Monday, November 25, 2024
Facebook Linkedin RSS Twitter

The Egyptian Police

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

The fragile situation in Luxor and the general depression which set in after the massacre, should have given Luxor officials some idea of what to do and what to avoid doing in the future.

… a few days ago in Gourna, on the western bank of the Nile near Luxor, Several villagers were killed and scores more injured by the security forces which opened fire and sprayed tear gas into a crowd at random, thus placing Luxor once more on the map of horrific violence.

… A presidential decree calling for demolition of ” informal” housing near archaeological sites was issued before this most recent massacre. The decree was justified by the fact that drainage water seeps into the tombs, and activity around the sites represents a constant threat to the antiquities. The state drafted a plan for the evacuation of the villagers with no land titles, providing for their resettlement in new villages built for flood victims in 1993.

… While houses were being demolished, certain government bodies obtained permits from the town council to build headquarters for themselves, using cement instead of the raw brick traditionally used by the villagers in the construction of their dwellings. The new buildings included a rest house for the SCA [Supreme Council for Antiquities]. a premises for the police, and headquarters for foreign archaeologists. Worse still, permits were granted to extend a network of pipes to carry potable water to the new government buildings, a privilege that had never been granted to the local inhabitants. They had to carry their own drinking water in barrels on donkey-drawn carts. The truth dawned on the inhabitants: they were being driven away and their homes demolished — for other houses to be constructed in their place.

The state, and primarily the town council, failed to convince the inhabitants of the validity of the plan. It also failed to involve the inhabitants in discussing the problem and proposing alternative solutions to safeguard the tourist sites, which are the villagers’ main livelihood.

Instead of waiting for respite from the stifling economic crisis created in the aftermath of the Luxor massacre, which would have showed a modicum of good judgment and respect for the population’s needs, the town council turned into the bear which killed its friend to shoo off the fly. The council, along with antiquities inspectors, promptly mobilised the police, thus creating a full-scale catastrophe.

This event must not pass unheeded. It is one more example of the foolish bureaucratic mentality, distorted by ignorance or malice, which creates so many disasters. Those responsible must be punished.

+++ “Better not ask a policeman” The Economist, Jan. 31,1998 p.46

Egyptians would like their police to be more disciplined, and the state less repressive.

… On Police Day, January 25th, speeches by President Hosni Mubarak and his new interior minister, Habib al-Adli, praised the security forces’ hard discipline and respect for human rights. But these are not traits that come to the average Egyptian’s mind when he thinks of the police.

A better echo of popular impressions comes from an opposition newspaper that is reprinting articles written centuries ago by an Egyptian nationalist, Abdallah Nadim. “Suppose I agree that… it is fine to torture criminals. But why do the police do what they do to ordinary citizens? Why all this violence towards students or workers or farmers or women? People nowadays are terrified to enter a police station.” The implication is that nothing has changed.

Nor is there any sign of the government allowing more political space. The promulgation last week of a new law gives a clue to its thinking. Like a slew of recent legislation, the law is aimed at dismantling obstacles to freer markets, in this case by making it easier to form companies. Well and good, but tacked on to the bill is an item that requires permission from the prime minister (appointed by the president) for anyone who hopes to establish a newspaper. There is no right of appeal against the prime minister’s decision.

Even before the new rule, it was virtually impossible to license a newspaper. If the press looks lively (the airwaves remain a dreary state monopoly),it is because many publishers exploit a loophole that allows them to register their companies abroad while printing in Egypt. Journalists and others believe that the new rule presages measures to end this small freedom. It is only a matter of time, wrote AL-AHRAM’s columnist Salama Ahmed Salama, before there is an attempt to close “the door that is letting in the draught so that the government can feel completely cozy and comfy, even if the draught does bring in fresh air.”

The discrepancy between widening economic freedom and tightening civil liberties has become a common topic in Cairo. But it is in places such as Taraf that the two trends clash. Many of the village’s houses stand on land claimed by the state as archaeological sites. The government has long wanted to remove villagers to make way for tourists. Residents note with bitter irony that while their houses are being torn down, other buildings are going up – including, recently, a police station.

There is a sense of growing danger. Not from Islamist extremists — most Egyptians believe that the Luxor attack was a bloody anomaly in a trend of declining violence. Rather, the danger comes from more general frustration, faced with an unresponsive government.

Long History of Deceptions from Avneri

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-
“… The corruption within the Palestinian Authority… is not widespread.”
“… Should something happen to Arafat, it would be a disaster of national proportions.”
“… Palestinians are not afraid to loudly voice their sharp criticism.”

Uri Avneri, Israeli writer

Washington — One of the reasons the real Israeli left is so demoralized and confused — and has so tragically abdicated to the deceptive left of the Israeli Labor Party better known as “Peace Now” — is the untrustworthiness of many of its key personalities.

Uri Avneri is one of these persons. And as amazing as it might seem in view of the realities of the Arafat regime, the quotes above are translated from a Hebrew column Avneri recently published.

After a start in the Israeli terrorist right-wing underground, Avneri, now in his mid-70s, was one of the first Israelis to begin meeting with the PLO. During the Israeli invasion of Beirut in 1982, Avneri was one of the first Israeli journalists to interview Yasser Arafat.

The basic problem for Avneri has been that the more people have come to know him over the years, the more they have realized how little he could be trusted or believed.

For years Avneri made his money publishing an Israeli equivalent of the National Inquirer — a tabloid, gossip, sex publication that was the first and only of its kind in Israel and sold well. Then when he had had enough of scandal-mongering journalism, the supposedly committed leftist sold his publication to Israeli right- wingers considerably enriching himself in the process. Some even began to wonder if Avneri hadn’t been a kind of mole all along.

Whatever the reasons and motivations for Avneri’s dealings, with this kind of personal background it certainly becomes easier to understand why Avneri gets along so well with Arafat and with the corrupt, self-aggrandizing officials of the “Palestinian Authority”.

