Bush's new Palestine policy

The announcement by President Bush, as he stood alongside Ariel Sharon in the White House on April 14, that he supported Israel's right to maintain the settlements in the West Bank and its contention that Palestinian refugees did not have a right to return to their homes in what is now Israel, represents a dramatic reversal of declared American policy. Whatever interpretations the State Department now offers, it has sounded a virtual death knell for the "roadmap".

Hitherto, the American position has been that the settlements in the occupied territories of Gaza and the West Bank were illegal. A legal opinion published by the Americans termed such settlements as "inconsistent with international law".

Freezing settlement activity was termed essential by US American mediator Senator George Mitchell when he engaged in moving Israel and the Arabs towards what later became the current "roadmap". The senior Bush, concerned about US-Arab relations, froze $400 million in loans to Israel when a halt in settlement activity did not come about.

It was the Arab contention that all settlements would have to be dismantled as part of the final settlement but it was also generally believed that the Palestinians would have to yield some ground on this issue.

The present position, however, is that Israel will withdraw some 7,500 Israeli settlers from Gaza but will retain, at the very least, six big settlements in the West Bank, where the number of settlers exceeds 230,000 amidst a Palestinian population of about 2.5 million.

Of the Israelis settled on the West Bank, Sharon has undertaken to dismantle some settlements having a total population of 500. Thus the grand Israeli unilateral move consists of withdrawing from Arab lands some 8,000 settlers out of a total of approximately 240,000 and of retaining the right to return to Gaza - the only area that they will be vacating entirely if security needs so dictate.

Press reports suggest that Israel has also made it clear that it has no intention of vacating East Jerusalem - the area that the Palestinians hoped to make the capital of their new state. They have retained with tacit or explicit American support the right to re-enter Gaza if they believe that their security is threatened.

They have insisted that they will continue to build the security fence - an elaborate and expensive structure, which cuts through what should be Palestinian land - but have conceded that this was temporary and parts of it could be brought down if final negotiations dictated a land boundary other than the fence demarcations.

It would be wishful thinking to suggest that in the face of these American-supported Israeli positions there will be room for a geographically contiguous and viable Palestinian state.

On return of the refugees to their homes in Israel, the Americans had so far upheld, at least in public declarations, the right they had, under international law, to return to their homes.

It was known that some adjustment would be required in this respect and President Clinton had suggested a few years ago that these refugees should return not to Israel but to the new Palestinian state that was to be created.

This concession on the part of the Arabs would, however, have required some from Israel on other matters such as water rights. But it seems unlikely that the Israelis will now accept that the concessions they had to make to secure American endorsement of their position remain unfulfilled.

The initial American effort, as an American correspondent put it, was to suggest that President Bush's statement represented no change since in effect all these issues were subject to settlement through negotiations between the parties.

The State Department spokesman, however, conceded in his briefing on April 16 that the Bush statement had taken positions on "final status issues" which had not been done before, but maintained that these ideas had been "out there in the previous negotiations".

He agreed that the American position would influence the future of the negotiations but insisted that the outcome of the negotiations would be dependent on the parties.

The American position, as he articulated it, was, "We think the prospect of real withdrawal of Israeli settlers from Gaza and some from the West Bank is an opportunity to move forward to peace" and that "it's a way to move forward on the roadmap; it's a way to move forward towards the President's vision of two states".

The Palestinians are understandably furious. Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei has accused Bush of "destroying any hope for peace". King Abdullah of Jordan, who was due to meet the American president this week, has cancelled the meeting but has left open the possibility that the meeting will now be held in the first week of May.

The White House maintained that the visit had been rescheduled because developments in the region made it necessary for the monarch to return to Jordan, but the Jordanian statement was more specific.

It stated that the meeting would not take place "until discussions and deliberations are concluded with officials in the American administration to clarify the American position on the peace process and the final situation in the Palestinian territories, especially in light of the latest statements by officials in the American administration."

More to the point, perhaps, from a global perspective was the remark of the newly elected leader and now assassinated Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantissi who termed it "part of the American declared war against Islam."

What has occasioned the Israeli withdrawal offer and the subsequent developments that have created another fissure in the already fractured Arab-American relationship, exacerbated the frustrations of the Palestinians and probably given a boost to the recruitment of "suicide bombers" not only in Palestine and Iraq but also in other parts of the Muslim world?

