 |
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, July/August 2004, pages 81-88 Waging Peace Campaign Against House Demolitions Tours U.S.
PALESTINIAN activist Salim Shawamreh and Jeff Halper, coordinator of the Israeli Campaign Against House Demolitions (ICAHD), spoke to enthusiastic audiences at Iowa State University in Ames on May 12 and at Drake University in Des Moines the following day. Some 50 people met in the Oak Room at ISU’s Memorial Union, while an audience of almost 100 gathered in Drake University’s Bulldog Theater. “The Israeli government has demolished my home four times,” said Shawamreh, who went on to explain that, at great expense, he had applied for permits to build his home. Each time—after a long waiting period—the Israeli government denied his request. Every time the Israeli government has demolished his home, Shawamreh said, his friend Jeff Halper, a Jewish Israeli who grew up in Hibbing, Minnesota and is now a professor of anthropology at Ben-Gurion University, has helped him rebuild it. Not only does the Israeli government charge $5,000 for the permit application, which it almost never approves, Halper said. “They charge him for demolishing his house, and he has to pay or they put him in jail.” Shawamreh and Halper narrated a slide show documenting the repeated construction and demolition of the Shawamreh family home. In one photo, Halper is pictured seated, smiling, after chaining himself to a pillar in the Shawamreh’s living room in an attempt to thwart the Israeli demolition crew. Israeli police arrested Halper, and the demolition continued. Four times since the early 1990s, Shawamreh, his wife, Arabiyah, and their growing family have been forced to vacate their home in a matter of minutes, on threat of imprisonment or death. The Israeli police have arrived in the light of day and the dead of night, pointing their guns in the faces of the Shawamreh family. Police and soldiers have beaten and jailed Salim, and Arabiyah once required hospitalization after she was overcome by tear gas Israeli soldiers threw into her house. Needless to say, the family’s long resistance has taken a toll, especially on the seven children. Following the fourth demolition, Halper and Shawamreh decided upon a new approach. They have rebuilt the structure as Beit Arabiyah, a center for Palestinian-Israeli peace activities, where Palestinians and Israelis can come together to pursue plans for peaceful cooperation and coexistence. Not every Palestinian family is able to rebuild their home following a demolition, Halper explained. ICAHD works with those who are able to choose this particular path of resistance, and supports their decision with funding and direct assistance. Israelis and Palestinian volunteers join together in rebuilding demolished homes, Halper said, noting that a house shell, the basic, unfinished structure, costs about $30,000. Halper, who founded ICAHD, described the organization as a nonviolent, direct-action group established to oppose and resist Israeli demolition of Palestinian houses in the occupied territories. ICAHD has expanded its resistance activities into other areas, including land expropriation, settlement expansion, construction of bypass roads, closure and separation policies, the wholesale uprooting of fruit and olive trees, and more. “The fierce repression of Palestinian efforts to shake off the occupation has only added urgency to our efforts,” Halper told his audience. Shawamreh’s and Halper’s presentation, like their rebuilding efforts in the village of Anata, has been described as an encouraging example of Palestinian-Israeli cooperation, proof that nonviolent resistance to the occupation can triumph and that, even in the midst of the conflict, peaceful cooperation is possible. The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) organized Shawamreh and Halper’s April 29 to May 17 nationwide tour. —Michael Gillespie Palestinian Supporters Stage Sit-in at Representative Pelosi’s Office
Angered by the killing of at least 40 Palestinian civilians, including many children, and the demolition of more than 50 homes by the Israeli military between May 17 and 20 in Rafah refugee camp, 25 Bay Area activists staged a sit-in May 21 at the office of Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader of the House of Representatives. “As we speak people are dying,” Palestinian-American Basil Ayish told Dan Bernal, the congresswoman’s deputy district director, who met with the group in the hallway outside Pelosi’s 14th floor office in San Francisco’s Federal Building. “Nancy Pelosi has a responsibility to condemn the Israeli actions.” When Bernal said his boss, en route to California from Washington, DC, would respond to the protesters “at a later time,” one Jewish Voice for Peace member countered, “Her credibility is nil—in the past, she has never responded.” Added activist Ramzi Obeid, “Anything short of condemnation of Israel’s gross abuse of human rights is no longer acceptable.” Despite the forced removal and arrest of 12 protesters—all ISM members—sitting inside Pelosi’s office, organizers vowed to continue staging acts of civil disobedience to force elected officials to make Israel accountable for Palestinian deaths. Meanwhile, in front of the Federal Building more than 50 protesters carried signs and listened to speakers, including Ramie Rafeedie of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), one of the organizers of the sit-in and demonstration. Protesters both