I was in Gaza in 2001 and with Yasser Arafat when news of the first plane hitting the world tower came in. It was of course September 11 and world attention became focused on that. But I also recall an aid coming in to tell Abu Amar that there was an incursion by the Israelis into a village. To my shame I don’t recall the villages name or what happened.
I had arrived in Gaza only 11 days before. My father was being held hostage by Arafat and most of my energy was focused on getting him released but very quickly I was deeply immersed into Gaza life. I quickly acclimatised to the regular Israeli scud missiles that were referred to missions to hunt down ‘terrorists’ and innocent civilians that were killed were dismissed as ‘collateral damage’.
My initial fear of the helicopters hovering above and the fighter planes whizzing by soon gave way to acceptance at this way of life, controlled to all intents and purposes by Israel. We knew the borders were open when there was lettuce and the Herald Tribune newspaper.
On any given day plans were abandoned by Gazzans to travel, go shopping or visit family and friends. You couldn’t make any plans. Every day every hour every minute was governed by some sort of action by Israel, whether it was the lack of electricity or borders closed.
Over time my admiration and respect for the Gazzans grew as I witnessed the daily struggle for survival. Yet everyone seemed to have time for me and my father’s plight. In spite of their own problems the people of Gaza were kind and extraordinary generous sharing the little they had. It was then I fell in love with Gaza and the people of Gaza and I made a promise to myself that I would go back and do something.
Circumstances to date didn’t give me the opportunity to pursue that dream. I kept in touch with most people, by phone and by email. A link was maintained and I shared with my friends their news. It wasn’t always regular but news got through, deaths births marriages. Some of the people that I became close to had different political ideologies to mine, different approaches as to how Palestinian statehood should be achieved, but one thing that was very clear and stuck a resonance with me, is that in spite of political differences there was a genuine desire to listen to the opposing argument.
I recall the days I spent arguing, debating, discussing, fighting with what the West would term as ‘militant’ men. These discussions would go on for hours, as this was the period of America’s ‘War on Terror’. I learnt so many things. Having been educated and brought up in England, freedom of speech, civil rights, lack of fear were an inherent part of my life. If I wanted to criticise the British Government, the media, MP’s I could without fear of repercussions.
Working in the media I also knew of how the media functioned from both a commercial and political perspective. Lobbyist Public relations company’s organizations would regularly try to get their story across. Everyone had an agenda but ultimately the media was independent.
This was not the case in the Arab world or Palestine. Criticism of the leadership could result in closure of the paper or arrest of the journalist. The rule of law was arbitrary and social rights and benefits were sporadic and relied on who you knew. The point I am getting at is that I began to understand that it’s a diffcult concept for someone to grasp civil rights or liberties, freedom of speech rule of law and just general freedom if they have been in the first instance brought up under occupation and in the second under a leadership that had failed to deliver either on social rights or on peace and independence. It was all very well for me to take the ‘high’ line intellectually but I was not daily fighting for my very survival.
To me it is obvious that if you are struggling for survival and every door has been slammed in your face you would do everything to defend your very survival.
Israel uses that line all the time that it’s fighting for its survival. Its narrative, its discourse has been the dominant one. All our cries as Palestinians for our survival seems to rest on some distant vague statement that soon a Palestinian state will come to fruition if…
I do feel a sense of hopelessness and frustration at American and Israeli policy. It is short sighted and brings neither peace security or stability to anyone. It’s easy for me to say from the security of being in London that there needs to be a political settlement and that it is the only way. I passionately do believe that is the only option. But I wonder what right do I have as a Palestinian commentator to tell the people of Gaza who are being murdered daily and very publicly that they should give political dialogue a chance and give up the resistance?
The Way Forward
By Mona Al-Ghussein Bauwens 10 Jan 2009.
I am a Palestinian and like all Palestinians I have watched with dismay, over the years the endless struggle for a state that we can call our own. Like every Palestinian I have felt frustrated, angry at all the injustice and unfairness of the worlds response to our legitimate aspirations and rights.
For decades the Palestinian Israeli conflict has rested on blame, counter blame, rights, injustices and two completely different narratives. It seemed to me that whatever we did, whatever step we took forward, whatever we gave up or conceded whatever glimmer of hope that we were almost there always ultimately ended in us being a hundred steps back and further away from our homeland.