The Sharon motivation was clear. The Gaza Strip is a stronghold of the Hamas, which enjoys enormous popularity because of its social community work, and defending the comparatively small number of Israeli settlers was becoming increasingly more difficult.

He needed a "bold initiative" to divert attention away from his possible indictment in a bribery scandal and, in addition, some steps that could placate the US desire for progress while winning him US endorsement for the basic position of his hard-line Likud supporters.

Having announced that he would withdraw from Gaza, he could also continue his targeted killing of Hamas leaders maintaining that his withdrawal would otherwise be seen as a victory for the "extremists".

He has an added advantage. The hold of Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian National Authority on the loyalties of the Gaza Strip's 1.3 million residents is tenuous. It is Hamas that holds sway in the area. It could well be Sharon's calculations that the evacuation of Gaza would exacerbate intra-Palestinian quarrels.

Also that if Hamas prevailed in Gaza and continued to use the territory to attack Israel, as it was likely to do, Sharon would have western public opinion on his side when he reoccupied Gaza to bring an end to the "security threat".

In what seems to have been three months of hard negotiations with the Americans he has got what he wanted. No wonder then that Israel's largest daily newspaper headlined its main story "Sharon Got It All." And that speaking of the Palestinians, Mr Sharon told this newspaper, "They were dealt a lethal blow."

But what of the Americans? The effort is to suggest that Bush believes that the concessions he made to Sharon were no more than a recognition of the realities on the ground and that these concessions were a necessary pre-requisite for enabling Sharon to move forward on the "roadmap".

Much of the world disagrees with this, and with good reason. There is every reason to believe that Israel will now proceed to act as though the withdrawal from Gaza and some small settlements in the West Bank represents the "final settlement" in terms of territory.

This is obviously what the Arabs fear. King Abdullah in his letter to President Bush postponing his visit pleads that an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza must be part of the peace plan and not an alternative to it.

Sharon, however, has made it clear and has invited no American contradiction that the six largest settlements, comprising the bulk of Israeli settlers, in the West Bank, are not going to be dismantled. He has secured an endorsement of his agreement with the Americans from such hard-liners as Benjamin Netanyahu primarily because this is how the agreement is being interpreted.

It would perhaps be facile to suggest that the American reversal of a longstanding policy was driven by the "neo-conservatives" whose hold on policy formulation remains unimpeded by the disaster they have created in Iraq.

I say facile because, according to Sharon, the hard-nosed Israeli-American negotiations were brought to a successful conclusion only because of Powell's intervention, and Powell can hardly be deemed part of the neo-conservatives.

The more probable explanation is the American elections. The powerful Jewish community in the United States, with the exception of a few dissenters, will applaud President Bush and will manifest its appreciation in support for his re-election campaign. This can backfire.

Today, the eyes of the American electorate are focused on Iraq and the mounting casualties the Americans are suffering from an angry populace. There is little credence attached to the claim that the unrest flows from a disgruntled minority. There is increasing doubt not only about the validity of the justification offered for the war but also about the manner in which the post-war situation is being handled.

Then the belief that concessions to Israel will heighten Arab and Muslim frustrations and give new strength to extremists - local and from the outside - in the armed struggle against the Americans in Iraq is gaining ground.

Many Americans, among them those who saw 9/11 as part of an Islamic war against America, believe that such unstinting support for Israel can only serve to undermine the prospects for reconciliation with the Islamic world or indeed the rest of the world.

An emergency meeting of the UN Security Council is being held at the initiative of the Arab countries to condemn the Israeli killing of the Hamas leader, Abdel Aziz Rantissi. The Americans have made it clear that they regard Hamas as a terrorist organization and want it to be eliminated.

They are in fact insisting that as Israel vacates Gaza, the Palestinian National Authority must take steps to curb the Hamas in that area. They have not endorsed Israel's policy of targeted killings but they have said that they believe Israel has a right to defend itself against attacks by terrorist organizations.

There will obviously, therefore, be an American veto of whatever resolution is proposed. For the Bush administration what is of importance is not that it will be a lone voice of dissent in the Security Council but that how this will go down with the American electorate. Certainly, the expectation is that it will win support but there may be surprises down the road.