inside or outside the Federal Building called for an end to financial aid to Israel, the recipient of the largest U.S. foreign aid allotment. —Elaine Pasquini Angelenos Protest Israeli Attacks on Rafah“Israel is violating the Fourth Geneva Convention,” stated Carol Smith of the National Lawyers Guild. “We call upon Canada, France, Germany, Russia, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Great Britain and Belgium to enforce the Fourth Convention.” The 200 noisy demonstrators fell silent as they registered the words expressed during a May 20 protest of the destruction of Rafah in front of the Los Angeles Israeli Consulate. “We call on the high contracting parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention to go to the United Nations General Assembly to dispatch an international force to Israel to enforce the Geneva Convention,” the retired attorney continued. “The high contracting parties do not need the permission of the U.S. or the Security Council to do this. “We know the U.S. always vetoes any resolution condemning Israel’s actions,” Smith said, “so we call upon U.N. Resolution 377 that states when there is a lack of unanimity among the permanent members of the Security Council and there is a threat to the peace or an act of aggression, that the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately and can recommend collective measures to the U.N. members including the use of armed forces to ‘maintain or restore peace and security.’” Smith noted that Resolution 377 was passed in 1950 because the U.S. was concerned about the Soviet Union vetoing Security Council resolutions. “Now it’s the U.S. everyone has to be concerned about and it is the permanent member who prevents the U.N. from carrying out its mission to maintain international peace and security,” stated the member of Women in Black/Los Angeles. “We need international forces in Gaza and the West Bank to put an end to Israel’s crimes against the Palestinian people.” Only 48 hours earlier as news of Israel’s devastating raids on the Rafah refugee camp intensified, Haitham al-Zabri of Al Awda launched an e-mail call for a demonstration. People responded from as far away as Orange County. While large banners were unfurled and Palestinian flags of all sizes were carried with “Get Out of Rafah” signs, the Rev. Darrel Meyers commented: “Strangely and ironically, the Israeli military is calling this assault on Rafah ‘Operation Rainbow.’ They ought to name it ‘Operation Rambo.’” Mary Hughes-Thompson, who was severely beaten by Israeli settlers while she served as an International Solidarity Movement (ISM) volunteer during the 2002 olive harvest on the West Bank, said the enthusiastic turnout inspired her. “I remember in 1968 that many people said Martin Luther King was a rabble-rouser,” she explained. “Today, he’s recognized as a leader, who, along, with his followers of all colors, moved mountains. “Now we are the rabble and we are roused,” the octogenarian activist emphasized. “Let’s never believe we can’t move mountains, stone by stone.” A motley dozen or so counter-demonstrators waved Israeli and American flags kitty-corner from the chanting demonstrators, who called out on a bullhorn: “Stop U.S. Aid, Send Billions to Palestine.” Celebrities are commonplace at Los Angeles peace demonstrations. A new face at the May 20 event was actor John Heard, who is going to Palestine to bring awareness to the plight of the Palestinians by breaking ground at the Rachel Corrie House sponsored by the Rebuilding Alliance. Commented activist Kathleen O’Connor Wang: “Israel says it has to destroy homes and trees because terrorists might hide behind them. Is that why last year before [ISM volunteer] Rachel Corrie was crushed to death by an Israeli bulldozer, they destroyed wells that provided 40 percent of the water to Rafah because ‘terrorists’ might drink water? What demented thinking.” —Pat McDonnell Twair Sharon’s Plan: A Shift from Occupation to SiegeFollowing a fact-finding mission to the occupied Palestinian territories, Phyllis Bennis, a fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies, spoke at the Palestine Center on April 26. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon claims that his pullout from Gaza will end Israel’s responsibility for the Palestinian population, Bennis said. Under international law, however, the besieging power has the same responsibilities for the population it is besieging as an occupying power has for a population living under occupation. Bennis noted that in all probability Palestinians will remain under siege in the event of an Israeli pullout. Israel would retain control over what it calls the “Gaza envelope.” This means that, although settlers would leave the Gaza Strip, Israel would control the airspace, coastline, border with Egypt and every point of interaction between Gaza and the outer world. Withdrawing the settlers from Gaza is not itself a great difficulty, Bennis pointed out. Most of them are not fundamentalists motivated by messianic visions, such as those who have settled in the West Bank. They are, rather, economic opportunists taking advantage of the subsidized housing and other Israeli government incentives for settlement. Furthermore, there are only about 7,000 settlers—but almost four times that many soldiers are required to protect them, she noted. Nor is the Gaza “disengagement” plan a new idea. Bennis recalled that, since the late 1970s, Sharon has publicly advocated a plan for the West Bank