An article by Susskind
A New Direction for the Middle East
December 17th, 2008A Plea from Israel Come, Obama, Change My Life
December 2nd, 2008By EDNA CANETTI
CounterPunch
November 6, 2008
Obama my dear, they tell me that you are going to change the world.
Do me a favor, come and change my life personally.
Come to Israel, grab its stupid leadership by the throat and take its foot
off the neck of another people. Come and force us to do what is clear, and
written, and fitting, and necessary, come and get us out of the Territories,
if necessary do it with a smile that reveals million-dollar teeth. If
necessary bare your teeth and force us to do it.
Make it so that I don’t have to get up in the morning – I who hate to get up
early, to go to the checkpoints, to watch and to weep. Make it so I will not
have to see 19-year-old children who have been duped into believing that
they are defending the home front by pointing rifles at five-year-old
children.
Make it so that when my daughters take a shower for half an hour I don’t
have to think about Ayad’s family from Awarta that puts buckets under all
the washbasins in order to reuse the water which is more precious than gold.
Because the settlements need the West Bank’s water more than the
Palestinians do.
Make it so that when I sit in a traffic jam I don’t have to think about the
vast numbers of cars that are standing at the entrance to Tul Karem while
each one is checked by soldiers and dogs because there has been a warning
that they’re about to blow up Tul Karem.
Make it so that when my sister urgently rushes to the hospital to give birth
and when I rush my husband to the hospital practically with red lights
flashing, I don’t have to think about the women giving birth and the heart
patients and the wounded people who are stopped at the entrance to Nablus
because their vehicle has no permit to enter.
Make it so that when I see a soldier in uniform on the street I do not
wonder what he did last night. What house he entered in a “Straw Widow
procedure”,* what boy he beat up in the alleys of Hawara because he smiled
the wrong way.
Make it so that in the morning I don’t hear the satisfaction in the voice of
the radio newsreader who relates that the IDF has killed six terrorists.
Obama my dear, this autumn I did not go to the olive harvest. It didn’t work
out. Please make it so that I will not suffer from pangs of conscience
because I am not doing enough. That I am living my own good life, pursuing
my career, while for the other people just to get home safely is a career in
itself.
Please relieve me of this pain that I have all the time deep in my belly. It
never lets up, I can never really enjoy life, children, friends or work,
because my mind is preoccupied with the image of the shepherd in Baq’a
standing by the locked gate and shivering with cold because the redhead with
the key has not showed up, and the bound blindfolded boy, and the
three-year-old girl who got hit on the head by the carousel at the
checkpoint, and the barriers of dirt and the concrete blocks that stop the
lives of so many people from flowing smoothly.
Come, Obama, come and save us from ourselves.
And if that is what they mean when they say you are not a friend of Israel,
then don’t be a friend. We have already had friends who arm us and justify
every horror we carry out and save us from the international cou rts. Be a
true friend. Save us from ourselves. And don’t do it for the world, do it
only for me, so I can have peace. You owe it to me. I do not believe in God
but still I prayed for you.
*The IDF practice of forcibly occupying private Palestinian homes
temporarily, for tactical purposes – translator
Edna Canetti wrote this for MachsomWatch.
The piece was translated from Hebrew by George Malent.
The only starting point
July 21st, 2008Jordan Times Editorial
AMMAN—Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has made some encouraging comments about prospects for a Fatah-Hamas reconciliation.
On Wednesday, he called for the immediate launch of a national dialogue to reestablish Palestinian national unity and bridge the debilitating domestic divide that has handicapped Palestinians for over two years now.
It is unfortunate that some of Abbas’ aides have sought to water down the spirit of his speech. Most importantly, while the violence that accompanied Hamas’ takeover of the Gaza Strip is inexcusable, if Fatah cadres are really interested in justice, they should seek and cooperate in a fair assessment of the causes of that violence and also bear in mind that until new elections are held, Hamas still holds a legitimate majority in the Palestinian parliament.
A government cannot implement a coup against itself. That is simply a contradiction in terms. Hence, such unhelpful language should be stricken from any attempt at national reconciliation. This may be difficult, in view of the extrajudicial killings by Hamas of Fatah leaders and fighters in the Gaza Strip. But in this case, an overriding sense of national interest must take precedence.
The division of the Palestinian polity has well served those who oppose an end to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict based on justice rather than imposition. An argument has grown prevalent that because Hamas is shunned by the West, any serious attempt at negotiated progress with Israel must entail Palestinian negotiators shunning Hamas too.
This is a dangerous and ill-thought-out strategy. Above all else, Palestinians need unity in their ranks. Without such unity, no negotiated agreement has any legitimacy and thus will have to be imposed by some Palestinian faction. This, like any settlement imposed by Israel, would not succeed.
Western objections, meanwhile, can be overcome with enough collective will and maturity on the Palestinian side. In any case, what is acceptable to the West, financial assistance notwithstanding, should always play a secondary role to the considerations of a Palestinian leadership that in any case has nothing but its legitimacy at stake.
It’s not as if there is a country to lose. There is only one to gain, and the only starting point is a united and coordinated Palestinian effort.
Source: Jordan Times, 8 June 2008, www.jordantimes.com.
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
The Army Corps of Engineers is using reconstruction contracts as an opportunity to help bolster women’s role in the Iraqi economy.
June 13th, 2008Government Executive June 1, 2008
The Army Corps of Engineers is using reconstruction contracts as an opportunity to help bolster women’s role in the Iraqi economy.
It’s no secret that there is money to be made in Iraq reconstruction contracts. And the Army Corps of Engineers has been working to get women-owned Iraqi businesses their share of procurement opportunities. The goal is not only to strengthen their foothold in fields like construction and management, but also to keep Iraq ahead of the curve on women’s rights in the Middle East.
For one Iraqi businesswoman the benefits have paid off with numerous Army contracts for engineering services. The entrepreneur, who requested anonymity for security reasons, worked from 1978 to 1994, and then stayed at home “because of the regime” before starting her own engineering company in 2005. “With [Saddam Hussein’s government], they put a lot of restrictions and rules on women, not directly against women but in one way or another prevented us from doing business,” she says. “The same rules exist still with some of the ministries, but with the Army everything is different.” Now her construction, engineering and supply company is a regular bidder in the competitive arena of Iraq reconstruction contracting and has won more than $4 million in awards.