Avneri has tried to organize a number of what he has said were pro-Palestinian movements. But non of these have ever had any substantial following in Israel. And his latest ploy, rumored to be funded by Arafat, to boycott products produced by Israeli settlers in the territories, is said to have instead given Israeli right-wingers the very list they need to purchase more of those products.

In recent years Avneri’s efforts have deteriorated to the point where he now seems to border on being little more than a propagandist for Arafat and what in the end is Israel’s armed and funded PA, a puppet regime primarily responsible for policing the “autonomous” Palestinian areas with ever-growing CIA and Shin bet “assistance”.

Avneri writes, among so many other out and out deceptions, that much open debate and democracy has been fostered by the PA! It seems not to matter to him that the best journalists in the world, David Hirst and Robert Fisk among them, have been reporting in detail, story after story, precisely the opposite. It seems not to matter to him that professors and journalists have been arrested and literally tortured by Avneri’s new friends. It seems not to matter to him that one of the leading Palestinian human rights organizations issued a report — ironically about the same time Avneri’s article was published — specifically condemning Arafat for creating the infrastructure of a “Police State” and that Palestinians are looking on in horror and fear.

And yet Avneri continues: “What is most instructive is the fact of the debate itself (among the Palestinians); even high- ranking (PA) officials are not afraid to loudly voice their sharp criticism.”

Whether it is old age, lack of information, nostalgia for the days of his old salacious tabloid, or something more sinister, who can know for sure. Whatever, Avneri’s long history of scandal-mongering and personal aggrandizement seem to be playing themselves out in new ways. And in the end he seems to have done more to discredit the badly confused, divided, and demoralized Israeli left than to lead it.

Slave Trade Fed by Sudan’s Civil War

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

Madhol, Sudan (February 8, 1998 00:19 a.m. EST) — Stacks of money pass from the Christian foreigner to the Muslim trader, an exchange anxiously watched by a 13-year-old girl with diamonds of sweat on her brow.

The Sudanese trader, his lap buried by currency worth $13,200, waves carelessly to free his merchandise — 132 slaves.

Akuac Malong, the young Dinka girl, is among them. She has spent seven years — more than half her life — enslaved by an Arab in northern Sudan.

Her brilliant smile belies the beatings, near-starvation, mutilation and attempted brainwashing she endured. “I thought it would be better to die than to remain a slave,” Akuac says.

Trafficking in humans has resurged with civil war in Africa’s largest and poorest country, said John Eibner of Christian Solidarity International, a humanitarian group that bought Akuac’s freedom.

For all but a decade since Sudan’s independence in 1956, southern rebels, mainly black Christians and followers of tribal religions, have fought for autonomy from the national government in Khartoum, which is dominated by northern Arabs. The southerners believe the north is trying to impose Islam and the Arabic language and to monopolize Sudan’s wealth.

Since the rebellion resumed 14 years ago, fighting, famine and disease have killed an estimated 1.5 million Sudanese — more than died in the genocides and civil wars in Rwanda or Bosnia. More than 3 million people have fled or been forced from their homes.

Much of the fighting on the government side is done by local militias. Unpaid, their bounty is as old as war itself — slaves.

Sudan’s radical Islamic leaders encourage soldiers to take slaves as their compensation, according United Nations investigators and the U.S. State Department.

Young women and children are the most valuable war booty. Eibner said old people are beaten and robbed while young men are killed because they cannot be trained into useful, harmless slaves.

“According to the Khartoum’s regime ideology of jihad, members of this resistant black African community — be they men, women or children — are infidels, and may be arbitrarily killed, enslaved, looted or otherwise abused,” Eibner said.

The Sudanese government denies condoning slavery, insisting the practice persists because holding prisoners for ransom is a tradition rooted in tribal disputes.

No side has a claim on morality in this war. The rebel Sudan People’s Liberation Army has been accused of forcibly inducting teen-age boys into its ragtag army. But the southern blacks do not take Arab prisoners for slaves.

Paul Malong Awan, a regional rebel commander, said enslavement is a government tactic to weaken the morale and military might of the south.

Many of the blacks taken away are Dinkas, a million-member tribe that is the biggest ethnic group in southern Sudan. Dinkas are vulnerable because they predominate in northern Bahr el Ghazal, a region that is close to the front between north and south.

Christian Solidarity International estimates tens of thousands of black slaves are owned by Arabs in northern Sudan. The Swiss-based charity has made more than a dozen risky, clandestine bush flights to southern Sudan to redeem 800 slaves since 1995, most recently in Madhol, 720 miles southwest of Khartoum.

Some criticize its work.

Alex de Waal, of the London-based group African Rights, said that by paying large sums to free slaves, the Swiss charity undercuts Dinkas living in the north who do the same secretive work for a fraction of the cost.

Eibner countered: “There is no evidence to suggest that our work has undermined efforts to redeem abducted women and children. In fact, Dinka elders encourage us to press ahead with our activities.”

Gaspar Biro, a researcher for the U.N. Commission on Human Rights for Sudan, has cited “an alarming increase” in “cases of slavery, servitude, slave trade and forced labor” since February 1994.

“The total passivity of the government can only be regarded as tacit political approval and support of the institution of slavery,” he said.

A U.S. State Department report said accounts it received on the taking of slaves in the south “indicates the direct and general involvement” of Sudan’s army and militias “backed by the government.”

The centuries-old tensions between Arabs and blacks in Sudan are linked to slaving expeditions by Arabs to the upper Nile, a trade that the 19th century explorer David Livingstone called “an open sore on the world.”

Akuac’s mother, Abuong Malong, sobs when she sees her daughter for the first time in seven years. “It’s like she’s been born again.”

She recognizes her only from her straight, square teeth. “She was very small when she was taken, her features have changed, but she came back with the same spirit.”

Recalling that traumatic day, Mrs. Malong says they were fetching water when Arab militiamen on camels and horses thundered into their village, Rumalong. The raiders began shooting at the clusters of mud and wattle huts and rounding up cows and goats.

“I was running with Akuac for the trees when a horseman grabbed her,” Mrs. Malong says. “I was afraid that if I chased the horseman, he would kill me.”

