state, and as Palestinians highlight when they evoke the refugees’ rights, the heart of the matter is not necessarily how to define a state of Palestine. It is, as in a sense it always has been, how to define the state of Israel.
Hussein Agha is a co-author, with Ahmed S. Khalidi, of “A Framework for a Palestinian National Security Doctrine.” Robert Malley, the director of the Middle East Program at the International Crisis Group, was a special assistant for Arab-Israeli affairs to President Bill Clinton from 1998 to 2001.
The Two-State Solution Doesn’t Solve Anything
THE two-state solution has welcomed two converts. In recent weeks, Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, and Khaled Meshal, the head of Hamas’s political bureau, have indicated they now accept what they had long rejected. This nearly unanimous consensus is the surest sign to date that the two-state solution has become void of meaning, a catchphrase divorced from the contentious issues it is supposed to resolve. Everyone can say yes because saying yes no longer says much, and saying no has become too costly. Acceptance of the two-state solution signals continuation of the Israeli-Palestinian struggle by other means.
Bowing to American pressure, Mr. Netanyahu conceded the principle of a Palestinian state, but then described it in a way that stripped it of meaningful sovereignty. In essence, and with minor modifications, his position recalled that of Israeli leaders who preceded him. A state, he pronounced, would have to be demilitarized, without control over borders or airspace. Jerusalem would remain under Israeli sovereignty, and no Palestinian refugees would be allowed back to Israel. His emphasis was on the caveats rather than the concession.
As Mr. Netanyahu was fond of saying, you can call that a state if you wish, but whom are you kidding?
As for Hamas, recognition of the state of Israel has always been and remains taboo. Until recently, the movement had hinted it might acquiesce to Israel’s de facto existence and resign itself to establishing a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. This sentiment has now grown from hint to certitude.
President Obama’s June address in Cairo provoked among Hamas leaders a mixture of anticipation and apprehension. The American president criticized the movement but did not couple his mention of Hamas with the term terrorism, his recitation of the prerequisites for engagement bore the sound of a door cracked open rather than one slammed shut, and his acknowledgment that the Islamists enjoyed the support of some Palestinians was grudging but charitable by American standards. All of which was promising but also foreboding, prompting reflection within the Hamas movement over how to escape international confinement without betraying core beliefs.
The result of this deliberation was Hamas’s message that it would adhere to the internationally accepted wisdom — a Palestinian state within the borders of 1967, the year Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza. Hamas also coupled its concession with caveats aplenty, demanding full Israeli withdrawal, full Palestinian sovereignty and respect for the refugees’ rights. In this, there was little to distinguish its position from conventional Palestinian attitudes.
The dueling discourses speak to something far deeper than and separate from Palestinian statehood. Mr. Netanyahu underscores that Israel must be recognized as a Jewish state — and recalls that the conflict began before the West Bank or Gaza were occupied. Palestinians, in turn, reject recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, uphold the refugees’ rights and maintain that if Israel wants real closure, it will need to pay with more than mere statehood.
The exchange, for the first time in a long while, brings the conflict back to its historical roots, distills its political essence and touches its raw emotional core. It can be settled, both sides implicitly concur, only by looking past the occupation to questions born in 1948 — Arab rejection of the newborn Jewish state and the dispossession and dislocation of Palestinian refugees.
Both positions enjoy broad support within their respective communities. Few Israelis quarrel with the insistence that Israel be recognized as a Jewish state. It encapsulates their profound aspiration, rooted in the history of the Jewish people, for a fully accepted presence in the land of their forebears — for an end to Arab questioning of Israel’s legitimacy, the specter of the Palestinian refugees’ return and any irredentist sentiment among Israel’s Arab citizens.
Even fewer Palestinians take issue with the categorical rebuff of that demand, as the recent Fatah congress in Bethlehem confirmed. In their eyes, to accept Israel as a Jewish state would legitimize the Zionist enterprise that brought about their tragedy. It would render the Palestinian national struggle at best meaningless, at worst criminal. Their firmness on the principle of their right of return flows from the belief that the 1948 war led to unjust displacement and that, whether or not refugees choose or are allowed to return to their homes, they can never be deprived of that natural right. The modern Palestinian national movement, embodied in the Palestine Liberation Organization, has been, above all, a refugee movement — led by refugees and focused on their plight.
Its easy to wince at these stands. They run against the grain of a peace process whose central premise is that ending the occupation and establishing a viable Palestinian state will bring this matter to a close. But to recall the origins of the Israeli-Palestinian clash is not to invent a new battle line. It is to resurrect an old one that did not disappear simply because powerful parties acted for some time as if it had ceased to exist.
Over the past two decades, the origins of the conflict were swept under the carpet, gradually repressed as the struggle assumed the narrower shape of the post-1967 territorial tug-of-war over the West Bank and Gaza. The two protagonists, each for its own reason, along with the international community, implicitly agreed to deal with the battle’s latest, most palpable expression. Palestinians saw an opportunity to finally exercise authority over a part of their patrimony; Israelis wanted to free themselves from the burdens of occupation; and foreign parties found that it was the easier, tidier thing to do. The hope was that, somehow, addressing the status of the West Bank and Gaza would dispense with the need to address the issues that predated the occupation and could outlast it.
That so many attempts to resolve the conflict have failed is reason to be wary. It is almost as if the parties, whenever they inch toward an artful compromise over the realities of the present, are inexorably drawn back to the ghosts of the past. It is hard today to imagine a resolution that does not entail two states. But two states may not be a true resolution if the roots of this clash are ignored. The ultimate territorial outcome almost certainly will be found within the borders of 1967. To be sustainable, it will need to grapple with matters left over since 1948. The first step will be to recognize that in the hearts and minds of Israelis and Palestinians, the fundamental question is not about the details of an apparently practical solution. It is an existential struggle between two worldviews.
For years, virtually all attention has been focused on the question of a future Palestinian state, its borders and powers. As Israelis make plain by talking about the imperative of a Jewish state, and as Palestinians highlight when they evoke the refugees’ rights, the heart of the matter is not necessarily how to define a state of Palestine. It is, as in a sense it always has been, how to define the state of Israel.
Hussein Agha is a co-author, with Ahmed S. Khalidi, of “A Framework for a Palestinian National Security Doctrine.” Robert Malley, the director of the Middle East Program at the International Crisis Group, was a special assistant for Arab-Israeli affairs to President Bill Clinton from 1998 to 2001.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)