Women’s rights on paper versus in practice

In recent years, the Pakistani government appears to have made strides in protecting women’s rights. Through Article 25 of the Constitution, as well as the 1996 adoption of the UN’s Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the Pakistani government has promised the country’s disenfranchised women food, social security, housing, education, an adequate standard of living and healthcare.

But these policy commitments have rarely been translated into practice, and have failed to change the lives of many Pakistani women.

Instead, these women continue to face incredible hurdles. The most devastating consequence of under-development in any society is a high fatality rate, and Pakistan has higher infant and maternal mortality rates than many developing countries in both Asia and Africa. The rate of preventable maternal mortality is a symptom of the larger social injustice of discrimination against women and a violation of women’s human rights.

Women in Pakistan are victims of some of the most heinous crimes imaginable, including acid throwing and honour killings. For example, in some villages in Pakistan, if a woman tries to marry of her own free will she is said to have brought disgrace upon her family and she may even be murdered. No questions are asked, even though laws exist prohibiting this practice.

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and an endless number of NGOs have been fighting for women’s rights for quite some time now. The United Nations Population Fund estimates that the annual worldwide total of honour killing victims may be as high as 5,000 women, although no official figures are available in Pakistan on the frequency of this practice.

Pakistan recently implemented laws to combat domestic violence, such as the Protection of Women (Criminal Laws Amendment) Act of 2006, but they have done little to bring perpetrators to justice. Naheeda Mehboob Illahi, the deputy attorney general and an expert in family law recently promoted as a Supreme Court judge, has admitted that the laws are not being implemented in their true spirit, which is why in many cases motive is not established and murder is dubbed “an accident”.

While honour killings attract more attention in the media, other social customs are also very detrimental to women. Pait likkhi, literally “written on the stomach”, is one such custom where a girl and boy are betrothed to each other before they are born or in their early teens. Islamic law, in contrast, holds that a husband must be able to support his wife and that both partners must consent to marriage out of their own free will.

Although in 1929, under the tenure of British India, a Child Marriage Restraint Act was passed that prohibits child marriages, tribal customs and traditions still prevail and authorities often ignore these laws because influential feudal lords are involved in the practice.

Swara and vani are also types of child marriages where young girls are forcibly married to members of different clans in order to resolve feuds. Recently, Pakistan’s courts have begun taking serious note of this illegal practice and have attempted to take action against its continuation. But again, those involved tend to be powerful both socially and politically.

Watta satta creates a similar problem. At the time of marriage, both families trade brides. In order for a man to marry off his son, he must also have a daughter to marry off to a member of the bride’s family in return. In this practice, women are treated as saleable commodities rather than human beings.

These practices must stop. The question is when and how. There are two solutions to obstacles facing women in Pakistan, and they must come from both those in power and women themselves.

First, lawmakers need to wake up and acknowledge realities facing Pakistan’s women and take stringent measures to prevent these injustices from occurring. Second, they must make sure the existing laws are fully and properly implemented.

Furthermore, access to all levels of education is crucial for empowering women to participate in the economic, social and political life of their societies. The government needs to put special focus particularly on female education.

Education is the key factor in the prosperity and development of any country. It unlocks a women’s potential, and is accompanied by improvements in the health, nutrition and well being of their families, as well as a brighter and more promising future for generations to come.

By Saba Jamal
Source: Common Ground News Service

Hebron like you've never imagined it

A new way needs to be carved out that will allow Israel to express its nationalism in Hebron without conceding land or creating an apartheid state.

In many ways, the dilemma posed by Hebron embodies the ongoing struggle of Zionism since its inception over the biblical territories of Israel. Hebron, however, presents this dilemma in starker, sharper, and more violent streaks.

The basic argument presented by the settlers in Hebron is entirely justified. More so than Tel Aviv, Raanana, Sderot or Kiryat Shemona, in fact any other city in Israel aside from Jerusalem, the Jewish ties to the city of Hebron are greater and less questionable.. The continuous Jewish presence over the ages, the The Tomb of the Patriarchs, the 1929 Arab assault on the city's Jews and the city's sanctity – all of these render the thought that Jews may no longer live, visit or pray in Hebron unbearable. In the midst of a discourse centred on historical, religious, ethnic and national rights – there is no settlement more legitimate than the Jewish settlement in Hebron.

In the current situation the Jewish presence in Hebron is made possible only by means of violent occupation and harsh discrimination (that may be termed apartheid). The situation in Hebron today is such that basic values of equity, civil and human rights, and the recognition of another nation's historical and national rights are all being denied – an unacceptable and irrational position for anyone with basic moral sensitivities.

The grave mistake of Hebron's Jewish settlers and their supporters is that they are not seeking to resolve this dilemma. Many of them do not even recognise its existence. They only recognise one point of reference for any discussion over Hebron and that is from the ethnic, historical, religious and national rights of one, and only one, side. For this reason they feel justified forging documents (as has been intimated not only in the most recent controversial acquisition of a house in Hebron but also in other cases such as the Shapiro House), committing daily violent acts against Palestinians and assaulting Israeli officials.

To them Palestinians are not entitled to property rights in the Land of Israel and this is the reason a court decision, which would seem just and reasonable any other place in Israel or worldwide, was seen as vicious and scandalous and warranting violent opposition.

Those familiar with the political discourses prevalent among many of the settlers and their affiliated circles such as the Bnei Akiva youth organisation know that they envision an apartheid state in its true form. According to their plans, the Palestinians in Israel (or Hebron for that matter) will be granted residency rights and not citizenship – similar to the legal status of the blacks in Apartheid South Africa or Jews in Germany under the Nurenberg laws. This option seems unacceptable to me as well.

So where can we compromise in order to try and foster a solution to the problem?

Maybe the concept of sovereignty, which lies very much at the heart of the conflict, should be redefined. We know that this concept has been undergoing radical changes in recent years, for example in Europe following the European Union. Maybe we too can bend the concept of sovereignty in our region to suit our needs.

We have become accustomed to viewing only full sovereignty, which is by definition exclusionary, as the realisation of the national rights of the Jewish people and its aspiration for a national home. But perhaps Hebron requires a different kind of national aspiration, one that will not equate national territorial rights with violent and exclusive sovereignty.

A bi-national mode of thinking may be more appropriate for Hebron, one that will recognise both the Jewish and Palestinian claims over the city. Likewise a settlement should recognise some sort of joint sovereignty both on the municipal and national levels. Moreover, perhaps this is the best settlement not only for Hebron but for all of Israel.

Any settlement along these lines will require us to entirely revamp the way we view our relationship with the Palestinians and it will of course need to be outlined through negotiations with them so that it will address their national, historical, religious, and economic needs as well.

Ironically, it seems likely that giving up exclusive and exclusionary sovereignty as a way of realising national rights will be easier than any alternative that will present us with a choice between an apartheid state or conceding valuable parts of Israel and displacing hundreds of Jews from their homes.

By Amos Goldberg
Source: YNet News

The choice of the people

By conducting presidential and parliamentary elections, Palestinians may end the unproductive confrontation between Fatah and Hamas that diverts attention from crucial issues with which they are faced.

The Palestinians should decide how they would like to be governed and by whom, and on what basis they can sue for peace.

President Mahmoud Abbas proposed elections recently, in a bid to end the tug of war between his government in the West Bank and the Hamas government in Gaza.

Despite repeated attempts by Egypt and other Arab and non-Arab intermediaries, the standoff between Abbas and the Hamas leadership continues. Hamas wants elections to be limited to presidential, so that it may keep control over Gaza and not undergo another test through national elections. That is untenable and ineffective. Democracy means the rule of the people, so the people should decide who represents them.

The Arab world should now take a firm position on the issue and decide how to proceed to end the Palestinian squabbling.