Akuac and her older brother were tied to horsebacks and taken north with more than a dozen others from their village, a short walk southeast of Madhol. The women and older children had to carry the booty of their captors.

In Kordofan, Akuac was sold to an Arab who made her wash clothes, haul water, gather firewood and help with cooking.

She survived on table scraps, and slept in the kitchen. “I was badly treated,” Akuac says.

Her master also tried to make her a Muslim — taking her to mosque and giving her the Arabic name of Fatima.

But Akuac says she maintained her Christian faith, praying and singing hymns in secret and never forgetting her true name. “My name is my name and nobody can change that.”

She does bear scars — in the local Muslim tradition, she was forcibly circumcised with her master’s daughters when she was 11.

“It was very brutal. It is strange to our culture,” Akuac says. “The master told me, ‘If I don’t circumcise you, I will have to kill you because you will still hold the ideas of your people, and you will try to escape.”‘

Her heart is scarred, too. Her older brother, Makol, was killed two years ago at age 13 while trying to escape.

Another returnee, Akec Kwol Kiir, who is in her 40s, says she was repeatedly raped by four soldiers who took her north. She ended up in a camp where slaves were bought and sold. “They treated us like cattle,” she says.

Her Arab master insisted that she, too, be circumcised. She refused, and was brutally slashed. Her ear is notched and her chin and neck scarred.

Kwol finally submitted. “Otherwise, they would have killed me. Because I was a slave, they had the right to do whatever they wanted to me,” she says.

MORE

AP-ES-02-07-98 10:59 EST AM
Slaves in Sudan
1st Add, 0387 Madhol.

Akuac and Kwol have been brought back to Madhol along with 130 other former slaves by a trader who calls himself Ahmed el-Noor Bashir.

Slipping into a cowhide-strung chair beneath a shade tree, the 27-year-old dressed in a fine white cotton robe and a close-fitting embroidered cap denies he rescues slaves for the money.

“To others it may seem 6.6 million Sudanese pounds ($13,200) is a lot of money. But how can you put a price on human life? I do it for humanitarian reasons, not for the money,” he says.

“My father is Arab but my mother is Dinka. When I see my mother’s people are suffering, I must do something.”

But many families among the Dinka, particularly those who also lose cattle and crops to raiders, cannot afford Bashir’s price — five cows or the equivalent of $100 in cash for each slave returned.

He says he rescues slaves by buying some from owners, takes others from wives jealous of their husbands’ concubines, and protects escapees who seek him out.

Though Bashir insists he loses money, he flaunts the Sudanese signs of wealth — on his feet are tasseled, leather loafers, on his wrist a Casio watch, in his hand a shortwave radio.

Eibner says he doesn’t begrudge the trader his money. “If this man is caught, he’s a dead man.”

For that reason, the slave caravan traveled only by the light of a melon slice of moon to reach Madhol.

The three-night walk wearied the 132 freed women and children. Infants of Arab fathers were carried on their raped mother’s backs.

Years of abuse are written in bruises and scars on their long, dust-caked limbs. Some wear tattered rags; others are naked.

Yet Akuac’s joy at freedom beams from her animated face and chocolately eyes. She sings a song of praise for the Sudan People’s Liberation Army and dances with family and friends to the twangs of a homemade, stringed rababa.

The first Sunday after her release, Akuac worships beneath a tree with a crucifix nailed to the trunk. Roman Catholic hymns are sung to the beat of drums and the mewling of infants.

On Monday, she goes to school — but is clearly bewildered as other children practice writing letters in the dirt with sticks and add up four-digit figures.

“I’ll have to catch up,” she says.

Israel’s “Spy” in the White House?

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

Take the word “spy” here in the overall context of the background, role, connections and allegiances of Rahm Emanuel.

He’s been on TV quite abit in the past few days — tasked with convincing the world that Bill Clinton is to be believed in the latest “Zipper-Gate” scandal.

Actually in this second Clinton term Emanuel has gradually come out more and more into public view after so much behind-the-scenes work going back to Clinton’s first Presidential campaign. When Clinton wants to tough- it-out he often now turns to Rahm Emanuel and the many Emanuel can call on his behalf.

These days Emanuel’s title is “Senior Political Adviser” and his office is close by to the Oval Office where he can and does constantly monitor all that’s going on in the Clinton Presidency.

Emanuel’s real role combines money with politics with public relations — he is a rather unique figure in the Clinton “Kosher Kitchen” White House. Most unique of all in fact is that Emanuel is a kind of out-front spy for Israel while primarily serving as Bill Clinton’s main money man.

More so than ever before, money and politics are the heads and the tails of the same coin in the Clinton White House. Both the “show me the money” slogan from last year’s hit movie Jerry McGuire, and the current hit movie “Wag the Dog”, are take-offs on what contemporary Washington politics has truly become in the Clinton era.

Emanuel has essentially made himself indispensable to Clinton because he is the main link to the money, especially the huge sums of American Jewish money that have poured toward Bill Clinton ever since he became their man anointed to take down George Bush.

Very little if anything goes on in the Clinton White House that Emanuel doesn’t know about. And while his super close relations to the Israeli lobby are well known by Democratic insiders, few want to speak on the record about this most sensitive of subjects — the extraordinary power and clout of the Washington Israel/Jewish lobby that totally dominates the Clinton/Gore Presidency.

Dual U.S./Israeli Citizen

Emanuel was a dual Israeli-American citizen until he was 18, he’s now 36. His father was in the right-wing Israeli underground in the 40s, the same group that is rumored to have had ties to the Deir Yassin massacre and possibly to the assassination of U.N. negotiator Count Bernadotte.

Emanuel may have given up his second citizenship (quite possibly for tax reasons some indicate); but he never gave up his dual allegiance. During the 1991 Gulf War Rahm in fact volunteered for the Israeli Army (volunteers were not sent to combat but rather to support jobs).

Israeli Lobby Protege

Emanuel got his feet wet in politics back in 1980, just a year after giving up his Israeli citizenship, as an Israeli/Jewish lobby operative.

