The New Nation - Internet Edition

Not an impartial broker

Khaled Amayreh

In his speech before the Israeli Knesset last week, President George W Bush proved once again that he is a Zionist par excellence. Indeed, the depth of his embrace of Zionism and the totality of his support for Israel surprised even his Israeli hosts. One Knesset member from a far right-wing party lamented that if only Israeli leaders showed similar commitment to Zionism, Israel would be in much better shape.

It is not certain if Bush, a person of conspicuously shallow intellect and of manifestly inadequate moral rectitude, knew what he was saying or if he was merely parroting whatever his speech writers had prepared for him. At any rate, no educated observer having seen the speech would bet that this man would be willing to pressure Israel to end its 40-year-old occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza Strip, or come to terms with the legality and morality of the right of return for millions of Palestinian refugees uprooted from their ancestral homeland when Israel came into existence 60 years ago.

Bush's lavish praise of Israel and his deliberate, and contemptuous disregard for the Palestinian Nakba, which was being simultaneously commemorated, portrayed a man who is as fanatical about Zionism and Israel as he is ignorant of and mendacious about the objective facts surrounding the Arab- Israeli conflict.

Bush doted upon history, speaking of how the "Jewish people endured the agony of the pogroms, the tragedy of the Great War, and the horror of the Holocaust". He quoted Eli Wiesel, the oft-sanctimonious American Zionist leader who said on several occasions that he identified with Israeli crimes and that he couldn't possibly bring himself to criticise Israel. Bush also spoke of Israel's "thriving democracy", but ignored the fact that murdering innocent Palestinian civilians, demolishing Palestinian homes, stealing Palestinian land and detaining thousands of innocent Palestinian activists and intellectuals without charge or trial because of their opposition to military occupation and apartheid were starkly incompatible with true democracy.

Bush hailed Israel for welcoming "immigrants from the four corners of Earth" but forgot or ignored the fact that for each and every immigrant welcomed into Israel, a native Palestinian was either murdered, dispossessed of his property or banished to the same four corners of the Earth.

Further, Bush denied that America's unconditional embrace of Israeli territorial expansionism and bellicosity had anything to do with instability and tension in the Middle East. "Some people suggest that if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away.

This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of our enemies, and America rejects it utterly. Israel's population may be just over seven millions. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because America stands with you."

The American president lashed out at the UN, saying that, "we consider it a source of shame that the UN routinely passes more human rights resolutions against the freest democracy in the Middle East than any other nation in the world."

No mention was made of Israeli settlement expansion policies and routine and grave violations of Palestinian human and civil rights -- the unlawful acts that prompt the UN to censure Israel.

At one point Bush seemed to be speaking of some other country when he spoke of Israel "forging a free and modern society based on a love of liberty, a passion for justice, and a respect for human dignity".

Anyone who has seen the Israeli occupation first hand would also be astonished when Bush praised successive Israeli governments for "working tirelessly for peace, while having to fight valiantly for freedom".

Palestinians at home and in the Diaspora who were commemorating the Nakba -- the Palestinian holocaust -- were not surprised by Bush's remarks to the Knesset, itself built on land seized illegally from its Palestinian proprietor.

"What do you expect from the president of a country that exterminated millions of Native Americans and then called the genocide manifest destiny?" asked one Palestinian intellectual from Hebron. "What do you expect from a president who invaded, occupied and destroyed two sovereign countries and killed or caused the death of more than a million peoplet because God told him to do so?"

Hamas, meanwhile, used Bush's speech as reason to castigate the Palestinian Authority (PA) for "blindly trusting the Zionist American administration despite its brazen alliance with Israel". The phrase "He is more Zionist than the Zionists" was on the tip of everyone's tongue throughout the occupied territories.

Even the usually circumspect Mahmoud Abbas, president of the US-backed PA, whom the Americans classify as "moderate", couldn't hide his anger and desperation. "To be frank, his speech angered us and we have many reservations and observations about it," Abbas said.

"And I told Mr Bush that he should display a modicum of balance, honesty and even- handedness. I said it [Bush's speech] was disappointing and a missed opportunity, because you [Bush] could have said that the Palestinian people should have their freedom and independence in order to achieve peace in the entire area."

To be sure, Bush sought to patch it up with Abbas when the two met at the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm El-Sheikh over the weekend.

Bush told Abbas that his administration was still committed to the resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the creation of a Palestinian state. Furthermore, Bush said he was "absolutely committed" to getting an Israeli-Palestinian accord by the end of the year.