Numerous Wars and guerrilla activities have consistently failed to bring any security to Israel or the establishment of a Palestinian state. Israel’s recent bombardment of Gaza, its 18-month siege and blockade of the territory will neither erase Hamas nor stop Palestinian aspirations for their own sovereign state. But lets be blunt and brutal here. Palestinian justice, legal rights powerful as they may be have little impact in the arena of international politics. They count for very little particularly with the super power. Our strategy needs to be one of political maturity where our aspirations become a part of US interest. Israel has been a master at ensuring that their interests are closely allied with those of the United States and the West. This interest is vested in two factors: first access to oil. Second as a counter balance to the emerging and established political ideology that is fundamentally or is perceived to be fundamentally of detriment to Western values and interests.
Its not rocket science. The world of politics may hide under the guise of universal rights, democracy and freedom but the reality is based on interest. That is the nature of power and the Arabs have regrettably over the years tended to act independently and not collectively and as such any power i.e. oil has not been used strategically to resolve on the one hand the Palestinian ‘problem’ or give the oil producing nations an influential role in the world arena as equal partners on the political stage. No Arab country sits as a permanent member of the Security Council. No Arab state exerts any meaningful influence on global issues. We are supporting actors in world affairs.
What we Palestinians need to consider is how to formulate a political strategy that will make us essential partners and allies to the West, Israel and our Arab neighbours as a first step. We also need to be pragmatic and accept that the way forward, is a dialogue and settlement with Israel.
For all its failures to date, the only way forward is a negotiated settlement between the Palestinians and the Israelis. This is the only game in town. This does not mean submission or enslavement. This settlement should have a fundamental principal that this is a final solution between two equal partners that will translate into an independent Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders and encompass all the outstanding issues on Jerusalem, right of return and give Palestinians control of their own borders. It will entail compromise, neither party will get everything it wants or hopes for. More importantly this settlement should not be a phased transitional agreement but one that is conclusive and finite.
For all its apparent failures The Oslo peace agreement, which was front-loaded into Israel’s favours, did allow the Palestinians to have some entity and limited control and it gave us a base to work from. From that perspective it was a success. Nation building is a journey that is more problematic than the struggle for liberation. It entails the building of institutions, rule of law, civil rights and compromise between all the political parties involved. And by its very nature construction is a laborious process. It needs many components from architects, designers, engineers, labourers and each one is dependent on the other to enable the building to be solid and complete.
The continued schism between Fateh and Hamas does not serve the Palestinian people and gives ammunition to both Israel and its Western allies to uphold the myth that there is no partner to make peace with. All Palestinian factions and political parties need to work under the elected President Mahmoud Abbas under the banner of the Palestinian government irrespective of what loyalties or factions they belong to. The Palestinian rights should not be based on political partisanship but the common goal of achieving a Palestinian state. A state that I believe should be founded on democracy, civil rights and liberties and the rule of law. Gaza has so much potential in being developed as a business centre, tax-free destination, and tourist resort. The West Bank can become an exciting centre for education research medical or scientific excellence. The potential is limitless if we have the vision and imagination to think beyond the conventional box.
The Betrayal of Gaza, By Mona Al-Ghussein Bauwens
The Betrayal of Gaza By Mona Al-Ghussein Bauwens
7 Jan 2009.
Its
almost surreal watching the horrific events unfold in Gaza. Was I
shocked? Surprised, at what President Abbas describes as Israelis
‘brutal aggression’? Bluntly no.
The annihilation of Gaza was a
disaster waiting to happen. Israel needed no pretext to wage a war on a
city that had been under siege for over 18 months. Israel’s political
policy and strategy has been to undermine and weaken Palestinian
legitimacy to a homeland and an independent Palestinian state. It
actively promoted and encouraged the founder of Hamas, the late Sheik
Ahmad Yassin in the late eighties as a counter balance to the PLO,
which it declared at the time as a terrorist organization. It saw in
Hamas a potential to weaken the secular nationalism of the PLO and it
was a tactic developed to divide and rule.