and Gaza that has all the same essential features as his current one. The “pullout” from Gaza, combined with the wall that will cut off around half of the West Bank, will leave the skeleton of the Palestinian “state” which Sharon has always envisioned. Israel will control both areas on all sides and in the air. According to the text of Sharon’s plan for Gaza, Bennis pointed out, Israel would even refuse the Palestinians the right to host an international peacekeeping force in their territory. Meanwhile, Israel is continuing to engage in attacks on Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Bennis reported that the United States government most likely had foreknowledge of Israel’s extra-judicial assassinations of Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, followed by the assassination of Hamas’s political head Dr. Abdel Aziz Rantisi. Although U.S. spokespeople have denied knowing of the assassinations beforehand, or giving their approval, Bennis revealed that the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) had sent notices to its recipient organizations, the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working in the Gaza Strip, warning them to evacuate their international personnel out of Gaza days before both assassinations. Employees who were U.S. citizens were asked to leave Gaza. Bennis received copies of the e-mail warnings in question, she told the audience. Overall, Bennis said, the U.S. response to Sharon’s plan does not surprise her. Although President George W. Bush reversed decades of official U.S. policy when he endorsed the plan on April 15, including Israeli annexation of huge illegal settlement blocs in the West Bank, construction of the wall, and denial of the Palestinian right of return, Bennis noted this was a shift in rhetoric rather than in practice. The U.S. policy, she added, does demonstrate a complete abandonment of international law and an appropriation by the U.S. of the role of negotiator on behalf of the Palestinians. In this capacity, Washington has attempted to relinquish the right of return for Palestinian refugees. However, Bennis pointed out, the right of return is an individual right that is held by refugees, and no government or other agency can surrender it on their behalf. In addition, she said, by excluding the Palestinian Authority from negotiations, Sharon and Bush have tried to visit the “ultimate political humiliation” on the Palestinian people, equivalent to the physical humiliation Palestinians endure at Israeli checkpoints. The international community, Bennis insisted, must stick to its legal principles and reject this latest usurpation of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. Meanwhile, living conditions in the occupied territories are worsening steadily. Bennis reported that West Bank doctors are noticing an alarming increase in medical conditions relating to stress, such as diabetes, hypertension and other serious diseases. The bonds of social solidarity that formerly had sustained Palestinian communities are being dissolved, warned Bennis. Where formerly people in dire straits would turn to a relative or neighbor for help, today everyone is in the same situation, and people are forced to concentrate on their own lives just to survive. In the West Bank, she said, people are deprived, but in Gaza there is real hunger and malnutrition. Peter Hansen, director of the United Nations Relief and Works Association (UNRWA), told Bennis that the agency’s original goal was to supply the refugees in Gaza with 60 percent of what is considered the minimum caloric intake for health. That goal has steadily dropped, he said, until now UNRWA is able to provide its dependents with only 20 percent of what they need. —Courtesy the Palestine Center Ashrawi: The Call for a Binational State Is not a Political ProgramIn a May 13 roundtable discussion at the Palestine Center in Washington, DC, Palestinian legislator, author and educator Dr. Hanan Ashrawi discussed the issues that have been at the heart of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict for generations: refugees and the right of return, and the shape of a final settlement. The discussion took place on the eve of the 56th anniversary of Al-Nakba, the day Palestinians commemorate their expulsion from Palestine and the loss of their country when the State of Israel was created in 1948. Refugees and the Right of ReturnThe issue of Palestinian refugees has become part of the major “fear factor” in Israel, Ashrawi said. Israeli politicians and media contend that anyone who supports the right of return wants to “destroy Israel.” But, according to Ashrawi, “of course Palestinians would want the right of return.” There are many ways to carry out the repatriation of the refugees, she stressed, but “you cannot start discussing permutations and options if you start from the assumption that they have no rights.” For this reason, she continued, it is “simplistic and irresponsible” for Israelis to say the right of return is wrong. When asked precisely how the Palestinian refugee situation should be solved, Ashrawi declared that the refugees “should have the right to choose…and all options are open.” That is to say, if they choose to return to their homes in Israel they must be permitted to do so, she elaborated, but not all will necessarily make that choice. The refugee issue is not only a Palestinian and Israeli problem, Ashrawi stated, it is regional—and, specifically, Arab. The refugees are