"It breaks my heart to see the vast potential of the Palestinian people really wasted," said Bush, while lambasting Hamas, Iran and Hizbullah for all the ills of the Middle East, from the absence of democracy to the absence of peace.

Abbas who has found himself in the often awkward position of having to remain faithful to Palestinian national constants in order to maintain popularity at home and at the same time appease the Americans, whose political and financial backing is crucial for the survival of his regime, had to package his frustration in diplomatic niceties.

"We know very well that you, personally, as well as your administration are committed to reach peace before the end of 2008," said Abbas. He added that, "we are working very seriously and very intently with the hope that we will be able to achieve this objective."

On 18 May, following a meeting with former Meretz leader Yossi Beilen, Abbas reportedly warned that he would "quit" if a peace deal were not reached in six months. His spokesman, Nabil Abu Rudeina, later denied that he was seriously contemplating resignation. According to former cabinet minister Ghassan Khatib, however, Abbas "has very few remaining choices, anyway."

"His term as president of the PA will expire by the end of this year, and it is doubtful that he would run for a new term in the absence of a genuine and acceptable peace agreement with Israel," Khatib said.

Khatib added the organisation of new elections would require two main prerequisites: inter-Palestinian reconciliation and a peace agreement with Israel. Needless to say, neither is immanent, a fact that leaves little if any cause for optimism.

(Al-Ahram weekly. Bush at the Knesset revealed what most Arabs and Palestinians already knew: he is not an impartial broker.)

$1.4 Billion raised despite political instability

Miftah

This week witnessed the arrival of the highly anticipated Palestine Investment Conference in Bethlehem. The lavishly organized three day event from May 21-23 event, which has not been without its fair share of criticism, aimed at attracting foreign investment to the Palestinian territories and to convince eminent international figures in the private sector that Palestine is currently an untapped resource full of potential. In addition, the conference tried to relay any fears that prospective investors may have concerning the current unstable and unpredictable nature of the political climate in the region and advertise that investing in Palestine is a sound investment and that the area is very much "open for business".

On May 23, Prime Minister Salam Fayyad announced that the conference had help raise $1.4 billion in what he described as "the start of moving the wheel of the economy" which is in dire need of revitalization after forty years of an Israeli occupation that has imposed hundreds of restrictions on movement and access across the Palestinian territories. The investment will supposedly create 35,000 jobs with $500 million of the total sum marked for the real estate sector whereas $65 million will be focused on the high-tech industry.

Although the whole concept of investing in Palestine is welcomed, some analysts fear that the money pledged will simply boost employment and the economy in the short term, entrench the occupation even further by promoting areas of the West Bank to become financially viable and independent while many commentators maintain that it is impossible to plan for the future when the area is so fraught with political uncertainty and while Israel has a colossal grip over any advancements in the Palestinian territories. These experts assert that it is simply naïve and unrealistic not to factor Israel in the whole scenario taking into consideration that no developments can be enforced unless Israel is compelled to lift its restrictions on Palestinians.

While the mere utterance of Hamas and the political stalemate was avoided throughout the business/investment parts of the conference, Gaza was extended its own special session in the Convention Palace in Bethlehem. In this discussion, Palestinian connoisseurs declared that investment can still thrive in Gaza despite the situation. However, although the Palestine Investment Conference adhered to a policy of avoidance regarding Gaza, the media were unable to employ this same strategy as events in the blockaded coastal strip escalated and exacerbated further, offering a complete dichotomy in comparison to the hype and optimism surrounding the conference.

As Salam Fayyad expressed the success of the conference on May 23 as a tool for boosting the Palestinian economy, five Palestinians were killed in Gaza. Three [all member of Hamas' military wing - al-Qassam Brigades] were killed when Palestinians collided with Israeli forces near the southern city of Rafah. Two members of the al-Quds Brigades [Islamic Jihad's military wing] were also killed on May 23 near El Bureij in central Gaza.

These deaths came just a day after another Palestinian man was killed during a demonstration against the blockade in Gaza. Israeli forces opened fire at stone throwing protestors who were marching towards the Karni border crossing.

The increased intensity in Israeli actions in Gaza recently has probably been the result of the failed suicide bomb attack on the Erez crossing which ripped a 90-yard hole in the barrier wall. On May 22, a Palestinian allegedly associated with al-Quds Brigades [al-Aqsa Brigades also claimed responsibility] detonated a powerful truck bomb at the main crossing between Israel and Gaza in what the group termed a "message" to Israel that if it doesn't accept a truce, "Gaza is not going to be a place where you will enjoy stability".