What Israel failed
to understand at the time and continues to fail to comprehend is that
they cannot deny the aspirations of a people for a homeland. Nor can
they ever stop a resistance movement by brute force or submission. Nor
can the international mantra of the international community led by the
USA that a ceasefire, limited or otherwise can be achieved if Hamas
gives up the resistance movement euphemistically referred to as
offensive unprovoked rocket launches to the Israeli population.
Moreover,
Hamas must close its tunnels, the only regular access in the last 18
months for provisions for Palestinian civilians due to the blockade
imposed on Gaza. That the tunnels are also used for smuggling is not
questioned but the right to resists a siege, blockade and indirect
occupation imposed by Israel is a fundamental right of every
individual. As Israel argues that it has the legitimate right to
protect its civilians and borders and freedom to life so must that
right be given to the Palestinians. Ultimately this senseless carnage
of attack and counter attack will end not by force but by a negotiated
settlement and the partners will need to include all Palestinian
factions led by President Abbas. To suggest that a settlement can be
reached without all the parties involved in the conflict is an
unrealistic goal. History has demonstrated over time that organizations
once termed as terrorist have become legitimate representatives of the
people. This is particularly true of both Israel and Palestine.
Ehud
Baraks statement that the ‘operations’ would continue until ‘peace and
tranquility’ is achieved is as disingenuous as claiming there is no
humanitarian crisis in Gaza, it’s beyond laughable. Peace? That is an
Israeli myth that has been weaved and imbedded into the international
language of politics and diplomacy. It means nothing to a people who
have been imprisoned either by occupation, siege or denial of their own
state. We Palestinians have been sold this word ‘peace’ by the West,
‘if only we would stop resisting the occupation, if only we would stop
shooting rockets into Israelis civilian population, if only we would
stop this nonsense of democratically electing a party that is not
acceptable to Israel, if only we would give up our right to return, if
only we give up Jerusalem, if only we don’t have control of our borders
be they by land sea or air, If only we would stop claiming our
fundamental basic rights that every American and Israeli is allowed to
exercise.
Regrettably, however, the lack of Arab cohesion and
unification has contributed a large part to Israel’s strength and
apparent supremacy. The Arab states have consistently betrayed the
Palestinian plight and cause, yes I appreciate that is a strong
criticism but I make no apology for it. The Palestinian cause has been
bartered exchanged and sold depending on the current political
climate. Moving statements made by Arab Governments of support are
rarely executed. Financial commitments that are pledged to the
Palestinians rarely reach the people. Travel and work permits to Arab
states for Palestinians are virtually impossible to get. Any rights of
Palestinians residing as refugees or as guests in Arab host countries
are negligible. Any sphere of influence that the senior Arab nations
have with the West is used to little effect. And we Palestinians and by
that I mean those in power either political influential or financial
have been unable to work either in unison or with those that reflect a
different methodology and have allowed this lack of cooperation to
weaken a legitimate cause to a homeland. In effect we have fallen into
the trap designed by Israel to bring dissent and friction amongst
Palestinian political parties at the expense of the people. As such
Israel has been effective in dividing us and instead of Palestinian
leaders focusing their strategy on establishing a Palestinian state,
energy has been expended on protecting and preserving political power
and influence. This criticism applies to both Fateh and Hamas as their
political differences have only served to sustain Israel’s myth that
the Palestinians are not partners to peace and are incapable of being a
sovereign state based on democracy and rule of law.
All the
public sympathy and support in the world will not bring about a
homeland to the Palestinians anymore than Israel’s persistent
determination to destroy Gaza and the Palestinian people will end
Palestinian dreams of a state.
Palestinian aspiration and rights
to a sovereign state will only become a reality when Palestinians
themselves are able to speak with one unified voice, with the same
consistent message and when our political parties are able to put their
ideologies aside for the common cause. Nation building is in many ways
a journey more arduous than that of liberation for it entails
compromise, pragmatism and inclusion.
Israel’s wanton bombing of
Gaza, its continued policy of land grabbing and its cry of needing
security for its people at the expense of the Palestinian legitimate
rights to a an independent state which is the ultimate security for the
conflicting parties are testimony that their claim for peace is
meaningless if its not based on equality and reciprocity.