There was this mildly pro-PLO Congressman from Springfield, Illinois — Paul Findley — whom the Israeli/Jewish lobby wanted out of there. Emanuel’s first major political and money job was to become the Finance Director for Democrat David Robinson, the man who unseated the long-serving Findley.

Ever since Emanuel has been among the insiders of the Israeli/Jewish lobby, though he has never worked directly for it, unlike the new Assistant Secretary of State for the Middle East, Martin Indyk, and the Special Middle East negotiator, Dennis Ross, both among Emanuel’s close friends, as is CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, also a former lobby official.

Britain’s Gulf War Commander Says Air Strikes Won’t Work Against Iraq

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

LONDON (AP) Britain’s Gulf War commander said today that air strikes alone would not be entirely effective against Iraq.

Using “the rather blunt weapon of a single strike military force… has never worked in history,” retired Gen. Sir Peter de la Billiere told BBC Radio 4.

“You usually have to have balanced forces if you want to achieve a military objective. These will not be balanced forces and are likely to have side effects which will be very unwelcome,” he said.

De la Billiere said he believed the West probably had an idea where Iraqi weapons were being stored, but air strikes would not be fully effective _ and a ground attack was out of the question.

The West does not have the necessary forces in the region and it would take months to put troops in place, he said.

De la Billiere spoke as U.S. and British leaders warned that time was running out for a diplomatic resolution to the standoff over U.N. weapons inspections.

The United States and Britain have aircraft carriers in the Gulf preparing to launch air strikes if necessary. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said today that any attack to open Iraq’s suspected weapon sites would be “significant.”

Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

As released by the Office of the Spokesman U.S. Department of State

Secretary Albright: Well, good afternoon everybody. Before departing for the Gulf, I want to set my meetings with Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat in perspective. Two challenges define my current mission to the region: Our determination to prevent Saddam from threatening the security and stability of the region with weapons of mass destruction, and our commitment to get the Arab-Israeli Peace Process back on track. The threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s continued defiance of the Security Council and obstruction of UN’s weapons inspections is greatest to the peoples of this region. Saddam has used his arsenal against three of the countries I am visiting on this trip: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Israel. Indeed, he has used chemical weapons against his own people. We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction. The chemical weapons Saddam has used and the biological weapons we know he has tested pay no attention to borders and nationalities. They are a threat to Israelis and to Palestinians. They are a threat to Saudis and Kuwaitis. They are a threat to Iranians and a threat even to Iraqis themselves. Weapons of mass destruction kill without discrimination.

Let me say to the people of Israel in no uncertain terms, as I will say to the people of Saudi Arabia and the people of Kuwait: The United States stood with you when Saddam Hussein attacked you six years ago. The United States stands with you in the face of Saddam’s latest threat today. Of course, there may be differences between us about how to pursue Middle East peace, but let me say directly to the Israeli people: Nothing will ever shake the iron- clad commitment of the United States when it comes to the security of Israel. Although Saddam is bent on keeping this region mired in conflict, and stuck in the past, the United States is determined to keep the Middle East focused on the future and moving towards peace. And that is the second purpose of my mission. A week and a half ago, the President — President Clinton met with Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat to lay out his ideas to get Israeli-Palestinian negotiations back on track. He sent me here to elaborate on those ideas, to solicit the reactions of both leaders and to impress upon them the importance of making hard decisions so we can move ahead. At my request, and in an effort to report quickly, Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman have both agreed to send emissaries to Washington late next week to follow up on our discussions this weekend. I understand that the issues involved in the four-point agenda are difficult and complex, and I have no illusions about how challenging these negotiations are. But both parties must remember that the four-point agenda is not an end in itself. Israelis and Palestinians must move to permanent status negotiations in order to ultimately secure a lasting peace.

We have been stalled at this point in the peace process, negotiating the same issues for a long time — frankly, far too long. There is far too much at stake for this to go on. Over the last several years, Arabs and Israelis have concluded extraordinary agreements and established unprecedented ties. The current stalemate which has lasted for more than a year now is eroding those gains and threatening the entire process. There is only one way to avoid further deterioration: both parties must work to restore the lost sense of partnership by taking the hard steps to put the process back on track. It is no longer enough to simply talk about wanting peace; it is time to make the difficult decisions and exercise the leadership necessary to achieve it.

Question: Six years ago the Bush Administration pressured Israel not to respond when thirty-nine scuds fell on Tel Aviv and eleven Israelis were killed. Considering the dicey situation in Iraq is this the time really to be asking Israel to give up territory, territory a small country considers very vital in a very dangerous neighborhood?

Secretary Albright: First of all as I have said in these remarks we believe that one of the major reasons to push back on Saddam is so that he would not be a threat to the countries in the neighborhood, and as I stated, we are committed to helping them in any way that we can if they in some way should be attacked. It is obviously always up to each country to determine its own way of defending itself, but as I’ve said, our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable. I think it’s also very important to understand that we have two highly important problems going on at the same time. The peace process is one in which we have all invested a great deal of time and energy. We believe that it has to go on, that every determination has to be made to move it along, and at the same time it is very important to make clear our determination to thwart Saddam Hussein’s ability to acquire and develop weapons of mass destruction and to threaten his neighbors. So while these problems are both going on simultaneously, we have to deal with them independently and we have to make our views on both known very clearly.

Question: Madam Secretary, given the fact that there’s a belief that lack of progress in the Middle East peace process spills over into our relations in the rest of the region, are you concerned that an apparent lack of progress here at this point will erode support, or will have a negative effect on support in the Gulf for the main part of your mission there, which is to–

Secretary Albright: My purpose on this mission is to explain where we are in terms of our determination to thwart Saddam Hussein in his ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction and threaten his neighbors, and I think that the important part here is for me to explain why in itself that is an important mission, and I am not making any connection between the two.

Question: Madam Secretary, you met with King Hussein on Friday. There have been reports now that his health is not good. Could you give us some idea of how he seemed and whether you detected any change in him, or whether he referred to his health at all.

