Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, May - June 2001, page 90

Waging Peace

 

Sadr on Southern Lebanon

Al-Sitt Rabab al-Sadr, head of the Tyre-based Moussa al-Sadr Foundation and sister of the Shi’i imam who vanished in 1978 while on a trip to Libya, discussed the current situation in southern Lebanon during a March 19 appearance at Middle East Institute in Washington, DC. The noon discussion was co-sponsored by the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars.

The prominent Iran-born activist disputed reports of Muslim-Christian conflict following Israel’s May 2000 withdrawal from territory it had occupied since 1978. While acknowledging that many of those who collaborated with Israel were Christians, she insisted that “communities cannot be made responsible for acts committed by individuals claiming to be Christians or Muslims. The criminal’s community is crime, and the traitor’s is treason,” she noted, “and their faith is not that of their families.”

In fact, al-Sadr said, “What South Lebanon witnessed after the liberation was a model of civilization and tolerance,” with Lebanese united in their opposition to Israel, the occupier.

Al-Sadr was more critical of the Lebanese government—which, she said, had “abandoned” southern Lebanon and “excluded [it] from state development policies”—and of the international community, whose members, she charged, “did not live up to their responsibilities.”

The foundation director called for cooperation and coordination between the central government and NGOs to facilitate “the reconstruction and rehabilitation of the South.”

Based on the principle of “rapid intervention in crisis areas,” she said, the Imam Al-Sadr Foundation launched two mobile medical clinics “the day after the Israeli withdrawal on May 24.” It also mobilized seven dispensaries, complete with laboratories. In the first two months following Israel’s withdrawal these services reached nearly 10,000 people, she noted.

Current foundation projects include working with orphans to increase their attendance at primary schools, training women in marketable jobs, creating day-long health centers, and coordinating and providing information on development in southern Lebanon. Her appearance in Washington, she said, was in furtherance of the latter task.

Additional information on the Imam Al-Sadr Foundation is available at its Web site, <www.sadr-foundation.org.lb>.

—Janet McMahon

 

U.S.-Libyan Relations After the Lockerbie Trial

A March 16 conference at Washington, DC’s Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars, presented in cooperation with the Middle East Institute and the Atlantic Council of the United States, considered American relations with Libya following the conclusion of the Lockerbie trial. On shaky evidence, a three-judge Scottish panel in Camp Zeiss, the Netherlands, convicted Libyan intelligence agent Abdel Basset Ali Megrahi of planting a bomb that brought down Pan American Airways Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland on Dec. 21, 1988, killing 259 people on board, most of them Americans, and 11 persons on the ground. Good papers were presented, and excellent discussions heard, but the basis for improved relations with Libya remains elusive due to continued widespread doubt about Megrahi’s guilt.

Retired U.S. Ambassador and Middle East Institute Vice President David Mack gave an impressive paper on the history, background issues and prospects for U.S.-Libyan relations. As a beginning, Mack favored placing American diplomats in the U.S. interests section of the Belgian Embassy in Tripoli and Libyan diplomats in the Libyan interests section of the UAE Embassy in Washington, DC.

Omar Turbi of the Arab-American Republican Council blasted the government of Libya for mistreating his family. But, he stated, there was “proof” that Libya had not bombed the La Belle Discotheque in West Berlin, which precipitated the April 1986 U.S. bombing of Libya.

Mrs. Stephanie Bernstein of Justice for Pan Am 103, who lost her husband in the Pan American crash, called on Libya for “acknowledgment” and payment of compensation to the relatives of crash victims.

Libyan Ambassador to the U.N. Abuzed Dorda denied Libya’s involvement in the Pan Am 103 tragedy. In a vehement presentation of U.S. actions against Libya, he asked, “Who is the aggressor and who is the victim?”

Libyan-American Professor Mansour Kikhia of the University of Texas, San Antonio stated that his brother is still in prison in Libya. While making clear his distaste and opposition to the Libyan regime of Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi, Kikhia predicted that the conviction of Megrahi will be overturned on appeal.

—Andrew I. Killgore

 

National Lawyers Guild Examines Israel’s Misuse of U.S.-Made Weapons

As the Al-Aqsa lntifada erupted in September 2000, several members of the National Lawyers Guild who were attending the International Association of Democratic Lawyers’ Congress in Havana, met to discuss how the Guild should respond. Historically, the Guild has taken strong positions against Israel’s violations of Palestinian rights. Delegations had issued reports in 1977 and 1988, but the group had been lulled into a sense of complacency as a result of the Oslo accords.