not “hovering up in the air,” she pointed out. They live in camps and in exile in neighboring countries, which can ill afford to host hundreds of thousands of refugees in addition to their own populations. The solution to their plight, she maintained, will help lift the veil of hatred and conflict that has long covered the area. “If people start adopting the demographic argument as a basis for policymaking,” Ashrawi further noted, “then we’ve gone the wrong way.” The argument that the Palestinian population is and always has been growing at a much faster rate than that of Israeli Jews, and that it will be only a matter of time until Palestinians form a majority and gain control of the levers of power, is best left, she said, to Ariel Sharon and the “academics” at Israel’s Herzliya conference who refer to Palestinians as a “demographic threat.” Ashrawi ridiculed the statement that the “Palestinian woman’s womb…is the ultimate ticking time bomb.” Binational State vs. Two-State SolutionAn increasing number of Palestinian voices are calling for a single binational state rather than an independent Palestinian state next to Israel as a resolution of the refugee issue and of the conflict. Ashrawi argued that the one-state solution, as it is known, is not a political program, but is, rather, a tactical decision made by people who think that the two-state solution no longer is possible. But pursuing a single binational state will condemn two, three or more future generations of Palestinians to a “state of captivity,” in Ashrawi’s words. The populations in the hypothesized future single state, she stated, would remain at “each others necks” for years to come. Ashrawi characterized the current situation of occupation and oppression as an abnormal, asymmetrical condition. It is not sufficient to declare that everyone is an equal citizen in one state, she stated, when a large percentage of the population of that state will have been discriminated against officially and unofficially; economically underdeveloped and de-developed; attacked, oppressed and in every way cut off from the rest of the population. Furthermore, in practical terms, Ashrawi maintained, “You’re not going to have any Israeli who will negotiate with you on the basis of de-Zionization of Israel.” In addition, no majority of Palestinians will relinquish their rights to their own statehood, freedom and long-awaited “day in the sunshine.” Summing up her opposition to the one-state solution, Ashrawi explained, “When you have no takers [of this idea] on both sides...you are allowing power politics to continue.” She proceeded to remind her listeners that “Sharon is no neutral observer.” While debating a one- or two-state solution, Israel’s Wall is “creating internal displacement and invisible transfer” in the West Bank, Ashrawi pointed out. Palestinians who want a better future for their children are leaving the West Bank. According to Ashrawi, this is what former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir meant when he talked about making life impossible for the Palestinians so that an official policy of transfer, or ethnic cleansing, was not necessary. There already has been noticeable internal displacement in the West Bank cities of Qalqilya and Jayyous, Ashrawi said, and it is now happening in Jerusalem. Reiterating that the binational state is not a political plan, Ashrawi expressed the belief that a two-state solution is still possible. “The 1967 lines should be adhered to,” she said, but it is imperative that “we move quickly, decisively” to end the occupation and establish an independent Palestinian state.” The State of the “Peace Process”
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has “failed to deliver” on any of his promises to the Israeli people, Ashrawi said. He not only has a record of personal and political corruption, being embroiled in scandal after scandal, but he has not brought peace, security or the prospect of any kind of political solution. Further, according to Ashrawi, despite his much-heralded “disengagement” plan, Sharon is not even interested in a negotiated settlement of the conflict, but only in unilaterally imposing “long-term interim arrangements” on the Palestinians. For example, Ashrawi said, even had his withdrawal from Gaza been approved by his own Likud party—which it was not—Sharon’s plan did not signal an end to the occupation of Gaza, but just a switch of Israeli tactics from occupation to siege. This, in Ashrawi’s words, is “just another kind of occupation.” Furthermore, she said, Sharon plans to take “payback” from the West Bank for any minor concessions he makes in Gaza, and transfer settlers from Gaza to the West Bank settlements. Speaking of the April 14, 2004 press conference in which U.S. President George Bush and Sharon decided that Israel’s settlements in the West Bank, illegal under international law, would have to remain where they were because it is “unrealistic” to remove them, Ashrawi pointed out that Sharon will not negotiate with Palestinians, only with Americans. This, she said, underlines the degree of Sharon’s failure. He “sold to Bush” a disengagement plan that he couldn’t even sell to his own party and, in his three years as Israeli prime minister, he has succeeded only in “capturing the White House.” Meanwhile, Ashrawi portrayed the Palestinian Authority (PA) as helpless in the face of all these developments. Political Reform in PalestineAccording to Ashrawi, repeated attempts by Israel and the