Secretary Albright: Well, I’m a doctor, but not that kind, and I found him in very good spirits, looking terrific, very relaxed, and we had a very good discussion. I think also that he is a keen and astute observer of what is going on in the region. I appreciated his insight and his views and also his understanding for the approach that we were taking as far as Saddam Hussein was concerned, and very much appreciate a letter that was published today in which he makes clear that he holds Saddam Hussein responsible for the consequences of his actions, and for the failure to abide by Security Council resolutions. So I was just very, very pleased to have the opportunity to meet him and Queen Nur, and they both looked great to me.

Question: Madam Secretary, is the military option which the United States has realistic in terms of (inaudible)? Can it achieve goal of eliminating weapons of mass destruction or..?

Secretary Albright: Well, let me say that we believe that the kind of military action we would take, and let me parenthetically say here, that we continue to prefer the diplomatic route and believe that that is the best solution to it but, if diplomacy runs out we have reserved the right to use force and, if we do so, it will be substantial and it will be directed at what President Clinton stated were the objectives of it, which is to thwart their ability to acquire and develop weapons of mass destruction and to threaten their neighbors. And I must say, in that regard, that if they do, in fact, in some way, threaten their neighbors or do damage to them, our response to that will be swift and forceful and so they should have no doubt about that aspect.

Question: Did Israel request U.S. protective equipment for use in case of chemical or biological attack? And may I ask also, did you receive any good answers from both Israelis and Palestinians today?

Secretary Albright: Well, first of all, we will obviously be in very close consultations with the Israelis in terms of their security needs. I don’t think it is appropriate for me to go into any detail on that but, just to repeat again that our support for Israel, security is unshakable and that we will continue to consult very closely on the whole question here. On did I receive any good answers, I received some answers. I think, I must say that I had hoped that we would get further on this trip than we have but there has been some minimal progress and I appreciate, as I said in my statement, that both leaders have agreed to send envoys to Washington and my sense is that they are doing what President Clinton asked them to do which is to absorb and think about the ideas that he presented and that they are increasingly realizing the fact that they are the ones that have to make the hard decisions, that the United States will be there with ideas and support but they are the ones that have to make the tough decisions and so I am not as satisfied as I wish I could be in terms of the level of answers that I got but we did get some answers and I am glad that the process is continuing in the way that it is.

Question: Madam Secretary, do you think that this visit, your visit now to the region, did you get good answers from your visit or would it remind us of the visit you have done before some months? And something else, do you think this try, this American try, is a try as a peace mediator or it’s a try to have more Arab supporters if the military option will be taken by the United States?

Secretary Albright: Well, first of all, I think I answered the question about what answers I have gotten on the peace process and again, I would just say that I consider my trip here worthwhile for that purpose because it follows up on some very intensive diplomacy that took place this fall in other places and also the meetings that we had in Washington. But, I would have wished that more could have come out of it and we will continue to press and, I wish frankly that, as I said, that there had been more.

In terms of the other subject, let me say that I have been very satisfied with my overall trip in terms of the Iraqi situation. I have now met with Foreign Minister Vedrine, Foreign Minister Primakov, Foreign Minister Cook, and what I have found, is that there is unity in all of those leaders in their belief that Saddam Hussein has to carry out his obligations that the Security Council has laid on him, and that there should be unfettered and unconditional access for the inspectors. I was very pleased with – – obviously Foreign Secretary Cook has been supportive from the very beginning, and is one of the people upon whom — with whom we have a great partnership and work with very closely. I was very pleased of the support that came from Foreign Minister Vedrine who made clear that all options were open. We had some disagreements with Foreign Minsiter Primakov who believes that the chances for diplomacy are better than I do, frankly. But as I’ve already talked about King Hussein’s support, and certainly the support here. What is very hearteneing, is that as I said initially, that every one of those people understand the need for delivering a strong message to Saddam Huseein about unconditional, unfettered access. and, as I also said earlier, the purpose of my trip was to explain the U.S. position, welcome the support of those who would support us, and to make clear what President Clinton said so eloquently in the State of the union message: that we are going to do all we could to thwart Saddam Hussein in his ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction and threaten his neighbors.

Question: Madame Secretary, I wonder if you could tell us how you elvaluate the reports and signs that you’re getting that Iran may be re-thinking its position on the Middle East Peace Process. We understand the Administration may have gotten word through Arafat that Khatemi is a little less hostile to the process than his — some other officials is Iran. And a senior Iranian official in Davos over the last two days apparently has made some statement suggesting that Iran would be more interested in some kind of a dialogue between Iranians and Israelis, and that there may be division on the Middle East Peace Process within the government.

Secretary Albright: Let me say this: I was very interested initially when reports came through about some of the resolutions taken at the OIC meeting in tehran, where Iran was obviously the Chair of the OIC for three years. And I think some important steps were taken there to indicate some support for the Middle East Peace Process, a minimal. And we are following very closely, obviously whatever statements they are making, because as you know, one of the three major problems that we have with Iran, is the we have felt that they have not been helpful with the Middle East Peace Process. So we will follow that. As you also know, President Clinton as part of his Eid message, directed a section to the Iranian people, explaining our respect for their history and culture, and speaking about the importance of having — of excamining the possibility of exchanges and having a cultural dialogue between the peoples. We will have to see again what these various signals mean, and clearly what we have — are witnessing is a discussion of ideas in the Iranian Government. And as we have all said it is intriguing, some of it is encouraging. But again, I think we are going to have to watch this closely and be open in a way as the President was to what we are hearing.

Question: Madam Secretary, did you find Arafat supportive of U.S. goals?… dealing with the stand-off on weapons inspections with Iraq?

Secretary Albright: Well, what Chairman Arafat did was repeat what he said to me in Bern that he believes that Security Council resolutions should be abided by, and he made that very clear again that the resolutions needed to be carried out. I felt that he understood the difficulties posed by what Saddam Hussein was doing and the general problems that it posed for us specifically, but you will have to ask him more directly.

Question: Madam Secretary, I’d like to ask you about oil-for-food. Kobi Anan is presenting today proposals to expand oil-for-food from 2 to 5 billion dollars per semester. I was wondering if you would support an expansion on that scale?