That complacency ended upon meeting Allegra Pacheco, an American-Israeli Guild attorney whose practice in the occupied territories focuses on representing Palestinian citizens and prisoners. Pacheco educated the Guild about the continued oppression of Palestinians, and the critical need for organizations such as the Guild to act on this issue.

There were more workshops and discussions at a November Guild convention in Boston, where a resolution was passed calling for a delegation to be sent to Israel and Palestine. The delegation was to focus on two areas of concern: First, Israel’s use of U.S.-manufactured weapons against the Palestinian uprising in violation of international and U.S. law; and second, discrimination by the Israelis against Palestinian citizens of Israel.

Abdeen Jabara of the Guild’s New York chapter organized a delegation of four Jewish Americans, five Palestinian Americans, and one American with no affiliation. The group left Jan. 21 for a seven-day fact-finding mission in Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Members met with Israeli and Palestinian officials including human rights groups, representatives of the Palestinian and Israeli Bar Associations, medical groups, victims and families of murdered children, Palestinian Authority officials, and representatives of the U.S. Embassy. Requests to meet with representatives of the Israeli Defense Ministry were turned down.

Most Palestinians view the Oslo peace process as an Israeli attempt to legitimize the occupation, which began in 1948, expanded in 1967, and has continued since Oslo as settlement after settlement is built on Palestinian land. It is hard to comprehend this occupation without being in Israel and Palestine. One sees the confiscation of Palestinian lands and homes, house demolitions, and the destruction of farm and fruit trees. Roadblocks are everywhere, most manned by Israeli soldiers and tanks, some just concrete blocks which are impossible to move, even when ambulances must get through. Palestinians cannot travel from village to village, much less from Gaza to the West Bank. Borders, towns and villages are closed and curfews imposed at Israel’s whim. Because Palestinians cannot leave their villages to work, their economy has been devastated, with unemployment running near 60 percent.

Modern bypass roads built by the Israelis allow Jewish settlers to travel through the West Bank without having to go through Palestinian villages. Yet the Palestinian Authority is refused permission to improve Palestinian roads. In Gaza, the lawyers’ taxi, along with all Palestinian vehicles, was stopped for a half-hour by an Israeli tank so the settler vehicles traveling on the private Israeli road could pass by.

Palestinians are forced into a demeaning, humiliating and totally controlled existence, frighteningly similar to the apartheid system which no longer exists in South Africa. Inside Israel, in the historic city of Nazareth, the delegation met with representatives of the Arab Association for Human Rights and with the human rights group, Adalah (“Justice” in Arabic). They described the discrimination Palestinian citizens of Israel suffer each day in education, employment and access to government services, despite paying hefty taxes. When those citizens demonstrated in support of the intifada, the illusion that they were “lsraelis” was shattered as Israeli troops shot 13 of them dead.

It is in this context that Palestinian frustration erupted into the al-Aqsa intifada. While most stone-throwing and armed resistance by Palestinians is directed against the symbols and enforcers of the Israeli occupation—the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and the settlers illegally occupying Palestinian lands—the IDF attacks the civilian population with highly sophisticated weapons, many of which are provided by the United States. The delegation visited refugee camps, hospitals, and destroyed homes and neighborhoods. The group carefully examined and documented missile and shell fragments. It was apparent that whereas Palestinians use stones, petrol bombs and rifles (AK-47 and AK-74 Kalashnikovs), Israelis use powerfu1 and sophisticated weaponry indiscriminately, against civilians who often had no involvement in any of the skirmishes.

Lethal weapons such as laser-guided missiles, machine guns, tanks and helicopter gunships regularly have been used against the Palestinian civilian population. U.S.- made Apache and Cobra helicopters fire high-velocity armor-piercing bullets and missiles indiscriminately into Palestinian neighborhoods and refugee camps in response to gunfire that many times was coming from other locations. In a majority of cases where Israeli soldiers fired into crowds of Palestinian demonstrators, they aimed directly at people’s heads and chests with high-velocity bullets that fragment inside the body, causing permanent injury or death.

The disproportionate use of force by the Israelis clearly violates international law, such as the Fourth Geneva Convention. The use of U.S.-manufactured weapons for this purpose may violate provisions of U.S. law such as the Arms Control Export Act and the Foreign Assistance Act.