The intervention should be more than rhetoric. The Arab capitals, especially those most concerned about the future of the Palestinian territories, must now make their position clear and compelling, since the Palestinians don’t seem able to settle their differences on their own.

It is perhaps time for an extraordinary Arab summit. With Gaza on the brink of starvation and the Israeli blockade continuing unabated and unperturbed by the outcry of the international community, the entire spectrum of Palestinian leadership should put an end to the bickering and deal at least with the Gaza tragedy.

Arab heads of state should not allow Palestinian division to stand in the way of a resolution to the Palestinian conflict. Arab governments can and must endorse Abbas’ proposal for simultaneous presidential and parliamentary elections by the beginning of next year and make it binding on all sides.

The fate of the people should be of topmost interest to the Palestinian leaders, not their obstinate grip on power. If they don’t know that, they should be made to understand.

Source: The Jordan Times.

Start with Syria. A Middle East deal Obama could build on

President-elect Barack Obama will be bombarded with recommendations about how to approach Arab-Israeli peacemaking. One piece of advice he should not take is to make Israeli-Palestinian peace his top priority. There's no deal there. But there is a real opportunity for an Israeli-Syrian agreement, and Obama should go for it.

There are, of course, strong arguments for making Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking a priority. The Palestinians deserve a state of their own, and an Israeli-Palestinian agreement is not just key to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace but to Israel's long-term survival as a Jewish democratic state.

A new president eager to repair America's image abroad may be tempted to try for an agreement, but he should avoid the sirens' call. No conflict-ending agreement is possible now, nor is one likely to be anytime soon, and the stakes are too high for America to harbour illusions that would almost certainly lead to yet another failure. The gaps separating the two sides on the core issues (Jerusalem, borders, refugees and security) remain too wide, the current leaders are too weak to bridge them, and the environment on the ground is too complicated to allow for sustainable negotiations.

In Palestine, dysfunction and confusion reign. The Palestinian national movement is riven with geographic and political divisions between Hamas (itself divided) and Fatah (even more divided). There is little chance of creating a united Palestinian house that can take control of the guns and offer up a viable and unified negotiating position that any Israeli government could accept. Weak leadership and unstable coalition politics prevail in Israel, too. And Israeli settlement activity, which continues unabated, rounds out a nightmarish picture that ought to scare away any smart mediator.

It would be folly to go for broke, given these conditions. The notion that trying and failing is better than not trying at all might be an appropriate rallying cry for a college football coach; it isn't a suitable foreign policy principle for the world's greatest power. The well-intentioned old college try, which was President Bill Clinton's mantra at Camp David in July 2000, reinforced by his advisers, myself included, proved costly. And we had much better conditions in 2000 (if still not the right ones) than the new administration faces.

The more compelling argument is for a major push on another negotiation: between Israel and Syria. Here, there are two states at the table, rather than one state and a dysfunctional national movement. A quiet border, courtesy of Henry Kissinger's 1974 disengagement diplomacy, prevails. And there are fewer settlers on the Golan Heights and no megaton issues such as the status of Jerusalem to blow up the talks. Indeed, the issues are straightforward -- withdrawal, peace, security and water -- and the gaps are clear and ready to be bridged.

For a president looking for a way to buck up America's credibility, an Israeli-Syrian agreement offers a potential bonus. Such a deal would begin to realign the region's architecture in a way that serves broader U.S. interests. The White House would have to be patient. Syria won't walk away from a 30-year relationship with Iran; weaning the Syrians from Iran would have to occur gradually, requiring a major international effort to marshal economic and political support for Damascus. Still, an Israeli-Syrian peace treaty would confront Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran with tough choices and reduced options.

None of this will be easy. An Obama administration, and particularly the new president, would need to be in the middle of things. It would be excruciatingly hard, time-consuming and expensive to satisfy Israel and Syria's economic and security needs, and a final agreement would most likely involve U.S. peacekeepers. More important, the United States would need to push the two sides further than they are now willing to go, on the extent of withdrawal from the Golan Heights in Israel's case, on normalisation and security in Syria's. But with Israeli and Syrian leaders who are serious, and with a new administration ready to be tough, smart and fair in its diplomacy, a deal can be done.

So, Mr. President-elect, go ahead and try to buck up the Israeli-Palestinian cease-fire, train Palestinian security forces, pour economic aid into Gaza and the West Bank, and quietly nurture Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. But don't go for the endgame -- you won't get there. Instead, invest in an Israeli-Syrian peace, and, afterward, you might find, with a historic success under your belt and America again admired for its competence, you will be better positioned to achieve the success you want in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, as well.

By Aaron David Miller
Source: The Washington Post

Share space, defy the wall

Arabs and Jews were separated for decades before the separation wall was built in the West Bank and around Gaza. When former Egyptian president Anwar Sadat travelled to Israel in 1977, he declared before the Knesset (parliament) that such separation can only bring devastation and alienation to Arabs and Jews alike. He came to meet the Israelis in their homes to challenge their fears.

The physical wall between the West Bank and Israel reflects how current political leaders and ideologies have deepened the Israeli-Palestinian moral, mental, physical, economic, and psychological divides. However, history shows that such divides between enemies in neighbouring and interdependent geographical areas fail to bring about genuine peace or stability (e.g. Northern Ireland, South Africa, or Germany).

There are many strategies for reducing the adverse effects of the wall. In my view, the most important approaches will address separation by creating more shared Israeli and Palestinian space.

The wall is tragic for Arab-Jewish relations because it promotes apathy, alienation, detachment, and ignorance in relation to what is happening on the other side—which together form one's own sense of responsibility to the conflict. The wall opens the door for socialising agents – like politicians, preachers and teachers – to sustain images of the enemy as "other," while ignoring the suffering resulting from the physical and mental separation.

The short and long-term remedy to separation imposed by the wall is to mitigate its impacts by meeting face-to-face and constructing more spaces to encounter the other. It is worth investing in shared spaces for meetings, as long as the relationships are symmetrical and balanced, and the participants empowered. Productive shared spaces, such as youth encounters, economic ventures, environmental initiatives, non-violent advocacy and protests, should increase people's capacity to be self-critical and perceive any wrongdoing on their own side, and provide tools and opportunities for participants to apply the lessons learned, and explore alternatives for a shared future (for example, a joint youth project that focuses on the negative impact of the wall with a possibility to engage their respective communities –by arranging visits, sculpturing the wall in their own towns; artists displaying their work against the wall and against separation in schools, etc.)

New shared spaces – from peace encounters and joint development projects, to farmer exchanges and clergy meetings – are a precious opportunity - a resource that needs to be professionally constructed and managed to ensure that its participants are nurtured by the encounter, and empowered to spread the humanising messages within their respective communities. A summer camp for Palestinian and Israeli high school students should be treated as a rare and almost sacred space; the various Arab-Jewish initiatives for peace and dialogue have an historic role to play in creatively constructing more spaces for shared meetings in which the realities of the separation wall are challenged and not perpetuated.

The various walls that politicians have erected between Israelis and Palestinians (symbolic and actual) have forced many into a siege mentality. For Israelis, the siege mentality takes hold when they feel they must calculate every move they make when travelling overseas. It does not help that they are restricted from travelling beyond their immediate borders to neighbouring countries and it prevents them from knowing how Palestinian counterparts think and live.

The Palestinian siege mentality is reinforced by their physical imprisonment by a wall in their own towns, by military checkpoints, and by limited access to the Israeli narrative. In fact, the siege mentality is so strong that many Palestinians are surprised by the acts of solidarity groups in Israel.

These shared spaces are able to demystify the monstrous image of the other, offering the only guarantee that future Palestinian and Israeli generations will not grow in a reality of avoidance and denial, but will instead have the opportunity to re-humanise each other. Israeli youth will no longer be able to say “we did not know;” and Palestinian youth will no longer be able to say “we can't do anything.” They will both say, “we are trying.”