Secretary Albright: First of all let me reiterate that it was the United States who actually initiated the whole concept of oil-for- food, because we have no fight with the Iraqi people and understand their suffering. I think we understand their suffering better than Saddam Hussein does. First of all we wanted the oil-for-food program to be carried out swiftly, and it took Saddam Hussein a year or so to even get the mechanism into place so that the oil- for-food could in fact be carried out. We will be examining Kobi Anan’s suggestions specifically, but in a general way, but I can say that we do support an expansion of the oil-for-food program.

Question: Mrs. Secretary, I’d like to ask how you evaluate the step taken yesterday by the Central Committee of the PLO regarding the Covenant, the Palestinian Covenant?

Secretary Albright: Well, it is my understanding that they have put the issue of the Covenant on an agenda item to be discussed. They have written letters to Prime Minister Blair and President Clinton making clear which articles of the Covenant they consider invalid, and we consider that an important step forward, and I understand this question is going to be on the agenda as an important step in terms of what is being asked of them.

Question: Madam Secretary, as the technical team, evaluation team, arrived to Iraq yesterday and another team for biological team. Why don’t you wait the technical team, evaluation team, of twenty- two members and the second thing as most of the Arab countries do not support a military strike — Egypt, Syria and some Gulf countries — are you worried of more radicalization in the Arab world and more fundamentalism after a U.S. strike against Iraq. Thank you.

Secretary Albright: First of all, I think we are watching to see what the results of the technical evaluation teams are going to be, but the main thing that we are pressing for because that is the structure that has been established is for the UNSCOM inspectors to be able to carry out their work unfettered and in an unconditional way. That is what this is about. I think that we are assessing the situation from the perspective of what we believe needs to be done in order to make sure that countries in the region are not threatened by Saddam Hussein who has had and could have and probably has weapons of mass destruction. As I have mentioned, there are Arab countries that are asthreatened by his weapons as anybody, and therefore we believe that the action that we take if we in fact have to use force would be done to the end of trying to help those countries, and I have said in my initial remarks, weapons of mass destruction know no borders or nationalities, and I think that we believe that if we have to use force, we will be doing it for the correct reasons. But again, let me say, that we are trying to sort this out diplomatically. We all prefer a diplomatic solution, but the window for carrying out that diplomatic solution and the time for it seems to be narrowing.

Thank you.

Saudis Will Not Help in Iraq Attack

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — America’s closest ally in the Persian Gulf — Saudi Arabia — also could be its toughest challenge in building support for a military attack on Iraq.

Saudi resistance, spelled out in comments Sunday by a senior Saudi official, complicates U.S. efforts to get full cooperation from countries in the region at a time when Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was arriving to consult on the stand-off between the United Nations and Iraq.

“Saudi Arabia will not allow any strikes against Iraq, under any circumstances, from its soil or bases in Saudi Arabia, due to the sensitivity of the issue in the Arab and Muslim world,” the Saudi official told The Associated Press, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Even U.N. Security Council approval of an attack would not change the Saudi position, the official said.

The United States has plenty of fighter jets and troops afloat in the Persian Gulf, but it relied heavily on Saudi and Turkish bases during the 1991 Gulf War.

These days, Turkey, too, is reluctant to allow itself to be used as a launching pad. Ankara announced Sunday it would send Foreign Minister Ismail Cem to Baghdad to help negotiate a diplomatic end to the standoff over U.N. weapons inspections.

Iraq has been sparring with U.N. inspectors and the United States over access to suspected weapons sites, and U.S. calls for military strikes have been getting louder in recent weeks.

Bill Richardson, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said Sunday that he has received commitments from two countries to publicly support the United States should it decide to attack Iraq.

“The United States will not be alone,” Richardson said during a world forum in Davos, Switzerland. He refused to identify the countries.

The U.N. inspectors must certify Iraq has destroyed all of its weapons of mass destruction before the U.N. Security Council will lift tough economic sanctions imposed after Iraq invaded neighboring Kuwait in 1990, prompting the Gulf War. The Security Council insists on unfettered access for its inspectors; Iraq contends access to some sites, including presidential palaces, would violate its sovereignty.

Albright explained America’s position Sunday night in talks with the emir of Kuwait, Sheik Jaber al-Ahmed al-Sabah.

State Department spokesman James P. Rubin said Albright told Kuwaiti officials: “The United States stood with you when Saddam Hussein attacked you seven years ago; the United States stands with you in the face of Saddam’s threat today.”

Rubin said Albright believes she has “the 100 percent support” of the government of Kuwait.

She was to consult Monday with leaders of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, then fly Tuesday to Egypt.

The United States has more than 4,000 troops and dozens of warplanes at bases in Saudi Arabia. Saudis, however, have been increasingly uncomfortable about their close ties with Washington since the June 1996 bombing of a U.S. military barracks in eastern Saudi Arabia. Nineteen American servicemen died in the attack, blamed on Muslim extremists.

U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia and Turkey were used extensively during the Gulf War, when an American-led coalition drove Iraq out of Kuwait. But the last U.S. missile strike against Iraq — a 1996 attack to punish President Saddam Hussein for sending troops into a Kurdish “safe haven” in northern Iraq — was launched from U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf.

Today, the United States has more than 24,400 troops aboard two aircraft carriers, the USS George Washington and the USS Nimitz, and their escort ships in the gulf. About half of the 342 warplanes in the gulf also are sea-based.

To many in the Arab world, a military strike on Iraq seems pointless, given that Iraqi citizens already are struggling from the seven years of economic sanctions. There also is distrust of Washington for its unwavering support for Israel.

“All Arabs, with one voice, should say to America, ‘enough,'” said the Al-Ittihad daily in the United Arab Emirates. “If Saddam abused international law once, Israel has done it 100 times.”

Others say an attack on Iraq may be designed to divert attention from the sex scandal surrounding U.S. President Clinton.