The Guild delegation is working on a report documenting the facts they saw, as well as those reported by other human rights organizations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem, and Palestinian groups such as the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group. They hope to produce a document which can be used by Guild members to get the true story of what is happening in Israel and Palestine to American communities and elected officials. They also are exploring the possibility of litigation as another way of raising these issues before the American people. For complete document see http://www.nlg.org Web site.

—Zaha Hassan

 

Panel Pessimistic on Peace Prospects

The Middle East Policy Council (MEPC) held the 24th in its series of Capitol Hill Conferences on March 8 in Washington, DC, on the subject, “With the ‘Process’ Dead, What are the Prospects for Peace?” The conference, attended by 80 students and professionals from the Washington area, was moderated by MEPC president Chas Freeman, who set the rather bleak tone for the conference in his opening remarks, developed from his recent visit to the area. “Fear has replaced hope in the region,” he said. Both sides feel insecure and seem determined to inflict pain on each other rather than negotiate. He also observed that both sides have lost their popular mandate to negotiate, and now seem led by hard-liners or at least by the spirit of the hard line.

The other participants were former Defense Intelligence officer for the Middle East W. Patrick Lang, former Ambassador to Algeria and Syria Christopher Ross, and Dr. Shibley Telhami, who holds the Anwar Sadat Chair for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland. Dr. Yossi Shain, visiting Goldman professor of government at Georgetown University and former head of the Political Science Department at Tel Aviv University, was scheduled to participate but was delayed by airline travel problems.

Lang, who visited Israel and the occupied territories in December and February, echoed Freeman’s observations. The Palestinians are becoming fatalistic and almost suicidal, he said. Telhami contributed to the gloom, saying, “The situation is worse than you’ve heard.” He noted that the nature of the conflict is on the verge of being transformed back to where it was in 1948. Since Oslo, it has been framed as a “nationalist conflict,” which allowed room for compromise. Now, however, it is reverting back to a “religious/ethnic conflict.” In that regard, the Palestinian Authority is a “nationalist” element and on the verge of collapse.

Ross agreed, noting that both sides seem to be operating from completely contradictory “realities,” leading to destructive stereotypes and an “us-vs.-them; we are right and they are wrong” mindset. In response to a question whether he thought that there is a Syrian/Lebanese option for keeping peace negotiations moving, Ross replied, “No. New Syrian President Bashar Assad has re-established the linkage between the Palestinian and Syrian tracks.”

However, in spite of—or perhaps because of—their pessimism, all panel members agreed that it is essential for negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians to continue, in one form or another. Some sort of dialogue should continue, but not necessarily a full counter-proposal. Perhaps, it was suggested, it could be statements by both sides that they recognize the needs of the other.

Another theme running through the conference was the degree to which America’s prestige and credibility has fallen in the Arab world during the past few months. A related issue was what role the U.S. can or should play in the current circumstances. Telhami said he agreed with Secretary of State Colin Powell that the U.S. will have to wait until both parties are ready to negotiate. But, he added, the parties still need an interlocutor.

In that connection, a European member of the audience asked the panel whether they thought there might be a role for another party, specifically the European Union, as an interlocutor. The panel members replied negatively, mostly because Israel simply will not accept any mediator other than the U.S.—although Telhami added that the Europeans were well placed to serve as a facilitator, as they did at Oslo. Freeman went further, saying that it is quite possible that the U.S. credibility might fall so low among the Arabs that the U.S. will no longer be acceptable to them as a conciliator, “in which case we may need a partner.”

—Shirl McArthur

 

Middle East Peace Prospects Discussed in Hawaii

On March 29 at the East Hawaii Cultural Center in downtown Hilo, Dr. Yusuf Tamimi presented a slide show depicting Palestine before and after the Israeli occupation. Dr. Tamimi, who was born in Nablus and was a professor of agriculture at the University of Hawaii for many years, discussed the prospects for peace in the Middle East. They were not very good, he concluded. His photographs showed the stark differences before and after Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories, with aggressive Israeli soldiers and checkpoints replacing the bucolic lives of the Palestinians.

Dr. Tamimi contends that, since the Palestinians are virtually powerless and America will not use its strength to promote justice, peace there will depend wholly on Israeli goodwill. One person in the audience suggested that if Israeli goodwill is needed for peace the situation is dire indeed. Sharon’s election as prime minister demonstrates very vividly how much goodwill will be forthcoming from that quarter. Dr. Tamimi went to great lengths to point out that many of the people he works with for peace are Jews, and that not all Jews are Zionist.

