Zakaria: Arab world sees U.S. as hypocritical
- Details
- Written by Fareed Zakaria interviewed by CNN Fareed Zakaria interviewed by CNN
- Published: 20 June 2008 20 June 2008
- Hits: 3915 3915
Fareed Zakaria is a preeminent foreign affairs analyst and hosts "Fareed Zakaria: GPS" on CNN at 1 p.m. ET Sunday. He spoke to CNN about the U.S. decision not to work with Hamas.
NEW YORK (CNN) -- CNN: Why is the American decision not to work with Hamas such an issue in the Arab world?
Zakaria: The U.S. appears hypocritical to much of the Arab world. The U.S. has been trumpeting the importance of democracy to Arab countries world and has insisted on elections in Gaza. When Hamas, a faction they did not support, won, many Arabs felt the U.S. did not accept the victory and has attempted to strangle what they see as a burgeoning democracy.
CNN: How much of a difference does this make?
Zakaria: By the U.S. isolating Hamas from commerce and contact with the outside world, we are strengthening the forces of fundamentalism and extremism in Gaza. By all accounts, Hamas is stronger now than it was six months ago.
CNN: Do you expect any progress on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process restarted in Annapolis?
Zakaria: No. With President Bush's approval rating under 30 percent and Prime Minister Olmert's at under 3 percent and President Abbas' somewhere in the middle, they don't have the public support to accomplish this. They can sign a piece of paper, but it won't mean anything and won't have the political capital needed to accomplish anything substantive.
CNN: Is Israel doing the right thing by denying visas to Gaza's Fulbright scholars?
Zakaria: No, nor do many Israelis agree with the decision. The chairman of the Israeli Knesset Education Committee remarked, "Preventing students in Gaza from studying is reminiscent of a painful point in Jewish history. We are a nation that for years was prevented from studying; how can we do the same thing to another people? Trapping hundreds of students in Gaza is immoral and unwise."
CNN: Can the U.S. do much about it?
Zakaria: When I spoke with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for this week's show, she said the U.S. was unhappy with the decision and hoped it would be resolved. She noted that these students had been granted visas by the U.S. State Department. They had gone through an extensive clearance process to be granted those visas.
Cease-fire: No Small Thing
- Details
- Written by MJ Rosenberg MJ Rosenberg
- Published: 20 June 2008 20 June 2008
- Hits: 3947 3947
The cease-fire is still in effect, which is something of a surprise.
{josquote}“It is important to remember one principle in the
100-year war with the Palestinians. The Israelis and the Palestinians
are neighbors -- people who will live in proximity to each other
forever. Therefore, the military considerations in this war are not
similar to those in force between distant countries that are fighting
each other. The residue of blood, both our and theirs, remains in the
region, trickling into the memory and infrastructure of the two
peoples. Therefore, an immediate cessation of the bloodshed is more
vital than the fantasy of complete ‘victory’ in the long term.” -- AB Yehoshua {/josquote}
After all, this is a cease-fire few like -- especially in Israel. Some
of the same government officials who secured it wasted little time in
saying that they did not expect it to last and that, when it did
collapse, Israel would launch its long-deferred invasion of Gaza.
In essence, the critics are saying that all the cease-fire will
accomplish is a delay in the deaths of, I don’t know, dozens or
hundreds of Israeli soldiers and hundreds or thousands of Palestinians.
Rather than plunge hundreds or thousands of families into mourning this
weekend, the cease-fire provides a delay of a week, a month or six
months.
I suppose this is a classic example of the half-empty half-full
syndrome. But in this particular case, it is indefensible to insist on
viewing the glass as only half-empty. Even if the inevitable dead are
spared for just a week or a month, it is something. Another week,
month, or year with the kids, with parents, with friends. How much is
that worth?
I recently saw an interview with a woman whose 22-year old son was
killed in Iraq. She viewed his death as a total waste -- an unnecessary
death in an unnecessary war. She said that she would give everything
she has or ever will have to have just one more day with him.
Israelis 'rehearse Iran attack'
- Details
- Written by BBC News BBC News
- Published: 20 June 2008 20 June 2008
- Hits: 4260 4260
Israel has carried out an exercise that appears to have been a rehearsal for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, US officials have told the New York Times.
More than 100 Israeli fighter jets took part in manoeuvres over the eastern Mediterranean and over Greece in the first week of June, US officials said.
Iran insists its programme is peaceful, but Israel sees Iran's development of the technology as a serious threat.
Tehran is defying a demand from the UN that it stop the enrichment of uranium.
The UN Security Council approved a third round of sanctions against Iran over the issue in March 2008.