The walls around Gaza should serve as an example of what Palestinians and Israelis can expect in the West Bank if they don't actively seek to transcend their separation: escalating violence and dehumanisation of Gazans and Hamas by the outside world, more internal Palestinian fighting, and continuous threats to Israel's southern borders.

The more Israelis and Palestinians create shared spaces and meetings, the less likely people on both sides will flock behind leaders who propagate radical solutions and preach superiority of one side over the other. Arabs and Jews who are fighting the walls and social separations need to creatively break the fear of living side-by-side by sending a consistent message to their communities. The message should explain that a genuine mutual recognition and implementation of each others’ rights for a sovereign, equal, and independent state are the only security guarantees for both peoples.

By Mohammed Abu-Nimer
Source: Common Ground News Service.

Happy Eid! Joyeux Eid!

كل عام وانتم بخير

عيد اضحى مبارك

Try Tough Love, Hillary

Imagine Ehud Olmert, the outgoing Israeli prime minister, saying this to Barack Obama:

"The United States has been wrong to write Israel a blank check every year; wrong to turn a blind eye to the settlements in the West Bank; wrong not to be more explicit about the need to divide Jerusalem; wrong to equip us with weaponry so sophisticated we now believe military might is the answer to all our problems; and wrong in not helping us reach out to Syria. Your chosen secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, said during the campaign that 'the United States stands with Israel, now and forever.' Well, that's not good enough. You need to stand against us sometimes so we can avoid the curse of eternal militarism."

Perhaps that seems unimaginable. But Olmert has already said something close to this. In a frank September interview with the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth, reprinted this month by The New York Review of Books, the Israeli leader chose to exit with a mea culpa for his country's policies.

Those policies have been encouraged by the Bush administration, whose war on terror was embraced by the Israeli government as a means to frame Israel's confrontation with the Palestinians as part of the same struggle. No matter that Al Qaeda and the Palestinian national movement are distinct. The facile conflation got Bush in lock step with whatever Israel did.

So, by saying Israel has been wrong, Olmert was also saying the United States has been wrong, even if he never mentioned America.

What Olmert, who appears on the verge of indictment for fraud, did say in his "soul searching on behalf of the nation of Israel" was that he had made "mistakes" as a former right-wing hard-liner and that military power will not deliver his 60-year-old country from existential anguish.

"We could contend with any of our enemies or against all our enemies combined and win," Olmert said. "The question that I ask myself is, what happens when we win? First of all, we'd have to pay a painful price. And after we paid the price, what would we say to them? 'Let's talk.' "

Olmert is now convinced of the need to settle with the Palestinians and Syria through giving up parts of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. The fact such views come from a former Likudnik is a measure of how the political ground has shifted in Israel ahead of elections early next year.

I think Olmert's words should be emblazoned on the wall of Hillary Clinton's eighth-floor State Department office: "We must reach an agreement with the Palestinians, meaning a withdrawal from nearly all, if not all, of the territories. Some percentage of these territories would remain in our hands, but we must give the Palestinians the same percentage elsewhere — without this, there will be no peace."

Asked if this included a compromise on Jerusalem, Olmert said, "Including Jerusalem."

He also declared, "I'd like to know if there's a serious person in the state of Israel who believe that we can make peace with the Syrians without, in the end, giving up the Golan Heights." Those words should go up on Clinton's wall, too.

For Olmert, "holding this or that hill" is "worthless" and Israeli generals are deluded in clinging to them.

These ideas will sit uneasily with the pro-Israel constituency that Clinton has dealt with as a Democratic senator for the state of New York. Nobody's been more solidly pro-Israel than she. But to be effective, she must become a tough taskmaster in the name of Olmert's compromises. That is in the best long-term interest of Israel.

Clinton noted during the campaign that the United States could "obliterate" Iran if it launched a nuclear attack on Israel. Olmert chose different language. He noted "a megalomania and a loss of proportion in the things said here about Iran." Once again, his words are instructive.

I am fiercely attached to Israel's security. Everything depends, however, on how that security is viewed. Israel can continue humiliating the Palestinians, flaunting its power with a bully's braggadocio. It will survive that way — and be desperately corroded from within. Neither domination nor demography favors Israel over time.

Its moral authority is already compromised by a 40-year occupation. The Diaspora Jew did not go to Zion to build the Jew among nations.

This is the reality behind Olmert's warning that "we have a window of opportunity — a short amount of time." This is the reality behind his appeal to "designate a final and exact borderline between us and the Palestinians."

For that, Palestinians must also compromise, especially on the right of return, and they must renounce terrorism. Return must essentially mean return to a new and viable Palestinian state.

Getting to such a two-state deal at, or close to, the 1967 borders will require concerted U.S. involvement from day one of the Obama administration. Its tone should be one of tough love, with the emphasis on tough.

By Roger Cohen

Source: New York Times.

Solidarity Meeting for Mumbai

The recent events of Mumbai have left us all in a state of shock. The indiscriminate killing of people by the terrorists - in hotels, at Railway stations and on the roads - were an attack on India, on that very founding idea of India, which has stood, with all its weaknesses, for a multi-religious, multi-cultural and multi-linguistic democracy. Leaving the hows and whys of such acts to be debated tomorrow, let us get together to express our sorrow at the loss of life in Mumbai and to stand for a world of peace, harmony and justice.

It might be appropriate for everyone to bring a candle to light on this occasion in memory of those who died or suffered in Mumbai, and for anyone who has suffered at the hands of a mindless violence.

Indians, India-sympathisers and advocates of a better tomorrow, regardless of their nationality, are requested to assemble at the Parvis des Droits de l’Homme, Place du Trocadéro (Metro: Trocadéro) on Thursday, 4th December 2008 at 6.30 pm.

-------------------- x ----------------------- x ------------------------ x ---------------------------

Les événements récents de Mumbai nous ont laissé en état de choc. Le massacre brutal et sans discrimination, par les terroristes, de dizaines de personnes dans les hôtels, les gares et sur les routes, est une attaque contre l’Inde tout entière, contre l’idée même de la fondation de l’Inde, qui, malgré toutes ses faiblesses, est parvenue à construire une démocratie multi-confessionnelle, multiculturelle et multilinguistique.

En attendant de débattre du pourquoi et du comment de tels actes, rassemblons-nous pour exprimer notre chagrin pour toutes les victimes qui ont perdu la vie à Mumbai et levons-nous pour un monde de paix, d’harmonie et de justice.

Que chacun vienne avec une bougie que nous allumerons, pour cette triste occasion, à la mémoire de ceux qui sont morts ou qui ont été blessés à Mumbai, et de tous ceux qui sont en prise à une violence irrationnelle.

Indiens, amis de l’Inde, vous qui souhaitez un avenir meilleur, quelque soit votre nationalité, venez nombreux sur le Parvis des Droits de l’Homme, Place du Trocadero (metro Trocadero), jeudi 4 décembre 2008, à 18:30.