Dr. Tamimi showed a picture of a young Palestinian boy confronting an Israeli tank. Unlike the man at China’s Tiananmen Square, where the tank eventually drove around the protester, this Palestinian boy was shot and killed by the IDF.

The well-heeled movers and shakers of Hilo in the audience were taken aback by how much the mainstream media had been keeping from them. Nearly everyone signed up to receive regular updates and information that Dr. Tamimi will supply. There were also a couple of old copies of the Washington Report circulating in the room. Judith Kirkendall was master of ceremonies and, in spite of the grim topic, did an excellent job of keeping the atmosphere upbeat.

The intense sadness that Dr. Tamimi felt about what had happened to his homeland was evident to the audience. When his wife, Siham, described nearly missing their flight home to Hawaii because of humiliating Israeli checkpoints, all shared their anger. As the meeting ended participants agreed to stay in touch with Dr. Tamini and try to work for peace with letters to our well-paid representatives in Congress.

—Lawrence Scott

 

Conference on Palestine: Education and Empowerment

Despite the powerlessness pro-Palestinian supporters are feeling these days, more than 120 individuals overcame their discouragement at the first Conference on Palestine in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The Conference—smartly titled “Education and Empowerment”—was held March 17 at the University of Michigan campus.

“Iraqis, Syrians, Bangladeshis, Americans, Egyptians, and many others were involved in putting this together,” said conference chairman and UM electrical engineering doctoral student Idris Elbakri. “It was a true demonstration for universal justice.”

The conference, planned since December 2000, addressed a variety of issues designed to empower activists. Sessions included: Media Activism, featuring Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American Islamic Relations; Grassroots and Campus Activism, with David Sole of the International Action Center and Altaf Hussain of the Muslim Students Association of the U.S. and Canada; Effective Political Lobbying, featuring Steve Gallop of Congressman David Bonior’s office; and Effective Relief Work, with Steve Sosebee, founder and director of the Palestine Children’s Relief Fund, and Global Relief Foundation’s Rabih Haddad.

Sosebee, who first went to Palestine in 1988 as a human rights delegate with the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, also gave the keynote speech at a well-attended dinner. He discussed the current realities on the ground in Palestine, stemming from the Oslo accords and leading up to the current intifada.

Educational sessions included: Jerusalem and the Palestinian Right of Return, featuring Nasser Abu Farha of Al-Awda and Jad Jadallah of Jerusalem Communications; Khalid Turaani on Zionism—the ABCs of Racism; The Role of the U.S. in the Middle East, with Phyllis Bennis of the Institute of Policy Studies; and Oslo’s Failure: Israeli Attitudes and How to Address Them, with the University of Michigan’s Rachel Persico.

Attendees raved about the empowerment and educational sessions, and everyone agreed that the conference was very well-organized. Many also commented that they were grateful that such a conference was organized.

“We really hoped to set a precedent and depart from seasonal activism,” said Elbakri. “We don’t want to react only angrily. Anger is not positive. Activism is for life.”

Held simultaneously at the University of Michigan was a children’s art exhibit, “Innocence Under Siege.” The exhibit features the drawings of Palestinian children from a K-12 Arab school in Jerusalem. The children drew the pictures in art class, two weeks after the start of the recent Palestinian uprising. The art exhibit is available to institutions throughout the U.S. For more information contact Hiba Ghalib at < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >.

—Sherri Brown

 

Prospects for Palestine and Jerusalem

The American Committee on Jerusalem (ACJ) hosted a panel on the future prospects of a Jerusalem shared by both Palestine and Israel, April 5 at the Rayburn House Office Building in Washington, DC. The panel was moderated by Ziad Asali, chairman of ACJ, introduced by Phil Wilcox of the Foundation for Middle East Peace (FMEP) and David Mack of the Middle East Institute (MEI). Speakers included Rashid Khalidi, president of ACJ and director of the Center for International Studies at the University of Chicago, Alon Ben-Meir, a professor at the New School for Social Research in New York City, Daniel Seidemann of the Pro-Jerusalem Society based in Jerusalem, and Salim Tamari of the Institute for Jerusalem Studies—also based in Jerusalem—and a professor at New York University. FMEP, MEI, and the Pro-Jerusalem Society co-sponsored the event.

Despite the cordial atmosphere of a learned debate, the deep divisions in ideology and perspective between Palestinian and Israeli views were very much in evidence. Though all the speakers involved acknowledged the necessity of arriving at some mutually agreeable plan for sharing Jerusalem, their routes to such a destination varied widely.