According to Human Rights Watch, an international advocacy group, Iraqi women historically have had more liberties than other women in the Middle East. Sheryl Lewis, the Army Corps’ capacity development program manager in Washington, says this precedent makes women particularly important in the reconstruction effort. “Given Iraq’s actually secular nature, in that women . . . were allowed to work and didn’t have the restrictions that were placed on women in surrounding regional countries, it was always important to . . . empower women and promote their involvement in the workforce and help them to succeed,” Lewis says.
The strong presence of women in Iraq’s labor force deteriorated after the first Gulf War when sanctions severely constricted the economy. In the 1990s, the Ba’athist government began pushing women out of the labor force “in an effort to ensure employment for men,” according to a November 2003 Human Rights Watch briefing paper. “By the last years of Saddam Hussein’s government, the majority of women and girls had been relegated to traditional roles within the home.”
The Army Corps’ Federal Women’s Program, established in 2005, aims to help reverse that trend. Azza Humadi, in- theater manager of the program, sees an inextricable link between the progress of women and the progress of the country as a whole. A soft-spoken, passionate Iraqi citizen, Humadi says there is no question that women want and deserve a prominent role in developing the Iraqi economy, and she believes the program offers that opportunity. “We have to move forward be-cause the country won’t move forward if women are sitting home and locked and illiterate,” she says. “I am working very hard to get those women involved in business so they can have their own contracts and run their own companies, because they can make a difference in Iraq.”
Rebuilding Opportunities
With reconstruction projects taking place across Iraq and in every ministry, the opportunities are expansive. The Corps has seen its greatest success in building on local women’s business expertise, much of it in the water sector. Iraq’s Ministry of Municipalities and Public Works has 45,000 employees, about 60 percent of whom are women. In one initiative, the Corps drafted an army of Iraqi women for an intensive round of seminars and training programs and then dispatched them to the field to manage construction projects to rebuild Iraq’s water and sewage system. The Corps has trained nearly 2,000 women and awarded more than 1.000 contracts to women-owned engineering and construction businesses.
The women’s program is part of a larger capacity development plan, launched by the Defense Department’s now-defunct Iraq Project and Contracting Office to help Iraqis rebuild, operate and maintain their infrastructure. The expertise needed from contractors runs the gamut from construction to budgetary, managerial and logistical skills. The plan includes mandates to train and hire Iraqis, including women and women-owned businesses. The mission statement says all design-build contracts, excluding those in the oil sector, “facilitate increasing Iraqi women’s access to and/or ownership of productive assets . . . and include efforts to subcontract with Iraqi women and women-owned entities, and successful hiring and integration of Iraqi women.”
The Corps enforces these requirements through award fees and databases that track primary contractors’ progress on the women’s initiative, Lewis says. Companies earn fees based on their ability to reach subcontracting goals. They must report monthly on the number of women trained or hired, training hours they received, what types of jobs they perform – managerial, technical or administrative – and what steps were taken to promote women. Companies also answer free-form questions on their good faith efforts, making the database a best-practices resource for the initiative.
Lewis and Humadi say companies are eager and committed to meeting goals and coming up with innovative ways to mentor Iraqi businesswomen. The in-creasing number of women-owned firms that can operate as prime contractors, they say, is a testament to the guidance of large American companies.
The Corps also has established a database of Iraqi women-owned businesses available as subcontractors and résumés of Iraqi women.
Building connections with key players in the procurement community strengthened women’s business capabilities and helped the Corps get what it needs from contractors, including management and policy, professional, engineering, technical, supervisory, ad-ministrative and general labor services.
In this ever-growing network that Humadi and other program officials have helped build, American contractors mentor local women-owned businesses, often through matchmaking programs. These lead to subcontracting opportunities and bring women together with contracting professionals who can advise them on improving their bids and deciphering requests for proposals. “We really walk them through the whole thing,” Lewis says. “It’s an opportunity to provide mentoring and training on the whole process of bidding.” The Corps also sponsors a webinar series on the more technical aspects of engineering contracts, including U.S. construction standards and specifications.
Ambassadors of Business
Several Iraqi businesswomen say collaboration over the course of the procurement process has allowed them to advance. “There are no other opportunities like this opportunity, to be frank with you,” says one woman whose company specializes in barriers used for security. “We feel everyone wants to support us in what we’re doing for ourselves and our families and our country.” These business owners are careful to insist they receive no special treatment and compete on a level playing field. But they say networking with American contracting professionals gives them a better sense of what is expected on a project and why some proposals are rejected.
One woman says the insight they gain through the program makes them de facto ambassadors. “We transfer the training from inside the bases to outside the bases, from the green zone to the red zone,” she says.
Now there is less dependence on prime contractors to create opportunities for local entrepreneurs. As major companies increasingly supported Iraqi startups, they developed a foothold to compete on their own. “Over time our strategy has changed,” Lewis says. “We’ve gone to almost 100 percent direct contracting with Iraqi firms.” Also, program manager Humadi works closely with the Defense Department’s Joint Contracting Command-Iraq/Afghanistan on its Iraqi First program to increase the number of Iraqi prime contractors by strengthening their bids and guiding them through the award process.
While much of the focus is on how this program has benefited women on the ground, it also is a small step for American goals in Iraq. The reconstruction plan is designed both to rebuild and to give Iraqis the capacity to operate their own infrastructure as U.S. forces draw down. Managers hope that involving diverse parts of the population in the economy will make them stakeholders and increase stability.
Getting the Word Out
After three years, the Army Corps is just starting to publicize its women’s program through formal channels, such as the State Department-run provincial reconstruction teams and the Defense Contracting Command. For the most part, Humadi has been a one-woman public relations team, getting the word out through her professional connections and women’s and business associations. “It was literally Azza calling up women-owned businesses and saying, ‘Do you want to come to this event?’ ” Lewis says. “She has a very good understanding of where all the women-owned business are, who’s out there and who might want to participate.” Humadi’s dedication and far-reaching relationships with nongovernment organizations, Iraqi ministries and related associations have been valued by all sides.
Surprisingly, Humadi and Lewis say there has been little backlash from the support of women-owned businesses. But they could run into greater resistance as the program expands outside Baghdad, Lewis says, where religious and cultural beliefs about the role of women are stricter. “There are probably certain regions where there may be pushback, and it depends on their religion as well,” she says.