Two days earlier on the May 20, four more Palestinians, including a 13 year old boy, were killed as the result of Israeli airstrikes. Aside from the teenager, who was decapitated when an Israeli aircraft started to fire at Palestinians launching rockets in northern Gaza, a second strike killed a man [32] who was said to be planting explosives along the barrier fence in central Gaza. Hamas revealed that two of their fighters were killed in a third strike on the south side of Gaza city.

All this violence has occurred while Egypt continues to broker a ceasefire agreement between Hamas and Israel. Following the initial delay from Israel in responding to Hamas' offer for a ceasefire on account of their reservations about forging an agreement with a "terrorist" organization as well as the proposal coinciding with the celebration of their independence, it is now Hamas' turn to deliberate with Egypt over Israel's conditions for a ceasefire. After returning from Egypt, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak stated that despite the violence, a deal could be implemented within days. In addition, the former prime minister eased the previous Israeli demand that any ceasefire agreement must involve the release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. Instead, Barak told Egyptian Lt. General and chief of intelligence Omar Suleiman that Israel's main concern is for both sides to halt aggression against each other. If this is achieved, then the subjects of the blockade and the release of Gilad Shalit can be discussed.

Meanwhile, Hamas also visited Egypt this week returning on May 22, having consulted with Omar Suleiman over a status update with respect to Israel, reiterating that any condition which stipulates the release of Gilad Shalit would seriously derail the peace effort. Hamas official Khalil al-Hayya said that "we have listened to the Israeli responses…these responses require clarification and some answers and we await these answers in a few days. We hope they will be positive so that the siege on our people can be lifted". Palestinian President Abbas, who is detached from the peace talks, shared his opinion by stating that "I cannot say that we have satisfactory news. Until now there are still obstacles". As this deal is still experiencing areas of dispute, the fighting continues.

Amidst the indirect discussions between Hamas and Israel, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told her French counterpart Bernard Kouchner that the international community must shun Hamas. Referring to the bombing at Erez a statement from Livni's office reported that this example should "demonstrate to the international community that while it demands that Israel take care of the situation in Gaza and open the crossing points, Hamas, which controls Gaza, is not interested in improving the lives of the population and doesn't take even minimal responsibility". These words from Tzipi Livni came in rebuttal to information leaked out earlier this week that the French had been conducting talks with Hamas "for several months" although these contacts did not amount to negotiations.

In other news, police continue to investigate Israeli Prime Minister Olmert's corruption allegations, questioning him for a second time in three weeks on May 23. Police are trying to ascertain whether Olmert dispensed any favors in exchange for funds he received from US businessman Morris Talansky while campaigning for Mayor of Jerusalem. Although Olmert has repeatedly asserted that he is guilty of no malpractice, there are more forceful and persuasive sections within the Knesset who are calling for his resignation. A poll in Yedioth Ahronoth on May 23 reveled that 51% of Israelis questioned have no confidence in the incumbent prime minister.

Israel unveiled plans on May 21 to build 286 new houses in the Jewish settlement of Beitar Illit near Bethlehem, in complete defiance of their road map obligations. The Middle East Quartet has encouraged Israel to freeze settlement expansion in the West Bank, including annexed east Jerusalem, but Israel officials maintain that the construction is "aimed at providing a solution to the urgent needs of natural growth in Jerusalem and the lack of housing solutions for young couples in the ultra-orthodox community".

Lastly, US President George Bush in a speech to the Middle East World Economic Forum in Egypt on May 18 signifying the end of his trip to the region announced that "I firmly believe that with leadership and courage, we can reach that peace agreement this year…this is a demanding task, and it requires action on all sides…Palestinians must fight terror and continue to build the institutions of a free and peaceful society. Israel must make tough sacrifices for peace and ease restrictions on Palestinians". The president's last speech concerning the peace process given in Israel for their 60th anniversary strangely omitted Palestinian statehood aspirations and instead highlighted the staunch friendship it has with Israel which seriously angered Palestinian President Abbas who said that "we don't want the Americans to negotiate on our behalf…all that we want from them…is a minimum level of neutrality".

(Source: MIFTAH)

Muslims of Tibet

Masood Butt is a Tibetan, living in India. But, unlike most other Tibetans in exile, who are Buddhists, Butt is a Muslim. However, apart from his faith, there is little else to distinguish Butt from other Tibetans. He follows Tibetan customs, speaks the language fluently and regards the Dalai Lama as his leader. Yet, Butt's community - the Tibetan Muslims - are little known in India, even though they have shared with their Buddhist brethren, the plight of leaving their homeland. And they have been living in India for the last 50 years."Like other Tibetans, our community, too has faced tough times and undergone great mental and physical strain," says Butt, who now works with the Dalai Lama's office in Dharamsala.