Alon Ben-Meir stressed that Jerusalem is a special city, holy to many peoples, and as such cannot be treated as merely a geographical claim by either side. He focused on areas of agreement between Palestinians and Israelis regarding the indivisibility of the city, that freedom of worship must be guaranteed, and that people and goods must be able to move freely through the city, thereby assuring a stable economy for Jerusalem. The status quo, he maintained, practiced many of these ideals. Ben-Meir averred, however, that none should question Jews’ historic claim to Jerusalem, as it dates back thousands of years. He acknowledged only a political claim by the Palestinians, dating back a few hundred years. Furthermore, Ben-Meir spoke only of sharing and negotiating on the question of East Jerusalem—implying that Israeli sovereignty over West Jerusalem was not open to question

Salim Tamari addressed just that assumption, saying that “Israelis insist that they have a substantial claim to the Arab city while the western part shall remain uncontested.” He further claimed that this was the underlying premise of Barak’s proposals at Camp David: “What is ours will remain ours and let us have compromises over sharing your part of the city.”

Tamari emphasized the changing demographics of Jerusalem resulting from the Israeli policy of annexation and settlement. He agreed with Ben-Meir that all citizens of Jerusalem should be able to move freely through the city, but maintained that would not be feasible without rethinking the contested territory based on U.N. Resolution 242, and on mutual respect and recognition of one another’s claims.

Rashid Khalidi reminded the audience that in the present situation the idea of a shared Jerusalem was a prospect that is less likely today than it was in the past 10 years, and that Oslo prevented any real discussion of the fundamental issues of Jerusalem, refugees, borders, sovereignty, settlements, and water—while the occupation expanded. As for future prospects, Khalidi stated that unless negotiations take place within the context of the principles of equality, equity and international law, any prospects were bleak at best. Referring to Ben-Meir’s comment that Palestinian’s claim to Israel dates back to the advent of Islam, Khalidi said that “Palestinians don’t see themselves solely in some Islamic, or even some Christian narrative. They see themselves in terms of some continuity with the land and with the city which goes back several millennia.” He pointed out that “the Jewish narrative, if we are expected to respect it, should be matched by similar respect for the Palestinian’s own narrative.”

Khalidi, like Tamari, also reiterated that any solution must be based on the fact that East Jerusalem is occupied territory and, under the Fourth Geneva Convention, cannot be settled by the occupying power. Moreover, in answer to Ben-Meir’s claims that the status quo had not been entirely dysfunctional, Khalidi cited the Israeli killings of Muslim worshipers at the Haram al-Sharif on three occasions in 10 years. To successfully negotiate a shared Jerusalem, Khalidi advocated the idea that the status should not be decided unilaterally; that no preemptive or prejudicial actions should be taken which might compromise a final settlement; and that (in agreement with all the panelists) Jerusalem “must remain, in some sense, a single unit,” but again stressing that at present it was “not a united city but an occupied city.”

Daniel Seidemann described the sensitivity of Jerusalem as an issue, as well as his own role as a publicly ostracized, privately utilized go-between on the negotiations. Seidemann said that the situation was much better now, that the once-controversial ideas he espoused of “sharing sovereignty on the basis of equality, parity, and mutual dignity are not the beyond the pale, but are mainstream within Israel.” He said that the concept of a final settlement on Jerusalem prevalent in Israeli thought was that Jerusalem would be politically divided along the lines of former President Bill Clinton’s proposals in his waning days in office. Seidemann also stated that although Israelis lack understanding of Palestinian sentiments, as a result of the breakdown of negotiations and the present intifada they realize there must be some compensation paid, somehow. Israelis also “knew,” however, that Pisgat Ze’ev was there to stay.

Seidemann agreed with Khalidi that there was no acceptable status quo in Jerusalem, questioning how the city had functioned at all for the past several months. Though he maintained that there is an underlying stability to Jerusalem, he cautioned that, with the new governments in Israel and the U.S. taking different approaches than those of their predecessors, he foresaw a conflagration in Jerusalem. The only way to avert such a disaster, according to Seidemann. was for negotiations to be renewed, and the only way for that to happen, he said, was for the intifada to stop.

Charged emotions and logic based on opposing premises and differing histories left the outlook on “prospects for a shared Jerusalem” looking very bleak indeed.

—Sara Powell

< Prev		Next >