The writer is a former foreign secretary.

The menace of extremism

According to a report published by the United Nations, there is a significant rise in religious extremism and intolerance throughout the world, which is basically attributable to unjust economic, social and political systems.

The report also points out that although no religion is free from extremism, the western media only portrays Islam as a religion of militancy and extremism, ignoring the fact that an overwhelming majority of Muslims, all over the world, adheres to the principles of tolerance and non-discrimination, and only a tiny minority of extremists tarnishes the image of Islam.

In spite of its ideological character, Pakistan generally remained immune from religious extremism for many decades after its establishment in 1947. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, however, had a profound transformative impact on its political and religious complexion. Ironically, the West, particularly the United States, stirred up religious sentiments all over the Islamic world against the "infidel" Soviets.

The orthodox elements in Pakistan took full advantage of the Islamic fervour that was generated by the Afghan war and a number of sects and cults, with militant overtones, emerged in the country. Most of these outfits continue to operate to advance their political, religious and other interests.

Over the years, these religious extremists also penetrated into mosques and educational institutions. Owing to the government's inability to provide educational facilities, particularly to the poor segments of society, the madrassahs (seminaries), whose tradition in the region dates back almost a thousand years, have become popular among the poor as they provide free religious education, boarding and lodging to the students. As such, in recent years, there has been an unprecedented increase in their number.

As things stand, most of the madrassahs in Pakistan impart only theological education. It is, therefore, necessary to revise their curricula focusing on educational alternatives, including inter-religion understanding and harmony, responding to needs for personal and communal transformation, inter-cultural exchanges for mutual enrichment and stimulus of tolerance with a view to eliminating cliches and irrelevant allusions to other religions.

All religions and cultures share a common set of universal values and Islam, in particular, accepts all the goodness that civilization can yield and advocates the unity of humanity and development of cordial relationship among the adherents of different faiths.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights also expounds that education should be directed to full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It also aims at promoting understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations and racial and religious groups.

The UN General Assembly resolution, adopted on March 18, 2004, also calls upon states to make all appropriate efforts to encourage those engaged in education to cultivate respect for all religions and beliefs, thereby promoting mutual understanding and tolerance.

The resolution also urges states to ensure that their constitutional and legal systems provide effective guarantees of freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief, including the provision of effective remedies in cases where these rights are violated.

It, however, emphasizes that legislation alone is not enough to prevent violations of human rights and underlines the importance of continued dialogue among religions and beliefs to promote greater tolerance, respect and mutual understanding.

Regrettably, religious extremism that has been gaining ground in a number of Muslim countries has intensified in the aftermath of the September 11 carnage in the United States, with growing hostility between Islam and the West.

The Islamic world has been traumatized and angered by the sufferings of the Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq, following the US-led occupation of these countries. This indeed is an unfortunate situation which needs to be tackled with wisdom and thought rather than giving vent to the Muslim world's anger against the West in a violent manner.

Muslim leaders should try to convince Washington and its allies that unless the Afghan and Iraqi imbroglios are addressed prudently, there may be a heightened conflict between the West and the Islamic world which may cause a setback to the on-going efforts to purge Muslim societies of extremists and might hurt the West's long-term interests in Muslim countries.

Islam accepts the diversity of beliefs and values as an inescapable fact of life. It abhors all forms of extremism and rigidity and enjoins on its followers to respect differences of opinion. It also lays emphasis on co-existence and mutual tolerance for peace and harmony in the world.

Regrettably, however, religious extremists have tarnished the image of Islam by distorting its teachings. The point is that religious extremism can never be accepted or condoned. The people of Pakistan must, therefore, provide a template for enlightened moderation which is one of the most important features of Islam.

In his address to the Islamic summit that was held in Malaysia last year, President Pervez Musharraf, while expressing his deep concern at the growing religious extremism, exhorted the Islamic nations to reject it. He also proposed the formation a commission of eminent persons from member states to prepare a comprehensive plan for promoting within Islamic societies polices and programmes for enlightened moderation in consonance with the injunctions of Islam and its principles of tolerance, brotherhood and harmony among all nations.

The writer is a former ambassador.