Iraqi businesswomen have faced some personal roadblocks in establishing their companies and working with the U.S. government. One, who owns an electromechanical engineering company and is the mother of three, says she even kept her company a secret from family members to avoid their disapproval. Another, whose company focuses on operations and maintenance for sewers and water treatment, says she was threatened and narrowly escaped kidnapping. “I succeeded to run away, but had to change my workplace and also my family place to another city and work from other towns,” she says. “This is the challenge we have here, the security situation, but we are still willing to do the work and look forward, just to help our people and ourselves.”
Humadi says she tries to instill confidence in women who want to get involved, traveling across the country for conferences and events despite the danger: “I wanted to show people that I would risk my life building trust and credibility.” It has paid off; participants in the program say they feel extremely comfortable coming to Humadi if they need information about anything – from contracts open for competition to late payments.
Business owners say their satisfaction comes not only from their financial success but also the way that success affects those around them. Many of the contracts awarded to Iraqi women through the Army Corps are multimillion-dollar construction or engineering projects that require substantial labor. “When you win a contract, it makes so many jobs – it can make 50 or 100 jobs for Iraqi workers,” says the owner of the water and sewage treatment company. “The workers seem very happy when they hear that we got a job and that they’re going to earn for their family.”
That earning power grows stronger every year. In 2005, the Army awarded 70 contracts worth $7 million to Iraqi businesswomen. In 2007, the Army awarded them 1,266 contracts worth $180 million. Program officials organized nine contracting and networking conferences, two job fairs and seven webinars in 2007. Affiliates trained 350 Iraqi women contractors at nine sites across the country, including Camp Victory in Baghdad, and Mosul and Kirkuk in the north. “We’re pretty proud of this program considering the amount of work that’s been able to get done with a relatively small number of people,” Lewis says. “I think it’s pretty remarkable.”
Iraqi participants hope that by making women a force in the economy, they can become a strong influence in other spheres as well. “If society sees successful women in business, they will at least have trust in women to take some position in politics,” one entrepreneur says. “If we see great examples of businesswomen maybe we will also see great examples of political women as well.”
Syria starts Arbitration as a dispute resolution alternative
May 9th, 2008
“In accordance with the new law many Syrian lawyers are gathering in order to start establishing arbitration centers. It is still initial meetings but will definitely end up by serious results,” says Hussein Khadour, Middle East Network Member.
Encountering peace: next year in Palestine
May 9th, 2008Gershon Baskin
JERUSALEM—Sixty years! Rising from the ashes and faced with six decades of struggle and war, Israel certainly has a lot to be proud of. Not only is Israel one of the world’s largest producers of news and interests around the world –given our size and the problems we face –but Israel has emerged to be a leading nation in so many fields—agriculture, water technology, high-tech, medical treatment and research, bio-technology, communications, and more. Recently, even Israel’s film industry has attracted international attention and fame. I look forward to our Independence Day celebrations every year. I am proud and pleased that we have this day to celebrate.
Many organisations on the far left have begun to combine Independence Day celebrations with ceremonies to mark the Palestinian Nakba—their national day of tragedy. There are some on the radical left who even call for boycotting Independence Day entirely. While I am considered a veteran “leftist” by many, I will not be there with those who suggest that we should not celebrate our day of independence.
Several times a year, Jewish, Christian and Muslim holidays take place around the same dates. It is customary for me to receive good wishes from many Palestinians and to wish them happy holidays in return. One of the more humorous of these is the annual Pesach greeting I receive from a Fatah leader, who extends his wishes in the traditional Jewish form: Wishing you a happy and a kosher Pesach!
On Independence Day 2001, at the height of the second Intifada, I received a call from a Palestinian friend in Bethlehem, who wished me a Happy Independence Day. This was a first for me. I was literally dumbfounded. I am not often at a loss for words—but I was taken off guard and didn’t know what to say. One year later, being prepared for his phone call, I was able to respond with “I hope that you too will soon be able to celebrate your independence!”
I will be very happy to see the day when the Palestinians have their own Independence Day to celebrate. That day, too, will be a celebration for Israel and for Zionism. Today, being pro-Israel by definition must mean that one is also pro-Palestinian. The fate and future of these two peoples depends on their ability to find a way to live side-by-side in peace—in two separate states. George W. Bush has challenged us to reach agreement by the end of his term in January 2009. At the same time, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas will also be finishing his term of office. No one knows for sure when Ehud Olmert will face the end of his term.
Negotiations are ongoing, but there are contradictory reports on their progress. If no agreement is reached by the end of the terms of the two Presidents, it is unlikely Abbas will seek another term. Even if he did seek another term, without an agreement in hand, it is unlikely that he would win an election. The most likely political scenario for Palestine without an agreement is the development of what the Palestinians call “fitna,” or chaos. Fitna will include more intifada, more violence, more suffering, and very likely the rise of Hamas in the West Bank as well.
The only clear potential Palestinian leader in the eyes of the public after Abbas is Marwan Barghouti, who is serving five consecutive life sentences in an Israeli prison. If the Palestinian territories do break down into renewed fighting and violence, it is very unlikely that any Israeli leader would consider releasing Barghouti. Of course, nothing is impossible, and unfortunately we have learned in our history that Israeli leaders often make decisions under violence that they refused to make under much better circumstances (e.g. disengagement from Gaza unilaterally rather than as part of a negotiated agreement).
According to the public mood in Israel today, and from public opinion research, it seems apparent that without an agreement in hand, Olmert stands little-to-no chance of winning an election. Binyamin Netanyahu is the most likely next prime minister in Israel. There seems little chance that Netanyahu would succeed in negotiations where Olmert failed. If the moderate Abbas is no longer in charge, and there is fitna or a Hamas takeover, the chances for the two-state solution would diminish beyond hope, and Israel would find itself in the tragic situation of continuing to rule over territories and a people that it has no desire to occupy.
Netanyahu has his theories that if we improve the economic situation of the Palestinians we can buy their quiet. It should be reminded that both Intifadas broke out at times when the Palestinian economy was on the rise and there seemed to be a lot of hope (economically) among most Palestinians. Nonetheless, the hope of economic prosperity was not enough to squash the lack of hope for political freedom and independence. We would have behaved in exactly the same way—we would never rest if our political freedom and independence was being denied to us, even if our pockets were full of money. There are some things money just can’t buy.