Pour plus d’information: Fédération des Associations Franco-Indiennes
Tel : 01 42 53 03 12
Email : dassaradan@orange.fr

TOWARDS A SUSTAINABLE PEACEFUL SOLUTION

A CONFERENCE OF LOCAL AND INTERNATIONAL EXPERTS REVIEWING THE PEACE PROCESS: TOWARDS A SUSTAINABLE PEACEFUL SOLUTION
26 -27 November 2008 in Jerusalem


Wednesday, 26th
Place: Hind-Al Husseini College, Shaikh Jarrah Campus - Jerusalem
8:30 – 9:00 Registration
9:00 – 9:30 Opening Remarks: Sari Nusseibeh & Walid Salem
Session One: Where We Stand?
9:30 - 11:30 Chair: Hasan Dweik
• Abdel Salam Almajali
• Samir Abdullah: The Achievements of the Palestinian Government and the Challenges Ahead
• David Kimche
• Ziad Abu Zayyad: Future Prospects and Possible Scenarios
• Luisa Morgantini – Projection of a short video message
Barriers
• Lucy Nusseibeh: Psychological Barriers, and How to Overcome Them?
• Muli Peleg: Barriers for Solving the Israeli Conflict and Ways Out
11:30 – 11:45 Coffee Break
Session Two: Alternative Solutions
11:45 – 13:45 Chair: Hanna Siniora .
• Sari Nusseibeh: Equality Versus Self-Determination
• Ron Ponduk: Why Oslo is Still Relevant?
• Amira Dotan
• David Newman: Demarcating the Borders of Two States: is it Still Possible
• Dan Jacobson: Is UNTAP (United Nations Transitional Administration in Palestine) an option?
• Tony Klug: A Peace-Building Ladder for the Middle East
• Ibrahim Bisharat: Solving a Sixty-Year Old Conflict: an Unconventional
Personal Approach: No More Catch 22 Proposals
• Eyal Erlich: The Hudna Initiative
13:45 – 15:00 Lunch Break
Session Two: Continuation
15:00 – 17:00 Chair: Ziad Abdeen
• Gibril Rojoub: Alternatives to End Occupation
• Alon Liel: We Will Not Miss the Syrian Opportunity
• Hamadeh Faraaneh: Dividing Land or Dividing Authorities
• Elie Podeh: Breaking the deadlock: Pursuing the Multi-Bilateral Approach
• Galia Golan: The Evolution of the Israeli Position on Peace
• Munir Nusseibeh: One State Vs. Two: International Law Perspective
• Izhak Schnell: The Future of the Settlers in the Context of the Gaza experience
• Ofra Lyth: Secularizing Israel as a Necessary First Step Towards Any Solution of the Conflict
• Eric Eggleston & David Kellen: Letting the Dough Rise: Resolving the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict in 2010
Discussion
17:00 – 17:15 Coffee Break
Session Three: The Role of the International Community and the Civil Society
17:15 – 19:15 Chair: Jannie Kuik
• Martijn Dekker: Lessons Learned from Kosovo and Aland Island
• Ofer Bronchtein: Prospects of European Role
• Ilai Alon: The Arab Peace Initiative: Some Linguistics Comments
• Folke Sundman: The Role of Multi-stakeholder Co-operation in International Problem-solving: experiences of the Helsinki Process
• Esra Cuhadar-Gurkaynak, Huseyin Tanriverdi & Osman Usta: Turkish Role -Opportunities and Constraints
• Reiner Bernstein: German and European Policies Concerning the Peace Process.
• Walid Salem: Third Party Involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: a Quest for Peace Building
• Yehudah Paz: The Role of Local and International Civil Society
• Efrat Elron: Peace and Stability Operations in the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Processes: Present and Possible Future Roles in a Lasting Solution
Discussion

Thursday, 27th
Place: Al Quds University – Abu Dis Campus
Session Four: West Bank and Gaza Strip Divide and ways out
9:30 – 11:45 Chair: Ata Qaymari
• Munther Dajani: The Future of PA
• Mkhaimer Abu Sada: Gaza - West Bank: How to Bridge the Divide?
• Ali Abushahla: The Other Negotiations: Hamas and Israel: The Tahdi’a over Gaza Strip
• Sufian Abu Zaida: Non-Violent Ways Out of the Impasse
• Qaddura Faris: One Year Proposal of Stopping both Negotiations and Violence
• Omar Shaban: Emerging from the Present Palestinian Crisis: a Roadmap Towards Exit
• Ido Zelkovitz: Fighting for Hegemony and Building the Right Model for Islam in Gaza and in the West Bank - Fatah vs. Hamas
• Nisreen Shahin: Civil Society Visions for Ways Out
• Esther Riley: Parity for Peace in Israel/Palestine: A Condominium Solution
11:45 – 12:00 Coffee Break
12.00 – 13.30 Closing Session
13.30 – 14.00 Wrap-up – Jannie Kuik, Walid Salem, Munther Dajani, Moshe Maoz
14:00 – 13:00 Tour in the University

The Clash of Civilizations

תנו גם לי לזכור את רבין

ירושלים – בחלוף 13 שנים לרצח ראש ממשלת ישראל בידי רוצח יהודי, היה על הרצח להפוך לקו פרשת-מים מוסרי לאומי, ולהחקק בתודעה של כולנו ככזה. החוויה האישית המטלטלת שחווה כל אחד מאיתנו, אמורה היתה להתפתח לציון דרך לאומי, שכל חלקי העם שותפים לו.

אך מה אנו מציינים היום? ואולי חשוב יותר לשאול: מה יציינו צאצאינו, במלאות 30 או 40 שנה לרצח? מה ראוי שיהיה העיקר: האם זכרו של יצחק רבין האיש? האם הרצח?

כבני דורו האחרים, חי יצחק רבין את ההיסטוריה האינטנסיבית והסוערת של תקומת ישראל, לא כעד שהזדמן לו לחיות בתקופה מרתקת כל-כך, אלא כאחד ממחולליה של ההיסטוריה הזאת. אבל מאז שנרצח יש המבקשים להפוך את רבין עצמו, את רבין האיש, למיתוס. וכמיתוס - הרי אך טבעי הוא שיגויס, ינוכס, וייפרט כל יום מחדש לפרוטות פוליטיות: "מה היה אומר רבין", ו"מה היה עושה רבין", ו"רבין לא היה נותן לזה לקרות", ו"כן היה מפנה" ו"לא היה מפנה", כך עד בלי די. אחרי שנים של ניסיון לכפות עלינו עסקת חבילה של זיכרון ואידיאולוגיה; של מיתוס ומסקנות פוליטיות; נדמה שמותר לתהות בקול: האם כמיתוס מגוייס קנה זכרו של רבין אחיזה בלבבות?

אמת, רבין נרצח בגלל דרכו הפוליטית. בגלל אוסלו. אין לטשטש זאת ואין להשכיח זאת. אבל באותה נשימה צריך להוסיף שאין בכך כדי להעניק משקל-יתר מוסרי לעמדותיו הפוליטיות, שרבים וטובים חלקו עליהן אז, וגם היום ממשיכים לחלוק עליהן בכל תוקף.

במשך השנים מבעבע הרצח בתוך היורה הפוליטית הרותחת: יש התובעים "חזרה בתשובה" פוליטית ואידיאולוגית כתנאי לקבלת הזכות להשתתף בתחושת הסלידה מן הרצח ויש הרואים בתביעה זו המשך הניסיון להטלת אחריות לרצח עצמו, על כל מי שרואה באוסלו אסון; יש המנסים לכפות מורשת "הר כגיגית", ויש הרואים בכך ניסיון לעשיית הון פוליטי. בדרך זו לא יחלפו 20, 30שנה, וכל העניין עלול להישכח.

והמורשת המדוברת? היא לא תותיר חותם גדול יותר ממורשתם (המרשימה, אגב, לא פחות) של מנהיגים פוליטיים אחרים, שהלכו לעולמם כדרך כל בשר, ולא מכדוריו של מתנקש. גם לקחו המוסרי של הלילה ההוא עלול להתפוגג, ובמקום תמרור אזהרה מוסרי תישאר הערת אגב בהיסטוריה היהודית והישראלית. האם זה מה שאנו מאחלים לעצמנו? לדורות הבאים?

עברתי עם רבין כברת דרך פוליטית ארוכה כחבר כנסת. הכרנו עוד שנים רבות קודם לכן, כשהייתי קצין צעיר תחת פיקודו. היינו חלוקים עמוקות בהשקפותינו הפוליטיות, האידיאולוגית מול הפרגמטית, אך יכולנו לשוחח על הכל. על אלטלנה, על האחיזה הישראלית מעבר לקו הירוק, על החלטותיו כשר ביטחון וגם סתם שיחות חולין. הערכתי והוקרתי אותו עוד בחייו, הרבה לפני שנרצח, כפלמ"חניק, כלוחם ללא חת, כרמטכ"ל נערץ וכמי שהטביע חותם עמוק בהיסטוריה הציבורית הישראלית.