There has been a lot of sabre-rattling about Iran recently and the Israeli military exercise appears to have been yet another strong message to Tehran, the BBC's Kim Ghattas reports from Washington.
The loneliness of the One-Issue Voter
- Details
- Written by Laurie King-Irani, The Electronic Intifada Laurie King-Irani, The Electronic Intifada
- Published: 19 June 2008 19 June 2008
- Hits: 4046 4046
I was living in Nazareth, conducting my dissertation research. When I found out Clinton had been elected, I let out a whoop of joy and believed that a new era of sanity, justice and decency had dawned.
Several months later, I began to wonder. While at a conference in Jerusalem I picked up a copy of
I wished my Palestinian friends and neighbors could sit and chat with Hillary Clinton for a little while about the daily realities and systematic discrimination that they faced then -- and face even more so now -- under occupation. Now a particularly exciting election year is upon us. Before the Democratic race narrowed down to Obama and Clinton, I was rooting for Dennis Kucinich, because his message resonated with my "Big Issue": fair, just, and sane US foreign policies in the Middle East and outrage at the treatment of the Palestinian people.
There are lots of "One Issue Voters" out here: those who decide to support a candidate based on the sole criterion of abortion, or taxation, or gun control, or crime. For those of us who fall into the "Pro-Palestinian Rights" category of One Issue Voter-hood, it's a particularly lonely and dispiriting time. It's as though there's this big progressive celebration going on, but we haven't been invited.
Discussing the upcoming elections with friends and colleagues is uncomfortable. Should one support Hillary because she's likely to win the nomination anyway, and because it's imperative to get the Republicans out of the White House? Should one support Obama because he represents a challenge to the ossified cadres of Clintonites who assume that they are entitled to the presidency simply because they have amassed the money and the elite backing to waltz back into the White House? Should one support Republican Ron Paul, because he promises to cut all aid to Israel and end US intervention in the Middle East? Should those of us who care passionately about the human rights of Palestinians, Lebanese and Iraqis try to be "realistic" and vote for which ever candidate seems most likely to regain the White House and restore respect for the Constitution?
It annoys me that so many people I speak with say "Palestinian rights? Come on! Get real! No one can run for any office and succeed if they bring up that issue! There are other pressing crises that are much more important!" And they are not wrong to say so. Class disparities in the US are growing. Health care and insurance reform are absolutely crucial.
Looking at Obama's and Clinton's stances on some of these pressing issues, I should be excited. I just can't get mobilized and committed, though, because both have shown utter spinelessness about the key issue at the heart of the United States' misguided, destructive, and unjust policies in the Middle East: The question of Palestine. On the Republican side, frontrunner John McCain has recently gone out of his way to emphasize his decades-long record of unconditional support for Israel.
This is not a marginal, fringe issue to be swept aside. The fact that no candidate dares to speak out against US-funded Israeli violations of international humanitarian law and a raft of UN resolutions is a primary index of something horribly wrong at the heart of American politics.
Last summer, I watched a CNN broadcast during which the Democratic hopefuls underwent a cable catechism examination administered by Soledad O'Brien. Former Senator John Edwards and Clinton were grilled on their personal faith and how it has helped them in their private lives.
Obama got the booby-trapped political question: "Are Palestinians treated badly by Israel?" His answer was lame, and appeared ill-informed. Given that he is probably not ill-informed, however, it might have been dishonest. Obama responded that "although Palestinians are often put in situations that we would not want our own families to endure," it was sadly necessitated by the paramount need to safeguard Israelis from dangerous terrorists.
Obama is a lawyer. He should know something about the Geneva Conventions. He should know a bit about Israeli violations of international law, and the dozens of UN resolutions that have criticized the Israeli government and called for an end to the occupation.
Despite increasing activism, the existence of alternative news media, and growing public discomfort with the Bush administration's Middle East misadventures, it's really disappointing that an attractive front-runner in this key election did not feel secure enough to tell the truth. The public is way out in front of Congress on this issue, but given the demands of campaign funding and the fear of the sorts of underhanded attacks that AIPAC (the American Israeli Public Action Committee, i.e., the pro-Israel lobby) inflicts on those who deviate from a pro-Israeli narrative, anyone who hopes to attain office in Washington, DC is held hostage to the lobby's single-minded goal of assuring unconditional support for Israel no matter how badly it behaves.
There are those who say the lobby is not really that strong, serves as a bete noire for people who are possibly anti-Semitic, or is simply a healthy expression of active citizen participation in the US legislative process. Of course the lobby does not single-handedly control US foreign policy, but the depressing reality is that few candidates have the spinal fortitude to diverge from its narrative or to question its aims at election time.