This year on Independence Day, the papers are full of articles about the next 60 years. I am more concerned with the next year or two. If we do not find a way to release our control over the Palestinians in the next year or two, then in 10 years, or twenty, we will be celebrating the independence of the state that will emerge here through bloodshed and struggle—a very different state. It will not be a Jewish state. It will not be a Zionist state. It will not be a state where the Jewish people are a majority.
So on this Independence Day I wish wholeheartedly to all of my Palestinian friends: “I hope that you too will soon be able to celebrate your independence!”
###
* Gershon Baskin is the Israeli Co-CEO of IPCRI, the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.<br />
Source: The Jerusalem Post, 5 May 2008, www.jpost.com.<br />Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Designing A Dispute Resolution Center in the Egyptian Ministry of Investment
May 2nd, 2008The Washington, DC, dispute resolution firm of Carr, Swanson and Randolph is designing and implementing a USAID funded dispute resolution program in Egypt for the Egyptian Ministry of Investment. Egypt is currently enjoying a petro-dollar led investment boom, augmented by substantial European investment. Investment has not reached its optimal level, however, because some investors are reluctant to put their money to work in Egypt in the face of the litigation risk posed by the
Egyptian courts. The Ministry of Investment has created the Centre to resolve cases between foreign investors and Egyptian partners using ADR processes in order to ameliorate, if not remove, one of the more significant barriers to foreign investment in Egypt.
The project is led by CSR’s Bob Randolph and Frank Carr who are creating a Dispute Resolution Centre in the Ministry using a template they have successfully used previously in Croatia, Bulgaria and Nepal to “stand-up” sustainable and successful mediation initiatives. This template being followed in Egypt involves (1) assisting with the recruitment of administrative staff, creating rules and procedures for the operation of the Centre, and training the administrative staff in case selection and referral procedures; (2) recruiting and training mediators; (3) working with the “sources” of case referrals, in this case courts, chambers of commerce and administrative agencies to select cases for referral to the Centre, (4) conducting a “train-the-trainer” course for the most proficient and motivated trainees to ensure sustainability of the program; (5) holding a “settlement week” to generate cases for the new mediator cadre and demonstrate the efficacy of mediation; and (6) designing and implementing public awareness campaigns to create public awareness of ADR among the populace generally and to generate a demand for mediation services among the various user communities, such as the business and investor community.
Randolph and Carr, with the assistance of Judge Patrick King of JAMS (Boston), have trained 60 mediators (30 in Cairo and 30 in Alexandria), consisting of a diverse group of senior lawyers, business persons, judges and government officials. Randolph, Carr and King will be returning in Egypt in June to conduct an intensive role-play “practicum” for the 60 graduates who have completed both the basic and advanced courses and to select the mediators who will be participating in the “settlement week” program in the fall.
U.S. Stumbling Over Its Precondition Demands
April 23rd, 2008Farooq Mitha is quite an interesting young man for whom I have great respect. He often write such Op Ed pieces for the Tampa Tribune. Here’s his latest thoughts.
U.S. Stumbling Over Its Precondition Demands
By FAROOQ MITHA
Published: January 23, 2008
The Bush administration strongly supports the use preconditions as a precursor to talks with states unfriendly to United States policy. Recent examples include discussions for potential talks with Iran and Syria.
The administration was adamant that certain preconditions be met before it would consider diplomatic overtures to these states, which are crucial to stability in the Middle East. However, the administration and lawmakers must consider the value of this policy very carefully and understand the practical implications on diplomacy and the negative impact using preconditions may have on the perception of United States in the international community.
This is especially true if we cannot hold countries to the preconditions we set before entering talks.
The idea behind the use of preconditions is that the United States, as a superpower, can demand concessions from other states before diplomatically engaging them because negotiations with the United States enhance the prestige of the other country. The theory states that using this superior status increases our stability and protects our interests. Preconditions to talks may also be practical because they ensure that there is some level of good faith involved from the other country. The Bush administration’s use of preconditions has shown its belief that military superiority rather than diplomacy is the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy.
A distinct problem with using preconditions is when negotiations commence despite the set preconditions not being satisfied. Specifically with Iran and Syria, the United States laid out many preconditions it wanted met before any talks. The administration told Iran to stop uranium enrichment and it told Syria that it had to seal its border with Iraq, stop supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, and stop interfering in Lebanon. Despite the fact that nearly none of these preconditions was met, the administration has carried out talks with these states at some level.
With Iran, while we have not discussed their nuclear program, we have engaged them in talks on security in Iraq. In regards to Syria, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has met with her Syrian counterpart twice this year and Syria was invited to participate in the recent Annapolis conference.
This makes the use of preconditions problematic for two reasons. If we cannot hold countries to the standards we set in preconditions, what impression does that give of the United States when we engage in talks with while the preconditions remain unmet? This is not to suggest that the administration is wrong to engage Iran and Syria, but these states are being engaged on their terms. Surely in the future, if we set preconditions for other states, they will look back to recent examples as evidence that we are not serious about preconditions being satisfied.
While the Bush administration should be commended for engaging Iran and Syria, it has set a bad precedent. When the United States engages with the international community it is important that it be taken seriously.
Farooq Mitha, JD is an international policy specialist. John Galeziowski, an international business consultant, contributed to this article.
Common Ground News Service
April 14th, 2008Middle East
10 – 16 April 2008
The Common Ground News Service – Middle East (CGNews-ME) is distributing the following articles to promote constructive perspectives and dialogue about current Middle East issues. CGNews-ME is available in Arabic, English and Hebrew. To subscribe, click here.
For an archive of past CGNews articles and other information, please visit our website at www.commongroundnews.org .
Unless otherwise noted, copyright permission has been obtained and articles may be reprinted by any news outlet or publication. Please acknowledge both the original source and the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Inside this edition
1) I want the Palestinians to win by Bradley Burston
“It may be many years before Palestinians and Israelis can again begin to feel confident in a future that promises their children life,” laments senior Ha’aretz editor, Bradley Burston. “But none of us can abide in this present, a reality in which we kill their children and they kill ours, in which we kill their hopes and they ours.”