הערכתי ועדיין אני מעריך ומוקיר אותו. לא כי נרצח, אלא בגלל אישיותו כמפקד, כפרלמנטר, כמנהיג, כיריב פוליטי, כחבר ואיש שיחה. חלקתי עליו, אך אהבתי אותו.

היום, 13 שנים אחרי שנרצח, אני שבמקום שהרצח יהיה לסמל כלל ישראלי, הוא נותר נחלתו הבלעדית של זרם פוליטי מסוים. היום נדמה שההשתתפות באבל, בזעזוע, בתיעוב כלפי הרצח, היא פרביליגיה השמורה רק לנאמני אוסלו, ואילו את הזיכרון שלי מרבין האיש הדירו כליל.

כמוני יש רבים הרוצים להתאבל ביום הזה על רבין המנהיג; כמוני, יש רבים המבקשים לשוב ולהתחבר אל ההלם והזעזוע שפקד אותנו כחברה וכעם, ולשנן את לקחו של הרצח הנורא. ואולם, שנה אחר שנה, יש מי שמתעקש לקחת מונופול על האבל והזיכרון, ולהשאיר ציבורים שלמים מחוצה לו.

אנו עומדים בפני שוקת שבורה בכל הנוגע ללקחים המוסריים ולערכים שאמורים להיות נחלת הכלל. עלינו לשאול את עצמנו ביושר: מה בעצם אנחנו מציינים במלאות 13 שנים לרצח? מה יציינו ילדינו ומה ראוי שיציינו?

نعم نستطيع، هكذا يقول زعماء الشرق الأوسط لأوبا

عمان – هنأ الزعماء في كافة أنحاء الشرق الأوسط باراك أوباما على نصره التاريخي بعد أن أصبح الرئيس رقم 44 للولايات المتحدة. توقع البعض أن تشكل إدارته فجر سياسة وتوجه جديدين يأتيان بالسلام لمنطقة سادها الاضطراب الكبير أثناء السنوات الثمانية الماضية من رئاسة جورج دبليو بوش.

رحب بعض الزعماء العرب، المتحالفين تقليدياً مع واشنطن، بنصر أوباما تماماً كما كان متوقعاً منهم لو فاز المرشح الجمهوري جون ماكين.

ولكن على المستوى غير الرسمي، كان هناك شعور بالارتياح، مع أنه حَذِر، من أن البيت الأبيض سيستقبل، ولمدة أربع سنوات مقبلة رئيساُ من أصول إفريقية أبرزته حملته الانتخابية طوال 22 شهراً مضت كمُدافع عن السلام والحوار وذو عزيمة على حل الخلافات.

أعطت كلمات أوباما في خطاب النصر دفعة هامة للمتفائلين ذوي الآمال العالية بأنه سيتوجه بأسلوب أكثر إيجابية تجاه بقية العالم، وقد يكون تجاه القضايا العربية.

وقد تعرض أنصار أوباما هؤلاء خلال الشهور الماضية إلى الانتقاد من قبل العديد من العرب المتشائمين الذين اعتقدوا أن أوباما لن يستطيع تغيير ما يعتقدون أنها سياسة أمريكية متأصلة في الشرق الأوسط تميل تجاه إسرائيل.

إلا أن أوباما قدم كلمات مطمئنة ذات علاقة للعالم: "إلى جميع هؤلاء الذين يشاهدوننا الآن من وراء شواطئنا، من البرلمانات والقصور، وهؤلاء المجتمعون حول أجهزة الراديو في زوايا عالمنا المنسيّة: قصصنا تتعلق بنا شخصياً، ولكن مصيرنا مشترك. لقد بزغ فجر جديد في الزعامة الأمريكية".

منذ ساعات يوم الثلاثاء الأولى في المنطقة، التصق الناس بأجهزة التلفزة، بينما عرضت القنوات الإخبارية العربية تغطية حية منذ لحظة افتتاح مراكز الاقتراع إلى أن ألقى المرشحان الأمريكيان خطابي القبول والاعتراف بالهزيمة.

يقول النقاد أن الاهتمام بهذه الانتخابات الأمريكية لم يسبق له مثيل، والفضل في ذلك يعود إلى الضرر الذي تسبب به جورج دبليو بوش وإدارته في المنطقة نتيجة لما يسمى "الحرب على الإرهاب" ومن خلال الضغط على حلفاء الولايات المتحدة العرب للاستسلام لسياساته العسكرية غير المرغوبة.

لقد قال بعض القادة العرب، في رسائل التهنئة التي قدموها لأوباما، أنهم يأملون بأن يقوم الرئيس الديمقراطي المنتخب بالتفاعل الإيجابي في عملية تحقيق حل سلمي للنزاع الفلسطيني الإسرائيلي.

وقد صرح الرئيس المصري حسني مبارك: "نحن بانتظار مشاركتك البناءة باتجاه حل للقضية الفلسطينية وتحقيق سلام عادل وشامل، وهو الشرط الأساسي للأمن والاستقرار في الشرق الأوسط".

كما كرر الرئيس الفلسطيني محمود عباس، الذي أخذ يتعثر عبر مفاوضات سلام مع إسرائيل منذ أن أعاد بوش إطلاقها في أنابوليس السنة الماضية، كرر نفس كلمات مبارك تقريباً إلى أوباما. قال عباس أنه يأمل أن يقوم الرئيس الجديد "بتسريع الجهود لتحقيق السلام، خاصة وأن حل المشكلة الفلسطينية والنزاع العربي الإسرائيلي هو مفتاح السلام العالمي".

بدت إسرائيل أكثر ثقة بأن إدارة أوباما لن تغير سياسة الولايات المتحدة وتقوم بالضغط على الدولة اليهودية لصنع السلام مع الفلسطينيين من خلال وقف النشاطات الاستيطانية وإزالة الحواجز وفي نهاية المطاف الانسحاب من الضفة الغربية.

وقال رئيس الوزراء الإسرائيلي المغادر إيهود أولمرت أنه يتوقع أن تتقوّى الروابط بين أمريكا وإسرائيل نتيجة "للعلاقة الخاصة" بين البلدين.

كما صرحت حماس، الحركة السياسية الفلسطينية التي تسيطر على قطاع غزة والمدرجة على "قائمة الإرهابيين" التي وضعتها الولايات المتحدة، أنها تأمل أن "يتعلم أوباما من أخطاء الإدارة السابقة بما فيها إدارة بوش، التي قامت بتدمير أفغانستان والعراق ولبنان وفلسطين" حسب الناطق باسم حماس، فوزي برهوم.

في تلك الأثناء قالت الحكومة العراقية أنها لا تتوقع أي تغيير في السياسة تحت رئاسة أوباما بحيث يجري سحب سريع للقوات التي يبلغ عددها أكثر من 140,000 جندي أمريكي من العراق، الذي تعرض لغزو قادته الولايات المتحدة عام 2003 في حرب عارضها الرئيس المنتخب الجديد منذ البداية.

إلا أن الصدريين المعادين لأمريكا من الشيعة الذين تدعمهم إيران ويقودهم رجل الدين مقتضى الصدر وجدوا في نصر أوباما "رغبة من الشعب الأمريكي بسحب قواته من العراق"، حسب مطالب هذه المجموعة.

كما رحب السياسيون الإيرانيون بانتخاب أوباما على أنه تطور إيجابي وقالوا أن نصره ضد ماكين يعكس تعبيراً عن فشل سياسات الرئيس بوش الخارجية وهزائمها. وهم يأملون أن تتعلم الإدارة المقبلة من أخطاء الحكومة المغادرة في واشنطن.