“If Clinton’s administration is suffering a crisis because of his involvement in a sex scandal, 20 million Iraqis suffering under seven years of United Nations sanctions should not have to pay,” said the Emirates’ Al-Bayan daily.

There were several calls Sunday from for a non-military solution to the latest stand-off:

  • Iranian President Mohammad Khatami urged the 55-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference to try to resolve Iraq’s dispute with the United Nations peacefully, state-run Iranian radio reported.
  • Egyptian Foreign Minister Amr Moussa told Associated Press Television in Davos that Egypt and other Arab countries were seeking a political solution. “I am not optimistic, but I would say I am hopeful,” he said.
  • Qatar’s Al-Rayah daily called for demonstrations against Albright’s visits to gulf capitals, something unheard of in the conservative region.

“We feel sorry that we haven’t heard of one Arab demonstration greeting Albright with placards carrying the word “no,” the Arabic-language paper said.

Russia, too, is working toward a nonmilitary solution, sending envoy Viktor Posuvalyuk to Baghdad for his second attempt at a negotiating a solution in less than a week.

France said Sunday it will send a top diplomat to Baghdad within 48 hours to “warn Iraq” about the risks it faces by not complying with U.N. weapons inspections.

Barak’s Position that Charter Canceled Firm Despite Singer

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

IMRA interviewed Labor MK Ehud Barak’s spokeswoman, Meirav, in Hebrew, on January 26 and again on January 28, 1998.

January 26:

IMRA: What is MK Barak’s view regarding the changing of the Palestinian Charter?

Meirav: As Ehud said last Saturday, the Charter has been canceled and any step to add and strengthen that is welcome.

IMRA: Former Foreign Ministry Legal Adviser Yoel Singer, who played a pivotal role in negotiating the Oslo agreements, said in an interview on Israel Radio this week that the Palestinians have not changed the Palestinian Charter and that this is in violation of the Interim Agreement and the Ross Note. Does Singer’s statement change Barak’s position that the Charter has already been changed?

Meirav: I’ll get back to you.

January 28:

IMRA: Any news?

Meirav: I think you can stay with what Ehud said last Saturday: the Charter has been canceled and any step to add and strengthen that is welcome.

IMRA: So the fact that Yoel Singer says that it wasn’t canceled does not make an impression on him.

Meirav: He said what he said and he thinks that any steps which will strengthen this is welcome.

IMRA: But the fact that someone who was closely tied with the peace process says that it wasn’t canceled doesn’t change his position.

Meirav: I do not think that you can conclude from this such a general conclusion.

IMRA: When Yoel Singer makes such a statement is he considered suspect?

Meirav: You know what, we can leave it as ‘no response’.

IMRA: I am not arguing with you.

Meirav: Look, I tried to talk to him about this and he told me ‘as far as I am concerned anything which strengthens it is welcome.’

IMRA: But he isn’t ready to tell you if this changes his view.

Meirav: It is not necessary to relate to one matter or another. This is what he said.

Dr. Aaron Lerner,
Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)
P.O.BOX 982 Kfar Sava
Tel: (+972-9) 760-4719
Fax: (+972-9) 741-1645
imra@netvision.net.il

Arafat Gets US Assurances Clinton Says He’ll Push for Israeli Withdrawals

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

WASHINGTON – President Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright promised Yasser Arafat yesterday that they would push Israel to withdraw quickly from more West Bank territory, but they demanded that the Palestinian leader quash terrorist groups and tone down anti-Semitic rhetoric in official publications.

Conceding that the Middle East peace process is moving slowly, Clinton’s aides announced that Albright will need to meet with Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the next few weeks in Europe.

For days, the administration had sought to downplay this week’s separate meetings with Arafat and Netanyahu. Noting that both sides still disagree about land returns, security arrangements, and the final status of Jerusalem, the State Department spokesman, James P. Rubin, said yesterday, “We do not believe that there has been agreement on these various difficult issues.”

Arafat wound up a day of meetings in the White House and the State Department saying he was pleased with the Americans’ attitude and was “not asking for the moon” as he sought West Bank handovers.

Arafat’s canceled tour of the Holocaust Museum is a tale of slights and slip-ups.

Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said Clinton wants Israel to pull out from at least 10 percent of the West Bank in the next stage. That jibes with administration reports that Clinton is seeking a “double-digit” amount. Israel has turned over 37 percent of the West Bank, and a peace accord signed with the Palestinians in 1993 does not specify how much more is to be handed over.

Erekat said Clinton assured his Palestinian guests, “I want a credible and significant redeployment. I want two digits.”

Clinton’s morning meeting in the Oval Office with Arafat lasted just over an hour, like the meeting with Netanyahu. “As long as there is a pressure and efforts by President Clinton, I’m fully confident that the peace process will be protected,” said Arafat.

By the accounts of US officials, this time Clinton and others upbraided Arafat politely but firmly several times during the day for not doing enough to stop terrorism. Spokesman Mike McCurry said, “The president gave the chairman things to think about.”

Ironically, just as Clinton is again getting personally involved in the peace talks, some scholars say he appears to be distracted by the controversy over an alleged affair with a former White House intern.

“What is left of the peace process is shredding, there is a major crisis with Iraq that must be resolved, and what’s the center of attention here?” said Judith S. Yaphe, visiting fellow at the National Defense University. “When you have to spend all your time doing damage control worrying about this latest revelation, I think it makes it very difficult to concentrate on these… issues.”

Netanyahu, who flew back to Israel Wednesday night, was unrepentant about openly courting the Rev. Jerry Falwell, House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and other Clinton foes, who say Israel should defy demands to hand over land to Arabs. In his last speech in Washington, Netanyahu offered a public message to Arafat: “You haven’t done anything, and you ask us to give up additional territory to be bases for terrorism.”

Netanyahu said all the West Bank towns that Israel turned over to the Palestinians have started producing TNT for bombs.

This story ran on page A02 of the Boston Globe on 01/23/98.

Al Ahram on Israel Scene and Peace Process

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

The following are excerpts from articles which appeared in the Egyptian English weekly, Al-Ahram.