(Source: Ha’aretz, 08 April 2008)
2) Settlement freeze by Forward Editorial
“It’s important to acknowledge that the question of new Israeli construction in the West Bank is not a matter of intrinsic right and wrong, of moral vs. immoral behaviour,” notes the Jewish Daily Forward. Nonetheless, “At this moment in history, however, new construction in the settlements, whatever its moral valence, is foolish and self-destructive.”
(Source: Forward, 03 April 2008)
3) Poll: Israelis ready for Arab anchor by Meirav Crystal
A recent survey, conducted by Agenda and the Teleseker polling company, finds that the majority of Israelis are ready for increased visibility of Israeli Arabs in the media.
(Source: Ynet News, 07 April 2008)
4) Barghouti urges cease-fire by Beth O’Connell
Beth O’Connell recounts Peace Now’s successes over their 30-year history working for a two-state solution in Israel and the Palestinian Territories. While the organization’s political views have become more mainstream, civic leaders like Marwan Barghouti continue to play a role in shifting attitudes.
(Source: Daily Star, 09 April 2008)
5) Adrift in the Middle East by International Herald Tribune Editorial
This International Herald Tribune editorial urges US leaders to do more than just show up at the negotiating table between Israelis and Palestinians: “If Washington doesn’t make clear its own commitment to … peace, it cannot expect weak Israeli and Palestinian leaders to take the political risks needed for a realistic compromise.”
(Source: International Herald Tribune, 03 April 2008)
6) Galilee Arabs paint mosque for Israel’s 60th by Ha’aretz
A mosque in Israel shows its national pride in honour of the country’s 60th year anniversary. “We are residents of Israel. Our religion encourages love and closeness among nations. Jews, Muslims, we are all cousins, right?”
(Source: Ha’aretz, 08 April 2008)
1)
I want the Palestinians to win
Bradley Burston
JERUSALEM”I and the majority of the Palestinian people are ready for a historic agreement based on international decisions that will allow a Palestinian and Israeli state to coexist, side by side, in peace and stability.”
Jailed Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti, in letter to be read at ceremony marking 30th anniversary of Peace Now movement.
These are devastating times for people who believe that the Palestinians need and deserve and will live to see a state of their own. A poll taken last month showed that 68% of Palestinians believe that the chances for the establishment of a Palestinian state during the next five years are non-existent or weak.
That same poll found that fully 84 percent of the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza supported the Mercaz Harav yeshiva massacre which killed eight students, and that nearly two-thirds back Gaza rocket attacks against Sderot and Ashkelon in southern Israel.
Opponents of Palestinian statehood, right wing and religious Jews and Christians at the fore, have seized on the poll as conclusive proof that Israel must abandon efforts aimed at aiding a two-state solution.
They have also pointed to the crushing despair of the Palestinians as evidence that Israel is finally winning an epic struggle for the future of the Holy Land. They quote Zakariya Zubeidi, until recently the charismatic commander of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades militia in the West Bank flashpoint of Jenin:
“We failed entirely in the intifada,” Zubeida told Ha’aretz Ami Issacharoff in an interview published at the weekend. “We haven’t seen any benefit or positive result from it. We achieved nothing. It’s a crushing failure. We failed at the political level we didn’t succeed in translating the military actions into political achievements … We are marching in the direction of nowhere, toward total ruin. The Palestinian people are finished. Done for.”
The right has taken a degree of satisfaction in this turn of events, even a measure of credit. The assumption has long been that in a battle of this tenacity, there can be but one winner.
It’s a useful assumption if what you’re after, deep down, is a guarantee that settlements will stay right where they are, with new ones to follow, and no end of new housing for veteran enclaves. It’s a useful assumption if you believe that settlements are essential to Israel’s security and its future.
I must, therefore, beg the right’s pardon when I say that in the long run, the assumptions appear to me to be dead wrong.
I’m a fairly patriotic sort, as these things go. A California native, I truly love the nation, and especially the state, of my birth. I love this, my adopted homeland, no less. I deeply want Israel to be a success. And that is why I wanted the Palestinians to win.
Not win as in “throw the Jews in the sea.” Not win as in “set the ground ablaze under the Jews’ feet.”
Win as in “gain what the Jews have gained independence, statehood, responsibility over their own fate, and a sense of proportion over what is attainable in a world and a region of limited resources and manifold hopes.”
When I was first here, and young, and knew nothing, it seemed to me that a prerequisite for a viable, thriving and, yes, permanent Israel was to have a neighbour state of Palestine that was itself viable, thriving and permanent.
I spoke with many Palestinians who felt the same. Their vision of the future was an independent country alongside Israel, a place in which Palestinians could earn a respectable living, live calm lives and raise well-educated children free of undue fear, ire, and resentment.
They bore wounds, emotional and, in some cases, physical, having directly to do with Israel. There were going to be ways in which, no matter how a deal was cut, Palestinians would be forced to swallow a number of doses of injustice. As would the Israelis. There were past injustices, lost birthrights, dashed hopes, shattered promises, which would never be redressed.
Still, the Palestinians with whom I chanced to speak, some of whom I came to work with and know, believed that a peace, an actual peace, a sulha to put a halt to a horrible history, would come with two states, Israel and Palestine.
Later on, when secret peace talks in Oslo yielded agreement between bitter enemies, there was a shocking sense of elation on both sides. It seemed that the path to two states had been found.
I know. You’re not supposed to say that anymore. People on my side, people who have never spoken to a Palestinian in their lives, are doubtless cracking their knuckles at this point, getting ready to set me straight about these people, why the very word Oslo is an obscenity, why those Jews who spearheaded the process were criminals, why those Jews who supported it were dupes at best and traitors at worst.
It is in the direct interest of hardliners to do everything in their power to convince their side that this is a zero-sum game, that only one side can emerge triumphant.
In fact, though, there are two additional options, the first, of course, being that both sides can lose. The second, the one of which we’ve largely lost sight, is that with an element of compassion, both sides can win.
There are well over three million Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, and they are not about to go anywhere. We lack the will, the capability and, in fact, the failure of conscience that it would take to persuade or force them to leave.
There are more than seven million Israelis, and they are not going anywhere either. A poll conducted last month by Tel Aviv University’s Tami Steinmetz Center showed that 82 percent of Israeli respondents said rocket attacks either had no bearing on their decision to stay in Israel, or even strengthened their resolve to do so.