U.S. to sideline Palestinian President Yasser Arafat and render him irrelevant have only distorted the decision-making process in Palestine. “Survival became the real issue,” Ashrawi argued, and, more specifically, “Arafat’s survival.” Sharon’s clumsy attempts to push him out of the picture have only turned Arafat once again into a symbol of Palestinian pride and nationhood. This has caused many Palestinians to judge Arafat less as an accountable leader than as a permanent representative of Palestine. Palestinian democracy has been harmed in this process, according to Ashrawi. Under current conditions, she stated, opposition political parties in Palestine can be labeled as traitors, while the PA presents itself as the sole, legitimate leadership. Ashrawi said she hears echoes of the 1970s and 1980s in this position. At that time the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was known as the “sole, legitimate representative of the Palestinian people,” and any alternative political agenda was suppressed. When Palestinian elections were held in the early days of the PA’s existence, Ashrawi maintained, Palestinians were eager for debate, multiparty democracy, and accountability. If elections are held again soon, Ashrawi predicted that “in these conditions [Arafat] will win.” Nevertheless, she argued, it is time for Palestine to “get beyond the one-man show. The old guard has taken their turn,” she concluded, “and it is the turn of the next generation or two.” —Courtesy the Palestine Center First Screening of FUTBOL PALESTINA 2006 Trailer Held in ChicagoNearly 300 people turned out in Chicago May 2 for the first public screening of FÚTBOL PALESTINA 2006’s latest trailer, a six-minute piece dedicated to the Palestinian national soccer team in its quest to make history. FÚTBOL PALESTINA 2006, a feature-length documentary due to be released in 2006, chronicles a soccer team’s unique challenge, and distinct honor, of representing Palestine. The team’s goal? A spot in the planet’s most important sporting event, soccer’s World Cup. The odds? Tough, but no longer impossible. To reach the 2006 World Cup in Germany, Palestine and more than 200 other national teams first must earn a spot among the final 32. Palestine plays its first round of games against Uzbekistan, Taiwan and Iraq—a group it leads after an 8-0 victory against Taiwan and a tie against Iraq. The trailer featured footage shot in the Middle East between January and March of this year at the team’s training camp in Egypt, in the West Bank and at their exciting games in Qatar. Through the trailer, viewers start learning about the players, their inspiration and their task. Among those profiled is Saeb Jundiya from Gaza, raising his family in one of the world’s poorest and most repressed places; Tayseer Amer from Qalqilya, in the West Bank, often forced to train by himself due to Israeli restrictions; Rami El-Hassan, born and raised in Tripoli, Lebanon, where being Palestinian means putting his aspirations on hold; and Roberto Kettlun, from distant Chile, member of a 400,000-strong Palestinian community there, now one of Asia’s top scorers. Palestinians start their journey toward Germany’s Cup in 2006 like the rest, with much hope—but as the ultimate underdogs. The qualifying process’ high cost and demanding preparation will take a great toll on a people without a state, living in extreme poverty and under military occupation. Despite the odds, however, when soccer’s world body, FIFA, invited them as guests in 1998, they welcomed the challenge. As Palestinian athletes say, the simple act of raising their flag in international competitions already constitutes a triumph. The film’s treatment of its subject has received unanimous support so far, as people are quick to realize the opportunity to “mainstream” Palestine’s case as endorsed by the United Nations. After more than 50 years, the violence there remains one of the most important political conflicts of our time, true ground zero in the politics of a region the developed world depends on for resources. Even though the subject is, sadly, not new, its treatment in the documentary will be. Unlike many films from or about Palestine, FÚTBOL PALESTINA 2006 will not hinge on the most visible and brutal aspects of the confrontation, preaching mostly to the converted, but on everyday life through an activity millions around the world know and cherish. The Chicago event was part of FÚTBOL PALESTINA 2006’S community program, intended to educate the public about the film and its underlying issues. The success of the event, as well as the nationwide response through the film’s Web site, <www.futbolpalestina.com>, showed that educating people while making the film is not only necessary, but also possible. The diversity of the crowd, their energy and their contributions were there to show it. People left inspired and even grateful, anxious for more. While large events such as Chicago’s kick-off will remain key, there is much to do beyond that. FÚTBOL PALESTINA 2006 will encourage supporters to help organize house screenings, reach out to mainstream organizations and elected officials, help further develop the Web site for improved interaction, produce educational materials, and develop a mass media component focusing on one message. For reaching millions, few ambassadors would seem better suited than the game of soccer. Ultimately, the filmmakers hope to help people gain a better grasp of the issues, be prepared to challenge stereotypical views of Palestinians and Arabs in general, and, most importantly, do something about a great injustice. —Nelson Soza Interfaith Service Honors Those Who Have Died in Iraq