The story of the Tibetan Muslims is that of a unique community, that has blended different cultural strains to forge a distinct identity, that has been kept alive even in the face of adversity. What is interesting to know is that Islam arrived almost a 1000 years ago in Tibet - a region that has always been synonymous with a monolithic Buddhist culture. How the first Muslim settlers reached Tibet is an interesting tale. Sometime in the 12th century, it is believed, a group of Muslim traders from Kashmir and Ladakh came to Tibet as merchants. Many of these traders settled in Tibet and married Tibetan women, who later converted to the religion of their husbands. Author Thomas Arnold, in his book, The Preaching of Islam says that gradually, marriages and social interactions led to an increase in the Tibetan Muslim population until a sizable community came up around Lhasa, Tibet's capital.

"The Tibetan government allowed the Muslims freedom to handle their own affairs, without any interference. This enabled the community to retain their identity, while at the same time absorbing traditional Tibetan social and cultural traditions," says Butt. The Tibetan Muslims followed the occupation of their ancestors and were mainly traders, who owned successful businesses. The community also contributed to Tibetan society and culture in many ways. For instance, the first cinema hall in Tibet was started by a Tibetan Muslim businessman. Also, Nangma - a popular classical music form of Tibet, is believed to have been brought to Tibet by the Muslims. In fact, the word 'Nangma' is said to be derived from the Urdu word, 'Naghma', which means song. "These high-pitched lilting songs, developed in Tibet around the turn of the century, were a craze in Lhasa, with musical hits by Acha Izzat, Bhai Akbar-la and Oulam Mehdi on the lips of almost everyone," says Butt.

Many Tibetan scholars have commented on how religions as diverse as Islam and Buddhism could co-exist in peace in a traditional society such as that of Tibet. The credit for this, some feel, goes to religious leaders like the Dalai Lama, who took the lead in fostering this spirit of brotherhood. For instance, a history of the Tibetan Muslim community published some years ago relates how during the 17th century, the fifth Dalai Lama readily agreed to give the Muslims land within Lhasa for building a mosque.

The story goes that when a delegation of Muslims approached the fifth Dalai Lama for space for a mosque and a burial ground for their community, the Dalai Lama shot an arrow, with the promise that the place where the arrow fell would belong to the Muslim community. The place later came to be known as Gyangda Linka or the park of the distant arrow. Tibetan Muslims also enjoyed other special privileges in Tibet. For instance, they were exempted from the 'no meat rule' when such a restriction was imposed in the rest of Tibet, during the holy Buddhist months. Besides, their commercial enterprises were exempted from taxation.

All these special privileges, however were withdrawn, soon after the Chinese occupied Tibet in 1959. Most of the Tibetan Muslims, consequently, opted to leave rather than live under the Chinese occupation. Those who were able to cross over to India, settled in the border towns of Kalimpong, Darjeeling and Gangtok. Later, the community gradually started moving to Kashmir - the land from where their ancestors had gone to Tibet in the 12th century. In fact, the move to Kashmir was significant, says Butt. Even in Tibet, the Muslims were identified as Kashmiris, since Kashmir was known to Tibetans as Khache Yul and Tibetan Muslims were referred to as Khache. Thus, their status was that of a foreigner, even when they were in Tibet.

On the basis of their Kashmiri ancestry, the Tibetan Muslim families who came back to Kashmir after 1959, were given Indian citizenship. Many of these families are still living in Srinagar, while a few have migrated to Nepal and the Gulf countries. Today, there are around 250 families of Tibetan Muslims in Srinagar, mostly in the Hawal and Idgah areas. A number of these families are engaged in fine embroidery work of Kashmiri carpets, while others have set up their own businesses, says Nasir Qazi of the Tibetan Muslim Youth Federation - a body that works for the welfare of the community. The community remains a close-knit one and, for many of them, Tibet remains an emotive issue. Recently for instance, the Tibetan Muslim Youth Federation took out a peace march in Srinagar to show solidarity with the Dalai Lama's views on granting of autonomous status to Tibet.

And, in case a solution is found, would they like to go back to Tibet? "Maybe not for settling down, since most of us have been born and brought up in India," says Qazi. "But once, I would definitely like to go there - to visit the Potala palace, the landscape that we have heard so much about and to see for myself the land where our forefathers lived."

(Source: Hasni Essa, Peace and Pluralism)