Egyptian sources announced on Tuesday a ceasefire agreement that will facilitate the cessation of hostilities between Israel and Palestinian forces in the Gaza Strip. Israel has officially confirmed that it will come into effect on Thursday morning, 6:00 am Israel time. Head of the Israeli Defence Ministry's military-political bureau, Amos Gilead, travelled to Cairo on Tuesday night for the second time this week to finalise the deal.
In the context of the agreement, several questions require close attention: what is the nature of the proposed agreement and what will it include? Does this reflect any change in Israel's policy towards Hamas? What are the gains hoped to be made by the different parties? How does this affect internal Palestinian politics, how does this agreement reflect broader regional developments and how may it affect these processes?
The Egyptian-brokered agreement: terms and details
The ceasefire is between two sides, neither of whom recognises the other's legitimacy. The Egyptian-brokered agreement therefore constitutes a series of unofficial understandings between the sides, which will be founded on a mutual suspension of offensive activities. In this sense, the agreement will in fact constitute a lull in hostilities, referred to in Arabic as a ‘tahdiya', whose durability will ultimately depend on the sides' ability to implement the terms of the agreement:
Suspension of hostilities
Hamas will be expected to ensure that all the Palestinian factions operating in the Gaza Strip - including Islamic Jihad to the smaller, clan-affiliated groups - will halt all rocket fire, mortar and sniper attacks against Israeli targets. At the same time, the IDF will be instructed to halt all ground and air operations against terror targets in the Gaza Strip. In the first stage, the agreement will be applicable only to the Gaza areas and will not include the West Bank; at a future time, the agreement may apply to the West Bank.
Relaxation of restrictions on Gaza's border crossings
The agreement will lead immediately to an increase in the humanitarian aid and other products entering Gaza from Israel, including food, clothing and building materials. Assuming the agreement takes hold successfully, a more extensive set of arrangements, relating also to the Rafah crossing between Gaza and Egypt, will come onto the table.
The success of the agreement beyond the first few days will depend heavily on Israel's satisfaction with two other aspects of the deal. Firstly, Israel needs to see early and significant progress towards a deal to bring about the release of kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit. Shalit's family received another sign of life from Shalit a week ago and the Israeli government cannot be seen to be relegating the issue.
Negotiations over a prisoner exchange deal are scheduled to begin three days after the ceasefire takes effect. If residents of Israel's south are allowed to return to some normal routine after long months of ongoing rocket threats, the difficult step of releasing convicted terrorists in return for Shalit may be easier for the Israeli government and public. As it stands, Israel has already agreed to some of the prisoners listed by Hamas for release and may be willing to further compromise to see Shalit's safe return after almost two years in Gaza.
The second issue regards the ongoing smuggling carried out between Egypt and the Gaza Strip. Mostly using underground tunnels, terror organisations have been able to smuggle large amounts of weapons, ammunition, money and operatives. Understanding that it will be impossible to force the cessation of smuggling through the current agreement, Israel is focusing its efforts on the Egyptian leadership. Further progress on opening the crossing points will depend on Israel's intelligence assessment that weapons smuggling into the Strip has been substantially reduced.
This issue is of special significance given the possible opening of the Rafah crossing. The crossing has been largely closed since June 2006, when EU monitors manning the crossing fled the site after coming under fire during clashes between Hamas and Fatah. Until sufficient arrangements are made for the strict monitoring of goods and people going through the crossing, Israel fears Hamas and other organisations will use its opening for large-scale smuggling of weapons and operatives.
In sum, the brokered agreement will not provide solutions to all the problems involved in the tense situation in the Gaza Strip, nor does it intend to. Its main purpose is to provide a cessation of violence, and only after this fundamental condition is met will further issues be addressed.
Gains and losses: assessing the consequences of the current agreement
Although the agreement involves Israel and the Palestinian factions, it is also likely to have significant effect on broader regional aspects. The following looks briefly at the considerations that led the sides during the negotiations and the possible consequences it may have on their future steps.