True, peace, as a concept and a hope, has gone underground. But a close examination of all recent polls showing the depths of Israeli and Palestinian fear and anger, is that a majority on both sides still believes in a two-state solution even people who, for the present at least, reject the idea of negotiations, argue for attacks against the other side, and have no faith in their leaders or the those of the enemy.
It may be many years before Palestinians and Israelis can again begin to feel confident in a future that promises their children life. But none of us can abide in this present, a reality in which we kill their children and they kill ours, in which we kill their hopes and they ours.
If there is to be peace, people who have sacrificed and suffered, Israelis and Palestinians alike, will face further sacrifices, further pain, further renunciation of long-held dreams. This is the cost of peace. There are those who will continue to try to convince their side that the price of permanent war is somehow preferable.
I am no longer young, but I still want the Palestinians to win. For that to happen, both sides have a lot of growing up to do. I hope I live to see it.
###
* Bradley Burston is Senior Editor of Haaretz.com, the newspaper’s online English language edition. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org .
Source: Ha’aretz, 08 April 2008, www.haaretz.com
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
2)
Settlement freeze
Forward Editorial
NEW YORK CITYA rash of reports coming out of Israel indicates that a spurt of new construction is under way in Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The development should be alarming to anyone who cares about Israel’s welfare. It’s a violation of Israel’s public commitments, most of all to the Bush administration. It’s damaging to Israel’s international standing and harmful to its security, both short and long term. Most troubling, it’s a sign of the weakness of the Olmert government, and it raises questions about Israel’s ability to negotiate for the peace that its prime minister so clearly wants.
Settler spokesmen and their allies on the right are claiming that the reports were trumped up by the left-wing Peace Now in order to embarrass the settlers and the Israeli government. But that’s simply not true. The reports come from the hawkish Shas party as well as Peace Now, from the conservative Jerusalem Post as well as the liberal Ha’aretz. Some reports, in fact, have come from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert himself, apparently in a bid to soothe his right-wing opponents and keep Shas from bolting his coalition.
Olmert and his aides insist the new construction upward of 2,000 new apartments to be bid out to contractors is perfectly within Israel’s rights and doesn’t present any legal or diplomatic difficulties. About half the planned units will go up inside the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem, which means, as one Israeli diplomat told the Forward, “there’s no problem.” Most others fall within the municipal boundaries of major settlements that Israel intends to keep in any future agreement.
But the Israeli government’s stance is at best disingenuous. Israel claims that new construction in eastern Jerusalem, captured in 1967, cannot be called settlement activity because Israel annexed the eastern half and it is no longer occupied territory. Unfortunately, no other country recognizes the annexation. Every other government in the world, including the United States, believes that east Jerusalem is occupied territory, and that civilian Israeli construction there is forbidden under the Geneva Conventions.
More important, Israel committed itself in the framework of President Bush’s 2003 Road Map to peace to “freeze all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements).” There’s no exception for new building inside the settlements’ municipal boundaries, which Israel insists it’s entitled to do. New homes for the settlers’ growing families are exactly what is meant by “natural growth.”
Whatever the status of Jerusalem, outlying West Bank communities such as Ariel and Betar Illit are settlements by anybody’s lights, including Israel’s. The new construction announced there last month is a direct slap at the Road Map and its author, as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made clear in her angry remarks in Jordan just after the new construction was announced.
It’s important to acknowledge that the question of new Israeli construction in the West Bank is not a matter of intrinsic right and wrong, of moral vs. immoral behaviour. Violating the Road Map agreement by building new apartment blocks can hardly be compared with violating it by bombarding Israeli towns and deliberately killing and maiming civilians. Israelis are not wrong to question the international outcry that greets every new West Bank housing start.
At this moment in history, however, new construction in the settlements, whatever its moral valence, is foolish and self-destructive. Israel’s political and defence leaders see their country’s survival as dependent on separating from the Palestinians by withdrawing from the West Bank. If that doesn’t happen soon, Israel is, as Olmert said recently, “finished.” With unilateral withdrawal discredited, getting out requires a Palestinian partner who can take over when Israel leaves. At the moment the sole candidate for the job is Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, leader of the secular-leaning Fatah party.
But Abbas is too weak to impose order and hold back the rival Hamas movement, and he’s growing weaker. His inability to deliver concrete Palestinian gains through negotiation badly discredits him and his strategy of negotiation among his constituents. Each new housing construction in the settlements weakens him further.
Jerusalem maintains that the Palestinians must honour their Road Map commitment to stop incitement and break up terrorist gangs before Israel needs to begin acting on its commitments. The way things look now, though, that may be backward. Israel needs to help Abbas win back control by first honouring its own commitments.
###
* This article originally appeared in The Forward (www.forward.com), America’s national Jewish newspaper, and is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org .
Source: The Forward, 03 April 2008, www.forward.com .
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.
3)
Poll: Israelis ready for Arab anchor
Meirav Crystal
TEL AVIVThe Israeli public is more than ready for an Arab newscaster, a survey held by Agenda, the Israeli Center for Strategic Communications, revealed Sunday.
The poll, performed by Agenda and the Teleseker polling company, included 400 native Israelis, 200 Israelis who emigrated from the former Soviet Union and 200 Arab Israelis, making up 800 participants.
The groups were segmented in order to get a clear view of the public perception of the Israeli media, as well as to examine the way it covers issues relating to each of the sectors.
According to the data, fifty-two percent of the Israeli public is more than willing to accept Arab news personalities. Some 70% of those taking part in the poll said they believed Israeli broadcast should include at least an Arab weatherperson and close to 80% said they would like to see more Arabs being interviewed by the Israeli media.
The survey stands to be presented in the second annual Haifa University Conference for Social Responsibility, which will hold a panel discussing the correlation between media and social responsibility.
Polling data also revealed that 36% of the Arab sector reads Hebrew newspapers, as opposed to only 20% of Russian immigrant that do so. The latter group, however, listens to Israeli radio more that the former – 34% versus 15% respectively.
Increasing the visibility of Israeli Arabs in the media, said the Agenda data, will clearly better their standing in Israeli society, as it will reinforce their sense of belonging.
Sixty-one percent of the Arab polled said they would watch more Israeli television if it gave Arab citizens a better platform; and 50% of those who do not read Israeli newspapers, said they would do so if Israeli print media would give Arab personas more of a voice.