The National City Christian Church, located near Washington, DC’s Thomas Circle, held an interfaith service of prayer and remembrance May 27 honoring those who have died in the conflict in Iraq. This, along with many other such observances across the country, was sponsored by the National Council of Churches USA in recognition of the World Council of Churches’ Decade to Overcome Violence. The Washington Report sent out an action alert to its e-mail list advising recipients to look for interfaith memorial services to attend in their cities. One e-mail response from the Middle East railed against the memorial service, which the correspondent expected would mourn only fallen U.S. soldiers. “What about the thousands of Iraqis who have been killed by Americans in this war?” he asked. From the moment mourners of every faith filed into the Washington, DC service, to the ceremony’s close, every eye was drawn to a large screen on which scrolled the names of Iraqi victims, their ages and hometowns, side-by-side with the name and age of every U.S. soldier killed. The ages of the Iraqi victims were shocking: Amaar Al-Huda Saad, 19 months, Noor Al-Huda Saad, 6 months, killed April 5, 2003; Sahar Sahan, wife of Mohammed Ali Sarhan, and their unborn son, killed in a rocket attack on the ambulance taking her to the hospital on April 7, 2003. The ages of the soldiers were shocking: Army Pfc. Leslie Jackson, 18, of Richmond, VA, killed in Baghdad when her vehicle hit an explosive device. A stirring “Amazing Grace” and uplifting African-American hymns sung by the superb St. Camillus Multicultural Choir provided a glorious musical tribute throughout the service. After Rev. Dr. Alvin O. Jackson, pastor of National City Christian Church, welcomed worshippers, leaders read from Muslim, Christian, Jewish and Buddhist sacred texts. Imam Ghayth Nur Kashif from Masjidush-Shura in Washington, DC gave the call to prayer and spoke. Rabbi Arthur Waskow, from the Shalom Center in Philadelphia, presented a call to repentance, using ashes, stones and flowers. Venerable M. Dhammasiri, president of Washington Buddhist Vihara; Bishop Vicken Aykazian from the Armenian Orthodox Church; Chaplain (Maj) Andrea Foster, Joint Forces Deputy State Chaplain, DC National Guard; Rev. William Sinkford, president of the Unitarian Universalist Association; and Jeanette Holt, Alliance of Baptists associate director, each spoke. Representatives of soldiers’ families, as well as Iraqi civilians, lit candles in their memory. Rev. Dr. Bob Edgar, general secretary of the National Council of Churches of Christ, called for a new commitment from attendees to end the war in Iraq. He called for an end to violence, injustice, oppression, war and racism. Edgar said he believed the community of faith could be the agent for peace and justice in the world and advised solidarity in the nonviolent struggle for peace and justice for all humankind. Worshippers were loath to leave after the moving, inclusive evening service. Although one news camera filmed the event, neither the evening news nor newspapers mentioned the ceremony. After weeks of horror as the Abu Ghraib prison scandal unfolded, one attendee said as she walked away, “This was the first time in weeks I’ve felt proud to be an American.” —Delinda C. Hanley Media Coverage of the War in IraqAt Washington, DC’s Middle East Institute June 2, veteran journalists Claude Salhani and Hisham Melhem analyzed the media’s coverage of the Iraq war in America and the Arab world. Salhani, foreign editor at United Press International and author of Black September to Desert Storm, opened his talk by noting there is now a “proliferation of Arab satellite stations in the Middle East”—many of which are accused of “over-coverage” of events in the Arab world. However, he continued, the news is occurring “in their own backyards,” likening the coverage of Al-Jazeera and similar Arab satellite stations of regional events to the American media’s “non-stop coverage” of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. In addition to Al-Jazeera, Salhani said, there are 120 stations all over the Middle East, including Al-Arabiya, LBC, Dubai, and Abu Dhabi. The key question everyone is asking now, he explained, is whether these media outlets are spreading propaganda or covering news. “For all their shortcomings, these stations have pushed ajar the door of dialogue and freedom of the press in the Middle East,” Salhani said, “and they’ve introduced competition between medias.” Furthermore, he added, they have “taken away the monopoly of state-run television stations.” Emphasizing the virtual irrelevance of state-run television since the advent of outlets like Al-Jazeera, Salhani described how the Syrian government’s station aired a cultural documentary when Saddam’s statue was toppled, rather than covering the breaking news. Ironically, he pointed out, the U.S. State Department-funded satellite television channel Alhurrah similarly broadcast a cooking show when its Arab competitors covered Israel’s assassination of Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmad Yassin. When violence erupted in Fallujah recently, Salhani added, Alhurrah once again neglected to cover the hostilities, instead choosing to show a documentary on monkeys. Addressing the claim made by many, especially within the