على المستوى الرسمي سوف تنتظر طهران لترى إذا كانت سياسة أوباما الخارجية تختلف عن توجه بوش العدائي تجاه إيران. إلا أن التقارير من طهران تشير إلى تفاؤل حذر من أن أوباما سوف يحقق دعوته لحوار مع إيران لحل الجمود في المحادثات النووية مع الغرب، وربما تميهد الطريق نحو إعادة العلاقات التي انقطعت بين الدولتين منذ بدء الثورة الإسلامية عام 1979.

وأعربت سوريا، التي وضعتها إدارة الرئيس بوش على القائمة السوداء "كراعية للإرهاب" عن أملها بأن "يساعد انتخاب أوباما على تغيير سياسة الولايات المتحدة من سياسة الحروب والعقوبات والمقاطعات إلى سياسة الدبلوماسية والحوار"، حسب قول وزير الإعلام السوري محسن بلال.

وفي أفغانستان ناشد الرئيس حميد كرازاي الإدارة القادمة في واشنطن أن تغيّر إستراتيجيتها في ما يسمى "الحرب على الإرهاب"، قائلاً أنه "لا يمكن خوض هذه الحرب في القرى الأفغانية ... وإنما يجب توجيهها إلى أوكار ]الإرهابيين[ ومراكز تدريبهم". وقد حث كرازاي أوباما على وضع حد لتساقط الضحايا المدنيين في أفغانستان، حيث يُحارب 70,000 من جنود حلف الناتو بقيادة الولايات المتحدة دون نجاح قوات الطالبان وغيرهم من المتمردين المسلمين.

“Yes we can”, dit le Moyen-Orient à Obama

Amman – A travers le Moyen-Orient, les dirigeants politiques ont félicité Barack Obama de sa victoire électorale historique à la fonction de 44e président des Etats-Unis. Pour de nombreux observateurs, son nouveau gouvernement allait introduire une politique nouvelle, une démarche nouvelle qui apporterait la paix à une région plongée dans les turbulences les plus graves pendant les huit années de la présidence de George W. Bush.

Certains dirigeants arabes traditionnellement alignés sur Washington ont célébré la victoire d’Obama, tout comme ils auraient célébré celle du candidat républicain si John McCain avait gagné.

Mais au niveau de l’opinion publique, c’est un sentiment de soulagement, certes teinté de circonspection, qui a prévalu: pendant les quatre années à venir, la Maison Blanche sera habitée par un président afro-américain qui s’est présenté, au cours d’une campagne de 22 mois comme un partisan de la paix et du dialogue et bien décidé à résoudre les conflits.

Dans son discours de victoire, Obama a donné de nombreux gages aux optimistes qui espèrent qu’il portera un regard plus favorable sur le reste du monde et même peut-être sur les causes arabes.

Depuis quelques mois, ces partisans d’Obama sont l’objet de critiques de la part des têtes pensantes arabes qui, sceptiques, sont persuadées qu’Obama ne changera pas la politique bien enracinée des Etats-Unis en faveur d’Israël.

Mais Israël a su prononcer les mots qui rassurent: “A tous ceux qui nous regardent ce soir au-delà de nos frontières, de leurs palais et de leurs parlements, à tous ceux qui se pressent autour d’un transistor dans les coins les plus reculés de la planète, je dis ceci: nos histoires sont singulières, mais nos destins sont partagés.

Une nouvelle aube de leadership américain se lève aujourd’hui.”

Dans toute la région, les gens étaient collés à leurs postes depuis les petites heures du matin. Les chaînes de télévision arabes populaires ont couvert l’événement en direct depuis l’ouverture du scrutin jusqu’à ce que les deux candidats prononcent leurs discours, l’un de concession, l’autre de victoire.

Les grincheux affirment que le succès sans précédent de cette consultation est dû aux désastres incommensurables que George W. Bush et son gouvernement ont causés par leur prétendue ”guerre contre la terreur” et en contraignant les alliés arabes des Etats-Unis à se soumettre à leur politique militariste impopulaire.

Dans leurs messages de félicitation à Obama, certains responsables arabes exprimaient leur espoir de voir le président-élu démocrate s’atteler dans un esprit positif à la recherche d’une solution pacifique au conflit israélo-palestinien.

Le Président égyptien Hosni Moubarak a déclaré: “Nous attendons de vous une participation constructive à la solution de la question de la Palestine et à la réalisation d’une paix juste et totale, préalable indispensable à la sécurité et à la stabilisé au Proche-Orient.”

Le Président palestinien Mahmoud Abbas, qui ne parvient pas à conclure ses négociations de paix avec Israël depuis que Bush les a relancées à Annapolis voici un an, a repris presque mot pour mot les propos de M. Moubarak, exprimant son espoir que le nouveau président “accélèrera les efforts pour parvenir à la paix, surtout parce que de la résolution du conflit arabo-israélien dépend la paix mondiale”.

De son côté, Israël semble assuré qu’une administration Obama ne va pas changer la politique américaine, que rien ne sera fait pour pousser l’état juif à faire la paix avec les Palestiniens en mettant un terme à ses activités de colonisation, en éliminant les contrôles routiers et, au bout du compte, en se retirant de la Cisjordanie.

Le Premier ministre israélien sortant, Ehud Olmert, a déclaré qu’il s’attend à un renforcement des rapports entre son pays et les Etats-Unis, en raison des “liens spéciaux” qui unissent les deux Etats.

Hamas, le mouvement politique islamique palestinien qui gouverne la bande de Gaza et qui figure sur la liste des “terroristes” recherchés par les Etats-Unis, a déclaré qu’il souhaite qu’Obama “tire les leçons des erreurs commises par les administrations précédentes, à commencer par celles de Bush, qui ont détruit l’Afghanistan, l’Irak, le Liban et la Palestine”, selon les termes de Fawzi Barhoum, porte-parole du mouvement.

Pour sa part, le gouvernement irakien dit n’attendre du gouvernement Israël aucun changement d’orientation qui se traduirait par un retrait rapide des 140.000 militaires et plus présents dans le pays depuis l’invasion conduite par les Etats-Unis en 2003 et à laquelle le président-élu s’était opposé dès le départ.

En Irak toujours, les “sadristes”, ces partisans anti-américains du religieux chiite Moqtada Sadr, voient dans la victoire d’Obama “le désir du peuple américain de voir son armée se retirer d’Irak”, conformément aux exigences exprimées depuis toujours par ce mouvement.

Les milieux politiques iraniens eux aussi ont favorablement réagi à l’élection d’Obama, déclarant que sa victoire sur M. McCain et la conséquence de la faillite et des défaites de la politique étrangère de M. Bush.

Ils souhaitent que le nouveau gouvernement tire les leçons des erreurs commises par le précédent.

Au niveau officiel, Téhéran joue la montre, attendant de voir si la politique étrangère de M. Obama se démarquera de l’attitude hostile du gouvernement Bush à l’égard de l’Iran.

Les dépêches de Téhéran prédisent toutefois avec un optimisme prudent que Barack Obama tiendra sa promesse d’un dialogue avec l’Iran pour sortir du bras de fer nucléaire avec l’Occident, voire pour rétablir les liens qui avaient été coupés depuis la révolution islamique de 1979.

Quant à la Syrie, qui figure sur la liste noire de Bush en tant que “courtier du terrorisme”, elle espère que le nouveau venu saura “remplacer la politique de guerre et de blocus des Etats-Unis par la diplomatie et le dialogue”, selon les propos de Mohsen Bilal, ministre de l’information.