As if to echo the sentiment, Channel 10’s Lucy Aharish, the channel’s first Arab news anchor, resigned her post recently over professional differences. She is now the front-runner to be an anchor on one of Channel 2’s morning shows.
As for the public’s general perception of the media, all those taking part Jews, Arabs and Russians alike gave it a barely passing grade, but still agreed that it had a significant influence on their lives.
###
* Gavri Bargil writes for YNet News. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org .
Source: Ynet News, 07 April 2008, www.ynetnews.com .
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
4)
Barghouti urges cease-fire
Beth O’Connell
JERUSALEMIsrael’s Peace Now movement, celebrating 30 years of activism, on Tuesday received assurances from a jailed occupied West Bank leader that Palestinians are ready for reconciliation. “The vast majority of the Palestinian people, myself included, are ready for a historic reconciliation based on international resolutions that will result in the establishment of two states,” Marwan Barghouti, currently jailed in Israel for his role in the 2000 Palestinian uprising, told the group.
Peace Now was set to mark three decades of promoting peace and acting against settlement expansion later on Tuesday at a Tel Aviv square named after prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, who was assassinated after a peace rally there in 1995.
In 1982, Peace Now led a 400,000-strong protest at the same square.
The group’s call for a two-state solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians used to be seen as a radical concept. But today it is the US-backed consensus view in Israel and at the core of peace talks.
Peace Now’s dialogue with Palestinians goes back three decades to secret meetings with representatives of the Palestine Liberation Organization in East Jerusalem to discuss possible future peace talks.
The breakthrough finally came in 1993 when Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Rabin signed the Oslo Accords five years after the PLO formally recognized Israel’s right to exist.
“We had a role in changing the public dialogue and the fact is that today there is a majority supporting the two-state solution, negotiations and pulling out of the West Bank,” said long-time activist Galia Golan, 69.
In his letter, Barghouti called for reconciliation “that will grant our and your own children a life devoid of the threats of war and bloodshed.”
A senior member of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah party, Barghouti has been serving five life sentences in an Israeli prison since 2004.
Barghouti also called for the removal of Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bankan issue that has been at the core of Peace Now’s activism since its founding in 1978.
“We failed to prevent new construction but we managed to make the issue critical and make the public realise we must get rid of them,” said Golan, a professor at the Lauder school of government in Herzliya.
The last major Peace Now demonstration was in May 2005 in support of removing Jewish settlements in Gaza. Today some people question the group’s relevance now that its political views have become mainstream.
To the settlers, Peace Now’s influence seems to have waned since the outbreak of the second Palestinian uprising in 2000, the collapse of US-sponsored peace talks early the following year, and Hamas’ seizure of the impoverished Gaza Strip last June.
“Israeli public opinion has seen the illusion of peace, seen the big mistakes Peace Now and their allies have made,” according to Dani Dayan, chairman of the main settlement organization, the Yesha Council.
Sammy Smooha, a sociology professor at Haifa University, says that over the years Peace Now has made a significant contribution to raising public awareness by “spreading the idea that peace is possible, achievable, and not an illusion.”
###
* This article, written by Agence France Presse, appeared on the Daily Star. It is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org .
Source: Daily Star, 09 April 2008, www.dailystar.com.lb
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
5)
Adrift in the Middle East
International Herald Tribune Editorial
JERUSALEMSecretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s latest trip to Israel and Jordan came at a time when anger and frustration among ordinary Israelis and Palestinians are building to dangerous levels. This was a moment for leadership and direction. Unfortunately, the moment was once again allowed to slip away.
Surely, Rice understands that Woody Allen’s “80 percent of success is showing up” does not apply to the deadly serious business of Middle East peacemaking. Yet despite 14 trips to the region in the past 15 months, plus the November peace conference in Annapolis, Rice has frighteningly little to show for her presence.
If anything, the two sides are further apart than they were in November, and Israel’s prime minister, Ehud Olmert, and the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, have less room to maneuver.
Israel marked Rice’s visit by agreeing to remove 50 of its roadblocks restricting travel in the West Bank. That leaves 530, roughly the same number as at the start of 2007. Any goodwill was erased when, hours after she departed, Israel announced its intention to build 800 new homes for Jewish families in the West Bank. Abbas promised more energetic efforts against terrorism – a promise he has made before – and agreed to end his month-long boycott of meetings with Olmert.
Just coming back to the table will not matter much unless Washington starts to push in earnest for the compromises that are the only basis for an agreement. President Bill Clinton first proposed the outline in 2000: a secure Israel and an economically viable Palestinian state, divided by roughly the June 1967 borders, and including reasonable compromises over Jerusalem.
If Washington doesn’t make clear its own commitment to this kind of peace, it cannot expect weak Israeli and Palestinian leaders to take the political risks needed for a realistic compromise.
They, as well as Washington, would also have to deal with the disruptive reality of Hamas, which broadcasts anti-Jewish propaganda and encourages deadly rocket fire into Israeli towns. The essential first step is to encourage efforts by Egypt and other Arab nations to press Hamas toward a complete cease-fire.
If that can be achieved, the United States and Israel should start exploring the possibilities of talking directly with Hamas, though not in a way that excludes the far more statesmanlike Abbas. Doing so does not imply approval of Hamas’ past methods or future goals. It does acknowledge that Hamas has a strong constituencyand a lasting peace would have to include these Palestinians as well.
###
* This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org .
Source: International Herald Tribune, 03 April 2008, www.iht.com
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
6)
Galilee Arabs paint mosque for Israel’s 60th
Ha’aretz
A-TAIBEH, IsraelIn an unusual gesture of solidarity for Israel’s 60th anniversary, villagers in one Arab-Israeli town have painted the dome of their mosque in the national colours: blue and white.
The gesture in A-Taibeh, a village in the Galilee near the Gilboa, comes at a time when Arab-Jewish relations in the region have been marked by tensions, and many Israeli Arabs have vowed to boycott the anniversary celebrations and commemorations.
“We are residents of Israel. Our religion encourages love and closeness among nations. Jews, Muslims, we are all cousins, right?” A-Taibeh Mayor Hisham Zuabi was quoted as telling Maariv newspaper.