Many -- even most -- in the American Jewish community are indifferent to or appalled by AIPAC's rhetoric, so it is not even representative of Jewish voters in the US.
And as depressing as the political scene may appear, this is where hope and opportunity lie. If concerned Americans want to support the rule of law at home and abroad, and support peace with justice around the world, they could find few better starting points than joining the international campaign to end the Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and other abuses. This means loudly opposing the unconditional diplomatic and military support that successive administrations have given to Israel, and challenging the candidates at every opportunity to respond directly to the mountain of factual evidence of Israel's abuses. This will not bear fruits in one election cycle, but it has to start.
Survey after survey shows that around the world, US support for Israeli violations remains a key motivator of anti-American sentiment. And yet in this country there's not even a debate about it among our leaders. Americans need to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and ongoing Israeli infractions of international law through its occupation of Palestinian lands more openly and critically. Brave and honest presidential candidates can and should be at the forefront of such needed political discussions.
If raising these issues, and using them as important criteria for choosing which presidential candidate to support, is a "non-starter" beyond the pale of acceptable political discourse in the Democratic or Republican parties then there really are no grounds for the excitement and rhetoric about change and transformation surrounding this election. There's no easy answer for the voter who cares about justice in Palestine. Yes, we should vote, but our activism has to go beyond simply marking a ballot on election day.
Laurie King-Irani is co-founder of The Electronic Intifada and the managing editor of the Journal of Palestine Studies in Washington, DC and a lecturer in anthropology at Georgetown University.
Editor's Note: Although EI may run pieces analyzing the stated views of various candidates and political figures in order to educate readers about their positions, EI does not endorse political candidates for office. This piece represents the views of the author.
A law that must not pass
- Details
- Written by Haaretz Editorial Haaretz Editorial
- Published: 19 June 2008 19 June 2008
- Hits: 4081 4081
[This Haaretz editorial discusses a proposed law that punishes Arab citizens of Israel who are members of the Knesset for visiting Arab countries for any reason, retroactive for seven years. This effort to prevent dialog and to isolate and dis empower Arab citizens of Israel is yet another example of the discrimination practiced by Israel's Jewish majority. AUPHR]
The Basic Law on the Knesset (Israel) is meant to be a law that is not touched, changed or suited to the spirit of the moment or the changing desires of Knesset members. It is the Basic Law that ensures the fundamental right to vote and to be elected.
But restraint is not a hallmark of the members of the present House, which is not overflowing with real parliamentarians. It is no surprise that MKs Zevulun Orlev and Esterina Tartman are the ones whose names are on this proposed amendment.
The bill, which is to be presented to the legislature for its second and third readings in the coming days, would amend the Basic Law on the Knesset so that a person who has visited an enemy country would not be able to stand for election to the Knesset. Such a visit would be considered "supporting the armed struggle against the State of Israel." The prohibition would be retroactive for seven years, starting from when the amendment is passed. The law refers to all citizens of Israel, but is intended to prevent Arab citizens from visiting Arab countries. The prohibition is a sweeping one; it does not matter what the purpose of the visit has been.
It may be assumed that the bill reflects a longing for some of the Arab Knesset members of the old school, the kind who assimilated obediently into the large parties and tried to quietly promote the interests of their sector. But the Arab sector, which has been suffering for years from inequality, has developed another type of MK, who views the Arab world as an audience for its message. They try to promote the interests of Arab Israelis through their diasporas, just as Israeli Jews promote their interests in the Jewish Diaspora. The Arab MKs (not all of them) have entered enemy countries using their essential parliamentary immunity, because they see these trips as part of their job.
Clearly, the proposed change in the law does not add to the security of the country, but only to the public relations efforts of the lawmakers who initiated it. These trips have for some reason become like a red flag to other Knesset members who have never made a special effort at coexistence or breaking down the barriers of hatred between Israel and Arabs.
It is especially disturbing that the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, which should be acting to block harmful, hyperactive legislation, found it proper to vote for the bill. Accordingly, and unfortunately, it will probably pass this week.
Clause 7 of the Basic Law on the Knesset already states that an individual who denies the existence of Israel as a Jewish and a democratic state, incites to racism, or supports the armed struggle of enemy countries or a terror organization against the State of Israel, cannot stand for election to the Knesset. Another unnecessary, insulting and damaging limitation should not be added.
It is doubtful that the visit of a Syrian legislator to Israel would be received here as an act of support for war rather than as a breakthrough to peace. Visits of MKs to countries with which Israel has no diplomatic relations, like visits to the Soviet Union in the 1950s, or by U.S. congressmen to Vietnam during the war between those two countries, are part and parcel of the work of elected public officials.