En Afghanistan, enfin, le Président Hamid Karzaï a invité les nouveaux dirigeants de Washington à changer de stratégie dans leur prétendue “guerre contre la terreur”, affirmant qu’elle n’a pas sa place dans les villages afghans…mais qu’elle doit être dirigée contre les nids et centres de formation de terroristes”.

M. Karzaï adjure Barack Obama de mettre fin aux pertes civiles dans ce pays où 70.000 soldats de l’Otan s’efforcent en vain de réduire à merci les Talibans et l’insurrection armée.

Source: Middle East Times, 5 novembre 2008, www.metimes.com

Yes we can, Middle East leaders tell Obama

Amman - Leaders across the Middle East congratulated Barack Obama on his historic election victory as the 44th president of the United States. Many anticipated that his administration would usher in a fresh new policy and approach that would bring peace to a region plunged into great turbulence during the past eight years of the George W. Bush presidency.

Some Arab leaders, who are traditionally allied with Washington, welcomed Obama’s victory, just as they had been expected to do had Republican candidate John McCain won.

But on an unofficial level, there was a sense of relief – albeit cautious – that the White House will, for the next four years, host an African-American president whose 22-month campaign showed him as an advocate of peace and dialogue with a will to resolve conflicts.

Obama’s words in his victory speech gave a significant push to the optimists who had high hopes that he will look more favourably toward the rest of the world and perhaps Arab causes.

These Obama supporters have in recent months come under criticism by the many sceptical Arab talking heads who believed Obama would not bring change to what they say is a deeply-rooted US Middle East policy leaning toward Israel.

But Obama provided relevant assuring words to the world: “All those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces, to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of our world: our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared. A new dawn of American leadership is at hand.”

From the early hours of Tuesday in the region, people were glued to their television sets as popular Arab news channels offered live coverage from the moment the polls opened until the two American candidates gave their victory and concession speeches.

Critics say the interest in this US election was unprecedented, thanks to the unparalleled damage that the George W. Bush administration brought to the region as a result of the so-called “war on terror” and by pressurising the United States’ Arab allies into submitting to his unpopular militaristic policies.

In their congratulatory messages to Obama, some Arab leaders said they hope the Democratic president-elect would engage positively in bringing a peaceful solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said: “We await your constructive participation toward a solution to the Palestinian question and the realisation of a just and comprehensive peace, which is the main condition for security and stability in the Middle East.”

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who has been stumbling through peace negotiations with Israel since Bush re-launched them at Annapolis a year ago, almost echoed Mubarak’s words to Obama.

Abbas said he hoped the new president would “speed up efforts to achieve peace, particularly since a resolution of the Palestinian problem and the Arab-Israeli conflict is key to world peace.”

Israel seemed more confident that an Obama administration would not change US policy and apply pressure on the Jewish state to make peace with the Palestinians by stopping the settlement activities, removing roadblocks and ultimately withdrawing from the West Bank.

Outgoing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said he expected US-Israeli ties to become stronger, because of the “special relationship” between the two countries.

Hamas, the Islamic Palestinian political movement that rules the Gaza Strip and is on the United States’ “terrorist list”, said it hopes Obama will “learn from the mistakes of the previous administrations, including those of Bush, which have destroyed Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine”, according to Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum.

The Iraqi government, meanwhile, said it did not expect any policy change under Obama that would see a quick withdrawal of more than 140,000 US troops from the country, invaded by US-led forces in 2003 in a war that the newly-elected president had opposed from the outset.

But the anti-American “Sadrists”, followers of Iranian-backed Shi’a cleric Moqtada Sadr, saw in Obama’s victory a “wish of the American public to withdraw forces from Iraq”, in line with this group’s demands.

Iranian politicians also welcomed Obama’s election as a positive development, saying his win against McCain reflects an expression of the failures and defeats of Bush’s foreign policies.

They hope that the next administration will learn from the mistakes of the outgoing government in Washington.

On an official level, Tehran will wait and see if Obama’s foreign policy will be different from Bush’s hostile approach toward Iran. But reports from Tehran indicate cautious optimism that Obama will make good on his call for dialogue with Iran to resolve the nuclear standoff with the West, and perhaps pave the way for restoring ties that have been severed between the two since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Syria, which the Bush administration had blacklisted as a “sponsor of terrorism”, hoped Obama’s election will “help change US policy from one of wars and embargos to one of diplomacy and dialogue”, according to Syrian Information Minister Mohsen Bilal.

In Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai called on the next administration in Washington to change its strategy in the so-called “war on terror”, saying it “cannot be fought in Afghan villages…but should be directed to [terrorist] nests and training centres.”

Karzai urged Obama to end civilian casualties in Afghanistan, where 70,000 US-led NATO forces have been unsuccessfully battling the Taliban and other armed insurgents.


Source: Middle East Times, 5 November 2008, www.metimes.com

Barack Obama wins US Presidential Elections

The International Forum for Peace would like to congratulate Barack Obama on winning the US presidential elections. We hope that the new US President will help pave the way for peace in the Middle east and in the world.

Le retour de la bataille idéologique

Notre conviction, c’est que la bataille pour un nouveau modèle de société a commencé. Elle va marquer, en France, en Europe, dans le monde, la période qui s’ouvre.

Nous sortons, en France, d’une longue paix idéologique. Elle scellait la victoire des valeurs de gauche.

La France a vécu, depuis 1945, sur un compromis « social-démocrate » : un modèle de développement fondé sur l’Etat-providence, caractérisé par un cercle vertueux entre prospérité et justice sociale, croissance et redistribution, marché et Etat. La gauche, avec le gaullisme social, avait promu ce modèle égalitaire après-guerre. La droite avait accepté d’accompagner ces évolutions, moteurs d’une prospérité inédite sous les Trente Glorieuses.

Ce compromis social-démocrate n’était pas une spécificité française : l’économie sociale de marché, le Welfare State, caractérisent le modèle européen d’après-guerre. Le niveau de prélèvements obligatoires, symbole de l’effort redistribution d’un pays, témoigne de cette cohérence du modèle européen : la moyenne européenne des prélèvements obligatoires s’élève à 42% du PIB, contre 28% au Japon, 23% aux Etats-Unis, moins de 20% dans les pays en développement. Il y a certes des différences importantes en Europe mais même les Etats européens les moins redistributeurs (Irlande, Royaume Uni) se situent dix points au-dessus des autres pays occidentaux.

Avec la crise contemporaine de l’Etat-providence, le compromis idéologique social-démocrate a volé en éclats. La crise a une origine simple : les instruments de l’Etat-providence du 20ème siècle s’avèrent inadaptés dans le monde du 21ème ; le cercle vertueux s’est transformé en cercle vicieux – la faiblesse de la croissance asphyxie l’Etat-providence, la redistribution handicape la compétitivité économique et affaiblit la croissance.

Désormais, la droite est à l’offensive. Elle a longtemps hésité. C’est fini. La droite revendique « la réforme », « le changement » : la fin du pacte social historique. Si la France veut retrouver - « libérer » - la croissance, elle doit accepter de réduire son Etat-providence et de limiter la redistribution. La droite propose ainsi une offre politique structurée, autour d’un modèle libéral traditionnel, qu’elle théorise progressivement, au-delà des hésitations doctrinales du sarkozysme.

Face à cette offensive, la gauche n’a pas encore d’offre politique alternative. Elle oscille entre deux écueils.

Le premier est le conservatisme. La gauche peut être tentée par l’immobilisme, la défense du modèle d’hier. Elle a du mal à faire le deuil du modèle historique qu’elle a contribué à créer. Elle risque alors de s’enfermer dans la protestation.

Le second écueil est le renoncement idéologique. Dans l’incapacité de formuler une offre politique alternative, la gauche laisserait filer le curseur idéologique vers la droite. Le nouveau compromis national deviendrait un compromis libéral. La gauche pourrait encore espérer la victoire politique, mais au prix de sa défaite idéologique, cantonnant son action à l’accompagnement social d’un modèle qui n’est plus le sien. Ce renoncement est une tentation dans nombre de partis sociaux-démocrates européens, notamment avec le SPD allemand, et plus encore en Autriche et aux Pays-Bas.