Israel
Israel continues to face an ongoing dilemma with regards to the appropriate approach towards Palestinian aggression emanating from the Gaza Strip. Israel has an interest in finding a peaceful solution for Gaza and to provide its residents with hope for the future. This logic formed part of the plan for unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, as there was much optimism that this withdrawal would provide an opportunity for significant improvement for life in Gaza. However, terrorists have exploited this situation and have used it to establish unprecedented control. This, in turn, was translated into ongoing terror attacks, which made use of a large ballistic arsenal against Israeli communities. The situation deteriorated further after the Hamas takeover in June 2006.
Knowing it cannot abandon its population to the threat of rockets, mortar shells and sniper fire, Israel has tried a wide range of tactics against terror infrastructure and operatives in the Strip in an attempt to suppress the rocket fire. An extended military operation triggered by the kidnap of Shalit came to an end in November 2006, and the use of artillery aimed at the source of rocket attacks was abandoned due to the undue risk it presented to Gaza's civilian population. Since then, Israel has been using limited ground operations and air strikes. However, the government faces pressure from large sections of the public and the political establishment to consider a large-scale ground operation to confront the terror activities over an extended period of time. Yet an operation of this sort would be costly in human life on both sides, has limited potential to curb the ballistic threat and has no clear exit strategy at this stage.
Furthermore, sources in Jerusalem are convinced that if the current agreement collapses as a result of a dramatic provocation from Hamas, the grounds for such an operation will be more acceptable to the international community and criticism less harsh.
Hamas
Hamas has its own interest in reaching a ceasefire at this point. Most importantly, the agreement fortifies their control of the Gaza Strip and solidifies the situation that began in June 2006, when the organisation took control of the area. By doing so, Hamas is able to maintain its grip on the Strip while Fatah and PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas watch from the West Bank.
Hamas will do everything possible to use this development to enhance its popularity in the Palestinian street, both in Gaza and the West Bank. Hamas draws popularity from its image as the authentic ‘resistance' to the occupation. A ceasefire deal with Israel therefore poses a risk to its public image within the territories and it will do its best to spin the development as a military triumph in which they were able to force Israel into a ceasefire and deter an invasion. They will be in a strong position to claim the ceasefire as a success if the agreement does indeed lead to a significant relaxation of restrictions on border crossings.
Fatah and PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas
One of the main factors holding Israel back from a ceasefire deal with Hamas has been the fear that such an agreement will undermine the Fatah movement and PA Chairman Abbas. Until recently, Hamas and Fatah have been in fierce rivalry and Israel's strategy has been to bolster Fatah under Mahmoud Abbas and isolate Hamas. However, channels of communication between Fatah and Hamas have reopened in recent weeks, making it easier for Israel to attempt to find an arrangement.
However, Israel remains committed to the position that it will condition any substantive contacts with Hamas on its adoption of the Quartet principles - recognition of Israel, cessation of violence and recognition of previous Israel-PA agreements.
Conclusion
Both Israel and Hamas are playing delicate balancing games. However, the motivation on both sides for a period of calm is strong. Whatever the broader consequences for regional and local forces, its fundamental aim is to return life in Israel's southern regions and in the Gaza Strip to normal. Israel is taking a risk by lifting some of the military and financial pressure placed on Hamas in the past months. If Hamas abuses this opportunity, the leadership in Jerusalem will face a clear demand from the public to take firm action to provide security to its citizens, with a military option at hand.
UAE's Shaikh Khalifa receives Hamas leader
WAM Published: June 17, 2008, 18:24
Abu Dhabi: President His Highness Shaikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan has stressed the importance of Palestinian national unity in restoring the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people and achieving their goal of establishing an independent state, with Jerusalem as its capital.
Shaikh Khalifa made this call while receiving the head of the Hamas politburo Khalid Mesha'al at Al Bateen Palace in Abu Dhabi on Tuesday.
General Shaikh Mohammad Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi and Deputy Supreme Commander of the UAE Armed Forces, was present at the meeting.
The President said the Palestinian national unity should form the cornerstone of the movement as to help succeed a just and peaceful settlement based on all the legitimate international resolutions as well as the Arab peace initiative.
Shaikh Khalifa called on various factions on the Palestinian front to triumph over differences and uphold the paramount interest of the Palestinian people.