“We decided to paint the mosque’s dome, the most important, dear, and holy site for us, in the national colours. We are all citizens of the state of Israel. As far as we are concerned, there is no difference here between Jews, Muslims, and Christians.”
A-Taibeh, which sits adjacent to the moshav Moledet, has a population of about 2,000. Its newly decorated mosque has been in existence for decades.
Zuabi was quoted as saying that village residents don’t fear criticism or threats because of their decision. Instead, they hope it will serve to unite Arabs and Jews. “The goal is purification, coexistence,” said Zoabi. “A Jew who enters the mosque will not feel hostility, but rather will feel at home.”
###
* This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org .
Source: Ha’aretz, 08 April 2008, www.haaretz.com
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
About CGNews-ME
The Common Ground News Service – Middle East (CGNews-ME) provides news, op-eds, features and analysis by local and international experts on a broad range of Middle East issues. CGNews syndicates articles that are solution-oriented, offer hope and promote dialogue and mutual understanding to news outlets throughout the Middle East and worldwide. With support from the British, Norwegian, Swedish and US Governments, the United States Institute of Peace, the National Endowment for Democracy and private donors, the service is a non-profit initiative of Search for Common Ground, an international NGO working in the fields of conflict transformation and media production.
The Common Ground News Service also promotes constructive perspectives and dialogue about Muslim-Western relations. This service, Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH) is available in Arabic, English, French and Indonesian. To subscribe, click here.
The views expressed in these articles are those of the authors, not of CGNews or its affiliates.
Common Ground News Service
1601 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite #200
Washington, DC 20009 USA
Ph: +1(202) 265-4300
Fax: +1(202) 232-6718
Rue Belliard 205 Bte 13 B-1040
Brussels, Belgium
Ph: +32(02) 736-7262
Fax: +32(02) 732-3033
Email : cgnews@sfcg.org
Website : www.commongroundnews.org
Editors
Sharon Rosen (Jerusalem)
Rami Assali (Jerusalem)
Andrew Kessinger (Washington)
Mahmoud Zawawi (Amman)
Translators
Lia Nirgad (Tel-Aviv)
Azmi Tubbeh (Washington)
The Amman Message
April 4th, 2008Summary
The Amman Message started as a detailed statement released the eve of the 27th of Ramadan 1425 AH / 9th November 2004 CE by H.M. King Abdullah II bin Al-Hussein in Amman, Jordan. It sought to declare what Islam is and what it is not, and what actions represent it and what actions do not. Its goal was to clarify to the modern world the true nature of Islam and the nature of true Islam.
In order to give this statement more religious authority, H.M. King Abdullah II then sent the following three questions to 24 of the most senior religious scholars from all around the world representing all the branches and schools of Islam: (1) Who is a Muslim? (2) Is it permissible to declare someone an apostate (takfir)? (3) Who has the right to undertake issuing fatwas (legal rulings)?
Based on the fatwas provided by these great scholars (who included the Shaykh Al-Azhar; Ayatollah Sistani and Sheikh Qaradawi), in July 2005 CE, H.M. King Abdullah II convened an international Islamic conference of 200 of the world’s leading Islamic scholars ‘Ulama) from 50 countries. In Amman, the scholars unanimously issued a ruling on three fundamental issues (which became known as the ‘Three Points of the Amman Message’):
They specifically recognized the validity of all 8 Mathhabs (legal schools) of Sunni, Shi’a and Ibadhi Islam; of traditional Islamic Theology (Ash’arism); of Islamic Mysticism (Sufism), and of true Salafi thought, and came to a precise definition of who is a Muslim.
Based upon this definition they forbade takfir (declarations of apostasy) between Muslims.
Based upon the Mathahib they set forth the subjective and objective preconditions for the issuing of fatwas, thereby exposing ignorant and illegitimate edicts in the name of Islam.
These Three Points were then unanimously adopted by the Islamic World’s political and temporal leaderships at the Organization of the Islamic Conference summit at Mecca in December 2005. And over a period of one year from July 2005 to July 2006, the Three Points were also unanimously adopted by six other international Islamic scholarly assemblies, culminating with the International Islamic Fiqh Academy of Jeddah, in July 2006. In total, over 500 leading Muslim scholars worldwide—as can be seen on this website [click here to see the entire list]—unanimously endorsed the Amman Message and its Three Points.
This amounts to a historical, universal and unanimous religious and political consensus (ijma’) of the Ummah (nation) of Islam in our day, and a consolidation of traditional, orthodox Islam. The significance of this is: (1) that it is the first time in over a thousand years that the Ummah has formally and specifically come to such a pluralistic mutual inter-recognition; and (2) that such a recognition is religiously legally binding on Muslims since the Prophet (may peace and blessings be upon him) said: My Ummah will not agree upon an error (Ibn Majah, Sunan, Kitab al-Fitan, Hadith no.4085).
This is good news not only for Muslims, for whom it provides a basis for unity and a solution to infighting, but also for non-Muslims. For the safeguarding of the legal methodologies of Islam (the Mathahib) necessarily means inherently preserving traditional Islam’s internal ‘checks and balances’. It thus assures balanced Islamic solutions for essential issues like human rights; women’s rights; freedom of religion; legitimate jihad; good citizenship of Muslims in non-Muslim countries, and just and democratic government. It also exposes the illegitimate opinions of radical fundamentalists and terrorists from the point of view of true Islam. As George Yeo, the Foreign Minister of Singapore, declared in the 60th Session of the U.N. General Assembly (about the Amman Message): “Without this clarification, the war against terrorism would be much harder to fight.”
Finally, whilst this by the Grace of God is a historical achievement, it will clearly remain only principial unless it is put into practice everywhere. For this reason, H.M. King Abdullah II is now seeking to implement it, God willing, through various pragmatic measures, including (1) inter-Islamic treaties; (2) national and international legislation using the Three Points of the Amman Message to define Islam and forbid takfir; (3) the use of publishing and the multi-media in all their aspects to spread the Amman Message; (4) instituting the teaching of the Amman Message in school curricula and university courses worldwide; and (5) making it part of the training of mosque Imams and making it included in their sermons.
God says in the Holy Qur’an says:
There is no good in much of their secret conferences save (in) whosoever enjoineth charity and fairness and peace-making among the people and whoso doeth that, seeking the good pleasure of God, We shall bestow on him a vast reward. (Al-Nisa, 4:114).