U.S. government, that Al-Jazeera is dangerous because it allegedly incites violence, Salhani agreed that it indeed is “dangerous”—but not for the reasons American officials offer. Rather, he argued, the channel is a threat to “leaders of the Arab world who’ve lost their domination of the media.” In fact, Salhani stated, Al-Jazeera regularly offers more airtime to American officials than does any U.S. network, and its correspondents in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem offer similar platforms to Israeli politicians. Al-Manar, a Beirut-based television station run by the Lebanese guerrilla group Hezbollah, even has a news program in Hebrew, Salhani revealed. Recalling a time when Arab reporters did not even say the word “Israel” on television, Salhani called this a “step forward.” When the Abu Ghraib prisoner scandal was first uncovered, Salhani said, an Al-Jazeera commentator asked if the torture that took place under the Americans was any different than what occurs in Arab prisons on a daily basis. According to Salhani, this statement demonstrated the variety of views that are expressed on the channel. “This question wasn’t even asked [in the United States],” he pointed out. “Let’s have 100 more Al-Jazeeras,” Salhani recommended. “I don’t think the answer is to compete by launching Alhurrah, which costs U.S. tax payers money [while] no one really watches it.” Melhem, the Washington, DC correspondent for the Arabic-language newspaper Al-Safir, said there are “clashing narratives between Arab and American media” when it comes to covering the war on Iraq. From the beginning, he explained, it was clear from their emphasis on civilian casualties that the Arab media opposed the war. On the other hand, he pointed out, American media “adopted unequivocally” the U.S. government’s labeling of the war as “Operation Iraqi Freedom.” American journalists called it “the U.S. war in Iraq,” he noted, while Arab reporters said the war was “against Iraq.” While some Arab reporters suggested the war was a conspiracy by neoconservatives to “help Israel fragment a major Arab country like Iraq,” Melham continued, some American reporters were “deferential to the White House’s reasons to go to war”—including the claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Describing the coverage of American journalists embedded with U.S. troops in Iraq as “simplistic, narrow, and [exhibiting] a sense of triumphalism,” Melhem, who has lived in the U.S. since the 1970s, stressed that he does not subscribe to the notion that “American journalists are necessarily biased”—a belief that is widespread in the Middle East, he said. “Very few of them have an ax to grind,” he maintained. Melhem criticized reporters in the Arab world for emphasizing the “destructive aspects of the war,” namely civilian casualties and destruction of infrastructure. They focus on these “moral issues at the expense of providing viewers with the full picture of the war,” he said. —Laila Al-Arian The Armageddon Vote in Election 2004The Council for the National Interest sponsored a May 26 public hearing at the Rayburn House Office Building to discuss the importance of the Christian Zionist vote in the upcoming presidential election. The size and importance of the “fundamentalist” vote, particularly among those who call themselves Christian Zionists, may be key in the swing states in November, panelists agreed. Christian Zionists strongly support Israel, whoever is in power, and provide powerful financial and legislative aid for Israel in the United States. CNI president Eugene Bird focused on the demographics of Christian Zionists, and described some recent polls. The “Stand for Israel” poll, he noted, found that two-thirds of American evangelicals support Israel in actions against “Palestinian terrorism,” 56 percent of these for political reasons and 28 percent in support of “end times.” John Hubers of the Reformed Church of America described the history of Christian Zionism and its consistent support for Israel. The Christian Zionist movement has grown especially in times of turmoil, Hubers pointed out. Believers point to God’s covenant with Israel and read the Bible like a crystal ball which predicts the future, he said. They anticipate the rapture of the faithful up into heaven and the final battle of Armageddon—which, he added, will wipe out all Jews who don’t convert to Christianity. Dr. Donald E. Wagner, a professor at North Park College and author of Anxious for Armageddon, grew up in the Protestant fundamentalist movement. After studying the doctrine of the extreme right-wing Evangelical Christians for the past 20 years, Wagner considers it an aberration in Protestant and evangelical theology. “This movement should be declared a heresy,” he said. It’s not that the believers are bad, he explained, they are just misguided. “These are dear Bible-believing, caring people,” he added, “who used to be a minority but are now in the mainstream.” They believe the world will end and Jesus will return in their lifetime, Wagner elaborated. This affects their world view, how they vote, and how they spend their money. To speed up the end of the world, he said, Christian Zionists in the U.S. support Israel’s Likud Party in its opposition to negotiating peace agreements or returning Palestinian lands. No one should doubt the political strength of this group, Wagner cautioned, reminding his audience of President George W. Bush’s call for Ariel Sharon to withdraw immediately from