If Sharon has his way

IF the signals coming from Tel Aviv are any indication, one can expect a reoccupation of the entire West Bank by Israel — and possibly for an indefinite period. Reoccupation of areas vacated under the Oslo accords is nothing new; Israel has been doing that off and on. Since the April massacre at Jenin, it has moved troops into the West Bank three times. Now, in the wake of the two suicide bombings on Tuesday and Wednesday, Israel has got the pretext it has always been looking for: not only to finally overturn the Oslo accords but also to renounce the very concept of a Palestinian state. Following the Al Quds bombings, Israel has already moved troops and armour into Jenin, Qalqilya, Ramallah and Bethlehem (Nablus was only briefly occupied), and has vowed to take “several military actions.” Specifically, Ariel Sharon’s office said Israel will hold the West Bank areas “as long as terror continues.” By terror, the Israeli prime minister means the Palestinian people’s struggle for liberation. Since there is no possibility that the Palestinians will ever cease their struggle for their right to live in freedom and dignity in their own land, Sharon’s threat means that Israel’s reoccupation will be open-ended.

The Palestinian Authority has condemned the two recent bombings and correctly reminded the world that Israel’s new policy is aimed at destroying whatever remains of its shattered existence. During their depredations in the West Bank in April, Israeli forces had not only gone on a pillaging spree; they had specifically targeted all symbols of Palestinian statehood. There is no doubt that Sharon’s aim this time is the elimination not only of the “symbols” but also of the very essence of Palestinian statehood. This has all along been Sharon’s aim. The question now is whether the rest of the world would permit Israel’s indefinite reoccupation of Palestinian territory. The answer, in the short run, is probably that it would, what with Israel’s screaming and shrieking over the problem of “terrorism” and America dutifully endorsing Tel Aviv’s ‘right to defend itself.’

To an indefinite reoccupation of the West Bank, and possibly of the Gaza Strip, the American response is likely to be no different. Occasional lip-service to the desirability of peace in the Middle East and of a Palestinian state as a ‘possible’ option apart, the US is basically set on a course supportive of Ariel Sharon. The clear implication of this grand design, however, is that peace will continue to elude the Middle East, for the Palestinian struggle is bound to continue. Israelis will continue to live in fear, because the Palestinian people have shown over the last 50 years that their fight for freedom is not dependent on any outside factors. For Israel, an indefinite reoccupation of Palestinian territories will at best be a pyrrhic victory. A long-lasting peace in the region will be possible only when the Palestinians are given sovereignty over the land that belongs to them. Resort to brute force and such long-term strategies that are contrary to international law and morality may give Israel a temporary respite, but not durable peace and security that its people want. With an indulgent nod of approval from Washington, Sharon seems hell-bent to destroy that prospect.

Challenge for Karzai

WITH the swearing in of Hamid Karzai as president of Afghanistan, the war-ravaged country has entered a new and more challenging phase in its troubled history. The upbeat mood among many of the delegates of the Loya Jirga, which had assembled some days earlier to decide the future of the country, was tempered by fears about the long-term stability of the new administration. The next 18 months, during which Karzai’s transitional government must draft a constitution and hold elections, are fraught with a number of challenges and potential dangers. After much lengthy debate and argument, the Loya Jirga had earlier elected Karzai as head of state through a secret ballot. There was then a prolonged debate about the modus operandi of selecting the cabinet. After much heated and inconclusive debate, Karzai drew up his own list of candidates, with each name approved by the delegates by a show of hands. Karzai had to carefully balance the list to reflect the diverse ethnic composition of the country. He decided to retain the services of Dr. Abdullah Abdullah as foreign minister and Mohammad Qasim Fahim as defence minister. Both are ethnic Tajiks and prominent members of the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance. The powerful interior ministry, however, has been given to Taj Mohammad Wardak, a Pushtoon. Significantly, the cabinet does not include the names of two powerful warlords, Abdur Rasheed Dostum and Ismail Khan — omissions welcomed by many delegates but which could cause problems for Karzai in the days ahead.

The task before the new president is extremely challenging. He has to push ahead with the task of reconstruction and rehabilitation of the war-ravaged country, try to reunite a badly fragmented nation after years of civil war and extend the writ of his government to all parts of the country, despite the many roadblocks of exclusive preserves and tribal fiefdoms dotting the country. Without taking swift and meaningful steps in all these directions, Karzai will not be able to gain legitimacy at home or persuade donors to release the massive funds pledged to rebuild the shattered country. For the sake of the long-suffering Afghan people, one can only hope that the country’s new experiment with democracy succeeds.

Stunning victory

PAKISTAN’S victory at Brisbane clinching the one-day series against Australia 2-1 is not only a memorable event in the given context; it will also act as a stimulus for the team ahead of the forthcoming regular Test battle and the World Cup. Reigning supreme as virtual champions in current-day cricket, the Aussies will find this crushing defeat hard to overcome. While the credit for this outstanding triumph has been justifiably given to Shoaib Akhtar whose awesome bowling overwhelmed the batting prowess of the host team and struck the decisive blow, Waseem Akram’s blazing knock and Yusuf Youhanna’s solid stand also deserve due recognition. In fact, the most reassuring aspect of this success is the all-round team effort. After the initial reverse and the narrow win secured in the second match, the prospects seemed none too promising for the touring side in the final encounter. But proper motivation and the response at the right moment wrought the miracle in the end.

The one factor that appeared unhelpful at first — namely, the bouncy track to which our batsmen were not attuned — eventually turned into an advantage in the hands of Shoaib Akhtar who exploited the fast pitch to rattle the strong opponents on their own ground. Looking ahead, from this perspective, the idea of playing the coming Test series against Australia in Australia itself does not appear as unacceptable as it used to be in the past. The challenge should be accepted, provided other conditions attached to a change of venue are met to compensate the touring team foregoing the advantage of playing on the home ground. Psychologically and physically, the confidence generated by the Brisbane victory should see the team through.