Justice4Jaweed Campaign Philosophy on Terrorism.
Our policy on Terrorism. June 17 2008
No act or threat of terrorism against innocent civilians can ever be justified no matter how mitigating the circumstances are. The rational behind Jaweed's philosophy and his family is based on the rule of law and the rights of every individual to live without fear. We passionately believe that every individual has the right to free speech and should be able to express their opinion and view without repercussions.
The recent threat towards the UAE and its citizens is not one we
support. While we have specific complains about the legal system in the
UAE and its arbitrary use we do not have any grievances towards the people
of the Emirates nor do we support its people or its rulers being
subjected to external or internal terror threats.
We do not support in any form the threat of violence towards others and feel the optimum way to achieve equity and freedom is through education and debate. It is we accept the long route. Nevertheless, it is only through a process of change that evolves without violence that we feel a strong vibrant and compassionate society can emerge.
The rule of Law should be a fundamental right for every individual. it is the foundation of society. Our campaign is based on the enforcement of the rule of law and due process.
We do urge the Emirates to address its human rights abuses and to respect and uphold the Rule of Law.
TERROR THREAT UAE
* Ian Black, Middle East editor * The Guardian, * Tuesday June 17 2008 * Article history
Britain has warned its nationals living in or visiting the United Arab Emirates that terrorists may be planning indiscriminate attacks at any time.
A statement posted on the website of the British embassy in Abu Dhabi, the UAE capital, said the country now faces "a high threat of terrorism". The previous level referred to a "general threat from terrorism". The other categories are "underlying" and "low". The alert level was under constant review, the embassy said.
"We believe terrorists may be planning to carry out attacks in the UAE," it added. "Attacks could be indiscriminate and could happen at any time."
The UAE, comprising seven emirates including Dubai, is home to 100,000 British expatriates and is visited by a million holidaymakers from the UK a year. The Gulf country's booming economy is a magnet for foreign investment.
The Foreign Office refused yesterday to elaborate on the reasons behind the warning, which was issued on Saturday. It is assumed to refer to al-Qaida, assessed to have suffered serious setbacks in Iraq but still seeking to mount spectacular attacks against "soft" western targets. Al-Qaida is known to be aware of revulsion at the killing of Muslims.
The change in the threat level was not a change to travel advice, the Foreign Office insisted, and was based on advice from posts, intelligence and other elements.
The UAE is a conservative Muslim country but has become a major regional hub attracting millions of tourists each year, mainly to the bustling city-state of Dubai - which is known for its liberal lifestyle.
It also hosts regular visits by US navy ships, and is likely to be the first Arab country to send an ambassador to Iraq.
Possible targets include places frequented by expatriates and foreign travellers, such as residential compounds, as well as "military, oil, transport and aviation interests", according to the embassy. Its language suggests there is no specific threat. In other cases of intelligence about terrorist attacks embassies have been temporarily evacuated, relocated or closed.
The UAE does not have heavy security measures in place and it has not suffered any serious incidents. No other western embassies in the country have issued similar warnings.
Elsewhere in the Gulf, Saudi Arabia has fought a wave of violence waged by al-Qaida since 2003, including attacks targeting foreign tourists, residential compounds and oil installations. Its impoverished neighbour Yemen has also suffered several attacks claimed by al-Qaida. In Qatar one Briton was killed and 12 people wounded in a suicide bombing at a theatre near a British school in 2005.
The UAE could be seen as a particularly attractive target for al-Qaida as more than 80% of the 5.6-million population are foreigners. Many are poorly paid construction workers from south Asia, but there are thousands of professionals too. Dubai attracts huge numbers of Britons investing in its booming real estate sector, including skyscrapers and luxury hotels. The UAE has the world's fifth largest oil reserves.
Tristan Cooper, a risk analyst at Moody's Investors Service, warned the terror threat could damage the UAE economy. "It could ... be hit by a political shock that slowed the inflow of expatriate labour or, in a more extreme scenario, caused resident expatriates to leave the country," he told the Dow Jones newswire. About this article Close This article appeared in the Guardian on Tuesday June 17 2008 on p16 of the International section. It was last updated at 00:00 on June 17 2008.