La gauche progressiste doit au contraire chercher la voie de la refondation idéologique, le chemin vers une « seconde fondation sociale-démocrate ».

Elle en a les moyens. Le matériau est là, désormais. Le diagnostic intellectuel s’est enrichi. Les expérimentations européennes se développent, notamment dans les social-démocraties nordiques. Les initiatives locales se multiplient. Le travail qui reste à accomplir est de convertir ce matériau en solutions programmatiques et de penser un projet global.

Elle est attendue. En France comme en Europe, les citoyens continuent de plébisciter les valeurs progressistes – égalité, solidarité, lutte contre les injustices. L’ancrage social-démocrate est toujours là.

Mais la bataille idéologique à venir n’aura pas lieu qu’en Europe. Aux Etats-Unis aussi, il est probable qu’elle s’ouvre. Les Etats-Unis ont également vécu sur un compromis idéologique de long terme, autour du modèle libéral anglo-saxon. La crise financière actuelle en sape brutalement les fondements : nationalisations, régulations, interventionnisme étatique sont à l’ordre du jour. Cette crise remettra-t-elle en cause le compromis libéral américain au profit d’un modèle progressiste ? Peut-il lui aussi se renouveler sur des bases modernisées ? Ce sera sans doute aussi l’enjeu de la période qui s’ouvre.

Les tensions idéologiques devraient également se réveiller dans les pays émergents, singulièrement en Chine. Le modèle de développement de ces pays est fondé sur la compétitivité-prix sur les marchés étrangers. Il repose par construction sur le maintien de bas coûts de production – salaires et charges sociales notamment. Avec la montée en puissance économique, la bataille autour de la répartition de la valeur ajoutée est appelée à s’intensifier. La pression des travailleurs s’accroît rapidement– même si les institutions non-démocratiques de la plupart de ces pays freinent cette évolution. Un autre modèle de développement, plus progressiste, pourrait en résulter.

Europe, Etats-Unis, Chine : partout, le modèle de développement d’hier est remis en cause ou est appelé à l’être. De nouveaux modèles devraient émerger et s’affronter. Et, au-delà des modèles nationaux, il faudra aussi inventer un modèle de gouvernance mondiale. Les enjeux de demain sont avant tout des enjeux globaux : finances, énergie, environnement, eau, migrations, prolifération... Aucune gouvernance capable de faire face à ces défis n’est aujourd’hui en place.

La bataille idéologique va s’ouvrir. Elle va concerner le modèle de développement de nos territoires et l’organisation de la planète. Il est urgent que les progressistes entrent dans l’arène.

Ecrit par Olivier Ferrand, Michel Rocard et Eric Maurin.

Martti Ahtisaari wins Nobel Peace Prize

This year's Nobel Peace Prize has been won by peace negotiator Martti Ahtisaari, the Nobel Foundation has announced in Norway's capital, Oslo.

Finland's ex-president has been a UN mediator on Kosovo, helped end the conflict in Indonesia's Aceh province and aided Namibia's independence.

Mr Ahtisaari told Norwegian broadcaster NRK he was "very pleased and grateful" to receive the award.

The laureate wins a gold medal, diploma and 10m Swedish kronor ($1.4m).

The winners were chosen by a secretive five-member Norwegian awards committee from 197 nominations this year.

Namibian agreement

The Nobel committee commended Mr Ahtisaari, 71, "for his important efforts, on several continents and over more than three decades, to resolve international conflicts".

The citation continued: "He has figured prominently in endeavours to resolve several serious and long-lasting conflicts," mentioning his roles in Namibia, Aceh, Kosovo and Iraq.

"He has also made constructive contributions to the resolution of conflicts in Northern Ireland, in Central Asia and on the Horn of Africa," it said.

The committee's Ole Danbolt Mjoes said: "These efforts have contributed to a more peaceful world and to 'fraternity between nations' in Alfred Nobel's spirit."

Mr Ahtisaari, who served as Finnish president from 1994-2000, told NRK he thought his biggest achievement was in Namibia.

"It was absolutely the most important because it took such a long time," he said.

Mr Ahtisaari helped supervise the move to independence from South Africa in the late 70s and supervised framing free and fair elections. Namibia made him an honorary citizen.

Mr Ahtisaari said he hoped the prize money would help finance the organisations he chaired.

"It's very important to be able to act properly, you need financing and you never have enough."

Mr Ahtisaari will receive the prize in Oslo on 10 December, the anniversary of the death in 1896 of the awards' founder, Swedish inventor Alfred Nobel.

In keeping with tradition, no candidates were named ahead of Friday's announcement.

But those said to be in the frame included Zimbabwean politician Morgan Tsvangirai and freed French-Colombian politician Ingrid Betancourt.

Chinese dissidents Hu Jia and Gao Zhisheng were also leading contenders, prompting Beijing to issue a veiled warning that the prize should go to the "right person".

Source: BBC News.

Israeli Jews and Arabs find hope in microfinance fund by Karin Kloosterman

JERUSALEM – The cost of housing in Israel's capital city Jerusalem is soaring, the disparity between rich and poor is growing wider, while the trust between Arabs and Jews remains thin.

The issue of poverty is especially dire for Jerusalem's poorer Orthodox Jews and religious Muslims during the holiday season.

Like in America during Thanksgiving and Christmas time, it's easy to see in Israel how the poor suffer during holiday time. There are reports of food insecurity in the local newspapers and food banks beg for donations. Charitable acts take on a deeper meaning for those that have the means to give—and they do give. What about the rest of the year?

In the Jewish religion, the highest form of charity is helping a person earn his or her own living. Following this age-old tradition, and merging it to complement Muslim laws in charitable giving, is a new NGO – the Jerusalem Interest-free Microfinance Fund (JIMF) – which has initiated a scheme to give interest-free loans to help Jerusalem's poor start their own businesses.

Borrowing models from the laws in both religions – including prohibitions to accept interest-based loans – the JIMF, founded by two UK citizens, follows a worldwide trend of microfinancing, especially in the area of the environment.

Breaking barriers of suspicion
In Jerusalem, new opportunities for building businesses can break down barriers of suspicion between Israeli Arabs and Jews, reduce religious fanaticism and lead to a more prosperous city and region for all, believe JIMF founders Donald Franklin and his partner Michael Pollak. They also hope it will break down barriers in philanthropy where each faith tends to support its own.

The JIMF could lead to change, since both Jews and Muslims everywhere are bound to give a percentage of their earnings to those less fortunate. It's called tzdaka in Judaism and zakat in Islam: "We want to comply with halacha (Jewish) and Sharia (Islamic) law," says Franklin, an economist in the UK, who notes that both words come from the same root, meaning path or way.

He tells ISRAEL21c, "I was anxious to find a way of extending contact [between Islam and Judaism] which was more constructive."

The JIMF is also advised by Fiyaz Mughal and Jafar Sabbah, who are helping decide among other things, which of the would-be entrepreneurs in Jerusalem will receive some of the $200,000 in financing the NGO has already collected. Part of the JIMF's service will be business training to the borrower, giving the loan extra value, while loan re-payment will be enforced by either the Jewish courts – the Beit Din – or the by the elders in the Muslim communities, depending on the recipient.

If the model works, Franklin is hoping that similar micro-loan initiatives can extend throughout the region, maybe even in the Palestinian Authority – where the Al Rafah Microfinancing Bank is set up – but unable currently to provide loans, he says.

###

* Karin Kloosterman is a Canadian-Israeli freelance journalist. She lives in Tel Aviv. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission from Israel21c.

Source: Israel21c, 2 October 2008