his siege of Jenin. Within hours evangelical leader Pat Robertson’s followers had sent 100,000 e-mails, letters and made personal visits to Congress and the White House. Bush never let out another peep of criticism, Wagner noted. Christian Zionists send more than $25 million a year to Israel to fund settlements, he added, and 100,000 Evangelical churchgoers travel to and raise funds for Israel. Wagner called for the Jewish mainstream community to criticize those who would seek their conversion or incineration in a new holocaust. It’s heretical to believe the Church will disappear after the Rapture, and to work toward that end, Wagner charged. He also called for a mainline Protestant church campaign to focus on Biblical justice in the Holy Land. Israel is denying visas to Catholic workers and putting religious organizations on the tax rolls for the first time in history, he said, which will impoverish them. The Church is at risk of dying in the Holy Land because of Israel’s harsh occupation. Wagner concluded by stating it was heretical to abandon the historical churches in the Middle East. Dr. E. Faye Williams, a long-time leader of Washington, DC’s African-American community, talked about how Americans interested in the peace process can discuss Israel with radical evangelicals. Americans’ knee-jerk support of Israel comes at the expense of American needs as well as Palestinian, Williams argued. A careful reading of the Bible, she pointed out, will encourage Christians to do the right thing and love their neighbors, and not to kill Palestinian babies in order to hasten Jesus’ return. “Learn the facts,” she urged. “If you don’t speak out when you see wrongdoing on this earth, you’ll be held accountable. No rapture will save you.” See CNI’s Web site (<www.cnionline.org>) for more information, including power point presentations on this topic. The site also contains the results of two polls: the April 5, 2004 Greenberg Research poll, which surveyed all evangelicals in America, looking at the demographics of this group; and the Zogby International poll which surveyed evangelicals in 16 battleground states between May 18 and May 23, 2004. These polls provide ample evidence that Evangelical voters need more information before the upcoming elections. —Delinda C. Hanley Ralph Nader Offers Alternative to “Washington Puppet Show”
Presidential candidate Ralph Nader discussed the Middle East at a June 4 press conference at the National Press Club. On the Palestinian-Israeli issue, he said, “there needs to be a change of attitude in this city. This city is composed of people who know a lot about the Israeli-Palestinian issue, and they keep private their concerns, and they make these public statements that are like ditto statements. You know the pattern; many of you have seen it again and again.” Nader went on to say, “A conflict that is eminently resolvable with U.S. leadership is constantly postponed because of the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and the cycle of violence that keeps getting more and more grievous. And if we don’t break that cycle of violence, we will become continued prisoners of it, just as the Israelis and Palestinians are prisoners of the cycle of violence.” Turning to the peace movement, Nader said, “The Palestinian peace movement and the Israeli peace movement have been in close touch. The Israeli peace movement is deep, broad, distinguished; they had 120,000 people in a Tel Aviv square protesting the other day. They represent members of the Knesset, mayors, former military officers, intelligence officers, businesses, religious figures. They represent people who have turned B’Tselem into one of the most respected human rights investigative groups in the world. They represent Rabbis for Justice, they represent the refuseniks, now 1,300 Israeli reserve combat soldiers and officers who have refused to serve in the West Bank or Gaza.” Nader quoted a line from the Israeli combatants’ public letter, The Courage to Refuse: ”We shall not continue to fight beyond the 1967 borders in order to dominate, expel, starve and humiliate an entire people.” For this courage, Nader said, “some of them went to jail. Others are involved in the Israeli peace movement. They are almost never invited to meet members of Congress, and most certainly never invited to meet anybody in the administration. [For the refuseniks’ complete statement, visit the Web site <http://www.seruv.org.il>.] “This used to be a localized conflict,” Nader continued. “Then it began to affect the Middle East, and now it’s affecting much of the world. Whether by pretext or excuse, on behalf of the Palestinian and Israeli people, they deserve better, they deserve better leadership, and our government deserves to stand up and think for itself. “The days when the chief Israeli puppeteer comes to the United States and meets with the puppet in the White House and then proceeds to Capitol Hill, where he meets with hundreds of other puppets, should be replaced,” he argued. “The Washington Puppet Show should be replaced by the Washington Peace Show,” he concluded. “And then we’ll get more peace in the world, and we will reward all those taxpayer dollars and all those high energy prices that have been sacrificed because of the lack of steadfastness of our federal government under both parties to address that very resolvable conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians.” —Delinda C. Hanley |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
