Israel’s ‘Berlin Wall’

FROM all accounts, Israel’s so-called “security fence” has become a major hurdle in the way of peace in the Middle East. As always, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon seems determined to have his way irrespective of how it will affect the roadmap for peace unveiled last April by President George Bush. The American chief executive has already made it clear that he does not consider the wall Israel is building as something that will help the cause of peace. In fact, he has called the wall a “problem.” Yet, standing next to the US president at their joint press conference in Washington, Sharon displayed his intransigence by insisting that work on the wall would not stop. The Arabs rightly fear that the wall is designed to hem the Palestinians in and interfere with their movements. More sinister is the alignment of the wall. Originally, it was supposed to follow the so-called “green line” between the West Bank and Israel proper. However, the present wall has been extended eastward to bring several illegal Jewish settlements within Israel when a Palestinian state comes into being. The new alignment will deprive the Palestinians of more of their land.

As against this, some recent developments have been quite encouraging, though. These include Israel’s decision to unfreeze Palestinian funds and to hand over the control of two more cities to the Palestinian Authority. By far the most important development is Tel Aviv’s decision to release 540 Palestinian prisoners. They have been languishing in Israeli prisons for a long time. Though the date or dates for it has not been announced yet, their release should be an occasion for relief and rejoicing for thousands of Palestinians. Significantly, 210 of the lot belong to the Hamas and Islamic Jihad, both of which have pledged to observe a ceasefire to help advance the cause of peace. Against this background, the wall should not be allowed to stand in the way of a smooth implementation of the roadmap or upset the schedule. President Yasser Arafat has rightly called it a new Berlin Wall which must come down before it fatally disrupts the on-going peace process.

Another issue that casts a shadow on the roadmap is the future of Jewish settlements. In a show of open defiance of America, Sharon has continued with the building of settlements. This constitutes not only a violation of international law; the continued settlement activity goes against the roadmap crafted by the Quartet — the US, Russian, the European Union and the UN. The roadmap not only visualizes a complete halt to all settlements activity; it calls for dismantling those built since March 2001, when Sharon became prime minister. His government has given no indication that it will abide by this part of the roadmap. The wall and the settlements, thus, remain the two major issues which need to be sorted out if the peace process is to move forward and a Palestinian state is to come into being in 2005. The roadmap is something to which the Bush administration is committed. Any failure on the part of President Bush to rap Sharon on these issues will be perceived to be what it may well be — an attempt to keep the powerful Zionist lobby happy as America gears itself for next year’s presidential election. The roadmap is too precious to be sacrificed at the altar of a new presidential term. If Sharon has his way and the peace process collapses, the world would find it difficult to take another peace plan by the Bush administration seriously.

Restoring snapped links

AT last things seem to be moving in the right direction between India and Pakistan as the two neighbours gear up to mend fences and re-establish broken links that were severed after the terrorist attack on Indian parliament in December 2001. Since Mr Vajpayee’s April speech in Srinagar, in which he offered to restore full diplomatic, air, rail and road links, the two high commissioners have returned to their respective posts and the bus service between Lahore and Delhi has resumed. Rail and air links are yet to be restored. However, it is good to note that Pakistan’s Civil Aviation Authority has invited a technical team from its Indian counterpart to Islamabad to discuss the modalities of opening up each other’s airspace for over-flights as well to resume bilateral air links. India had unilaterally opened up its airspace for over-flights by Pakistani carriers in May 2002 but Pakistan did not reciprocate, insisting that first the two high commissioners should be invited back to each other’s capitals.

Pakistan also insists that a bilateral agreement should be put in place to deter either party from unilaterally snapping air, rail and road links in the future. The snapping of these links and over-flight rights by India has cost the two countries’ aviation industries dearly — Indian aviation having suffered far greater losses than its Pakistani counterpart. Definitely, there is a lesson to be learnt here: bilateral relations can only improve if there is an agreed mechanism that stops each side from acting rashly and unilaterally against the other. Islamabad’s suggestion carries weight and deserves to be given serious thought by New Delhi. Pakistan and India have a long road to travel to peace; this has to be a two-way road on which neither side should feel free to take a U-turn — that is, if one is sincere about reaching the long-awaited destination some day.

An insensitive act

AMERICA’s justification for picking up a wanted Iraqi general’s wife and daughter on grounds that the general would then give himself up cannot be sustained on moral grounds. Commenting on the action to detain the two women and to leave a note for the wanted general asking him to surrender in exchange for the release of his family, a US military spokesman said it was a valid tactical move given that it achieved its intended aim. This is self-serving logic because if another country’s soldiers had done this to some American citizens, Washington would have called it an abhorring act of cowardice and wanted heads to roll over this effrontery. The action by the soldiers of the 4th infantry division was nothing less than hostage-taking or kidnapping, a crime under the Geneva Convention, which the US often blames other nations of violating. That the military spokesman saw nothing wrong with the action taken by the US soldiers is a clear indication that senior commanders must have approved of it in advance.

Such detentions violate international law and go against the cultural and religious norms of Iraq. The abduction of women by soldiers of a foreign occupying force is bound to inflame anger and resentment and aggravate the already hostile feelings most Iraqis have towards the Americans. This tactic might have achieved a short-term gain for the US forces in that the wanted general did give himself up, but the long-term impact will be highly negative and hostile. The tragic events of September 11 seem to have put a paranoid glaze on the eyes of the Bush administration, so much so that it is willing to violate all norms of decency and lawful conduct in its dealings with other nations and peoples. The Americans will have to tread more cautiously, with greater sensitivity and care, or risk further alienating an already disgruntled Iraqi population.