A Watershed in Israel
by Mohamed Sid-Ahmed

David Levy’s resignation should not be regarded as one other minister quitting Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition, but as the beginning of the end of an entire Israeli strategy. Much will depend on the Arab parties devising a counter strategy.

… Given the uncertainties surrounding the entire peace process, it is not surprising that radicalism is acquiring the upper hand throughout the region.

… The most dangerous manifestation of the growing radicalisation of the region is the upsurge of terrorism. In Algeria, it has claimed over 1,000 victims since the beginning of Ramadan alone. And, though the body count in the Luxor massacre was nowhere near as high, for Egypt it has set a new record of brutality. Faced with these developments, Washington cannot continue to turn a blind eye to Netanyahu’s provocative behavior, without losing its credibility as an honest broker, not only in Arab eyes but in the eyes of the whole world.

Real Facts on the Ground
by John Whitbeck
an international lawyer, based in both London and Paris,
who writes frequently on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process

Whether or not Mr. Netanyahu likes it, the state of Palestine already exists, and Palestinian statehood is not even an issue in the “permanent status” negotiations which, according to the Declaration of Principles signed in September 1993, must reach an agreement not later than May 1999.

According to the Declaration of Principles, the issues to be covered during “permanent status” negotiations are “Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.” Palestinian statehood is not mentioned, but the reference to “borders” and “other neighbors” would make no sense except in the context of an agreement between states. Israel’s eventual formal acceptance of Palestinian statehood is clearly implicit in the terms of the Declaration of Principles, but, as a matter of international law, Israel’s prior acceptance is not an essential precondition for the state of Palestine to exist.

While extending diplomatic recognition to foreign states lies within the discretion of each sovereign state, there are four customary criteria for sovereign statehood: a defined territory over which sovereignty is not seriously contested by any other state; a permanent population, and willingness of the state to discharge international and treaty obligations; and effective control over the state’s territory and population.

While Israel has never defined its ultimate borders, the state of Palestine has effectively done so. They encompass only that portion of historical Palestine occupied by Israel during the 1967 War. Sovereignty over expanded east Jerusalem is explicitly contested, even though, after three decades, none of the world’s other 192 sovereign states has recognised Israel’s claim to sovereignty. The sovereignty of the state of Palestine over the Gaza Strip and the rest of the West Bank, however, is uncontested.

Israel has never dared even to purport to annex these territories, presumably recognizing that doing so would raise awkward questions about the rights (or lack thereof) of those who live there. Jordan renounced all claims to the West Bank in favor of the Palestinians in July 1988. While Egypt administered the Gaza Strip for 19 years, it never asserted sovereignty over it. Since November 1988, when Palestinian independence and statehood were formally proclaimed, the only state asserting sovereignty over those portions of historical Palestine which Israel conquered in 1967 (aside from expanded east Jerusalem) has been the state of Palestine, recognized as such by 124 other states encompassing the vast majority of humanity.

… Palestinian statehood is not within Israel’s power to grant or deny. The Palestinian state exists. Only once this most fundamental “fact on the ground” is absorbed by Israel — and American — public consciousness will it be possible for meaningful “permanent status” negotiation to begin and for both peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians to be achieved.

Oslo’s Last Chance
by Graham Usher

There is a growing realisation on the part of the Fatah leadership especially that the period of Palestinian concessions in the hope of American action is over. “We understand that the longer the situation stays as it is the weaker and more unpopular the PA will become.” admits Fatah’s West Bank leader, Marwan Barghouti. “The people judge whether the PA or Fatah is weak or strong according to progress on the ground. If the further redeployments happen, this will strengthen Fatah. But the reverse is also true. This means that we must concentrate on the political and internal fronts at the same time. Internally, the priority is to maintain the national dialogue with Hamas and the other opposition parties.

Politically, we must continue our efforts in the international community and with the Israeli peace camp to pressure Netanyahu. We have to put him in a corner.”

The problem is that Fatah and the PA have been trying to do just that for the past year and have gleaned neither redeployments nor a halt to settlement building. In this sense, Arafat may be right when he calls the Washington meetings the “last chance” for Oslo. But Barghouti is less convinced that “a renewed Intifada” would be the outcome should Washington again fail to deliver the goods. “I don’t expect any future resistance would follow the Intifada model”, he says. “It would rather be by guns.”

The Challenge of Israel
by Edward Said

We claim that we want statehood and independence, yet none of the most basic institutions of statehood are in anyone’s mind. There is no basic law where the Palestinian Authority rules today, the result of one man’s whim not to approve such a law, in flagrant defiance of the Legislative Assembly. Our universities are in an appalling state, starved for money, desperately run and administered, filled with professors who struggle to make a living but have not done a stroke of research or independent work in years. We also have a large and impressive group of extremely wealthy businesspersons who have simply not grasped that the essential thing for any people is a massive investment in education, the construction of a national library, and the endowment of the entire university structure as a guarantee that as a people we will have a future.

… It is no use blaming the failures of the current PLO on a few inadequate and corrupt individuals. The fact is that we now have the leadership we deserve, and until we realize that we are being driven further and further from our goal of self-determination and the recovery of our rights by that leadership which so many of us still serve and respect, we will continue to slide downwards.

… We need the support of the Arab intellectual and cultural community which has devoted too much time to slogans about Zionism and imperialism and not enough to helping us fight the battle against our own failures and incompetence. The challenge of Israel is the challenge of our own societies.

1...1,1831,1841,185...1,201Page 1,184 of 1,201

Column from the Director

David Bedein
David Bedein
2478 POSTS6 COMMENTS
Michael Kuttner
Michael Kuttner
431 POSTS0 COMMENTS
Rochel Grosz
Rochel Grosz
1 POSTS1 COMMENTS
daniel
daniel
0 POSTS0 COMMENTS
© A WEBstationONE.com production, partially funded by the Internet Development Fund and the IDF Link technology.

© 2003-2020 All rights reserved. Articles and Special Reports on IsraelBehindTheNews.com are copyrighted. Every reader is welcome to reprint any and all articles, and with citation.