An inspiring document

There would hardly be an educated man or woman who, in school days, was not made to read do's and don'ts in the form of poetic tales from Sheikh Saadi or the fables of Aesop for leading a meaningful life, or come across principles of high moral content based on the sayings of wise men and published in popular magazines. It is a different matter that few of us were moved to act on any of them.

Then, as we grew up, pieces of advice for decent and civilized behaviour towards fellow human beings, points for self-improvement, hints for becoming useful members of society, and guidance for promoting a healthy and mutually beneficial relationship with other people - strangers, parents, children, friends - continued to confront us in books and newspapers, and even sometimes (though very rarely) in the speeches of mosque imams and public leaders. But all these came in the form of scattered items and quotations.

The other day I cam across a truly inspiring document at the house of a friend, framed and hung in his study, containing directions in mild and gentle phrases for conducting oneself in this baneful world.

Compiled by someone called Max Ehrmann, it was the facsimile of a sheet found in Old Saint Paul's Church in Baltimore, USA, more than 300 years ago, in 1692 to be exact, and had been sent to my friend by an acquaintance in the United States. There was no indication when it had been discovered.

"Desiderata" is the name given by Ehrmann to his guide to a good, useful and contented life. What struck me most about it was the fact that it completely ignored the well-known American formulas that make people ride roughshod over their surroundings in order to get to the top.

In 1692 America was still a frontier for settlers, a distant colony of Britain, and certainly not famous for its go-getters. The slogan "Go West, young man," was still a long way yet, and the children of the Pilgrim Fathers who had arrived on The Mayflower in 1620 were still in the process of thanking God for keeping them alive in an atmosphere of religious freedom.

But Ehrmann understood human nature and how susceptible it was to dark influences. He must have been a man easily satisfied with life and was certainly blessed with a happy and optimistic personality that he ends his counsel to his fellow beings with the words, "With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world."

And, as if to offset this gloomy picture, he reminds them that "You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore, be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labours and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul."

Obviously in the America of those days, as in the rest of the world, the soul counted as a strong element of the human personality. Now, of course, if you go through any Western book on the meaning of life and its purpose, the soul has been banished as irrelevant and redundant, something ephemeral that unnecessarily keeps the modern man from devoting himself whole-heartedly to the improvement of his material prospects. Fortunately for us, as Muslims and people of the East, the soul still matters, even though we may not be able to describe what it is.

I felt truly soothed and contented as I read the opening words of Desiderata, - "Go placidly aid the noise and the haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence." Modern life teaches us to be vocal and articulate, even raucous and strident, getting our way with the force and loudness of our voice.

If you unduly keep your thoughts to yourself you are supposed to be without any. This won't do here in Pakistan, where you are expected to talk about the political situation and say prophetically how much time you give to the ruling regime, without knowing anything about either of the two.

Ehrmann's advice is, "As far as possible without surrender be on good terms with all persons. Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even the dull and ignorant; they too have their story."

It is the attribute of great and noble words that you can apply them to any time and any clime and any place, like something from the holy books. I somehow felt that Ehrmann was speaking to us about our political leaders when he gave his fellow men the counsel: "Avoid loud and aggressive persons; they are vexatious to the spirit."

Whether you agree with me or not, it will be difficult, even if you go around the world, to find anything louder and more vexatious to the spirit than this type. And if by chance he gets into the corridors of power, he becomes more aggressive and unlikable.

Even in the America of 300 years ago there must have been some competition and the urge to do better than one's peers. Do Desiderata says, "If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain and bitter, for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.

Keep interested in your own career, however humble; for it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time. Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans." And then it strikes a note of warning: "Exercise caution in your business affairs, for the world is full of trickery."

A reservation is however added: "But let this not blind you to what virtue there is. Many persons strive for high ideals, and everywhere life is full of heroism." I found exceptional grace in the following words about one's personality: "be yourself. Especially do not feign affection. Neither be cynical about love, for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment it is perennial as the grass."

To the aging, Desiderata says, "Take kindly the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth. Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness. Beyond a wholesome discipline by gentle with yourself."

What kind of man was Max Ehrmann himself? And what made him leave his wisdom in Old Saint Paul's Church in Baltimore? In those days church was one place where everyone went. Maybe he wanted them all to benefit from the lessons he had learnt in life. But he was not well-known and couldn't even have dreamed that we on the other side of the globe would read his words with interest after 300 years!