RSS Feed (xml)
While I acknowledge that this link is not in any way related to peace in the Holy Land, I have been to and greatly enjoyed the Museum of Islamic Art in Doha and thought it was worth sharing the architect's brief comments on designing the building. The cubism-inspired building itself, situated on a man-made island in a nearly perfectly circular bay is incredible, especially when viewed down the palm-lined promenade linking the island museum with the shore of Doha. Inside however, is where the real treasure of the museum lies. I found the exhibits to be fascinating and informative, and the diversity of exhibits and ideas on art and its place in Islam made the museum one of the best I have had the opportunity to visit. I also credit the MIA-Doha fully for my inordinate knowledge of pearls, as during my visit the museum featured a temporary exhibit on pearling throughout history and pearl art.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
The Wild West Bank: Settler's set fire to Palestinian mosque in West Bank
From Haaretz and Maan, settlers apparently representing the recently dismantled illegal (even by Israeli standards) settlement of Alei Ayin have allegedly set fire to and vandalized a Palestinian mosque in the small West Bank village of Al-Mughayyir. The village is close to the site of where the Israeli settlement used to stand and the words "Price Tag" (a reference to the more violent settlers policy of causing damage or violence toward Palestinians in return for the Israeli government dismantling squatter settlements in the West Bank) and "Alei Ayin" were spraypainted on an exterior wall of the mosque.
This is certainly not the first price tag attack by angry settlers on Palestinians and their property but I think it perfectly illustrates the serious discrepancy and bias of the Israeli military in administering the occupation of the West Bank. The IDF is generally pretty effective at keeping Palestinians out of Israeli settlements in the occupied territory, but is not nearly as effective (as a matter of policy and resources) at keeping settlers out of Palestinian towns and villages. Palestinians living under Israeli control and administration in Area C and partially in Area B in the West Bank have far different access to police and legal services than (not to mention transportation and zoning access) do Israeli settlers - even those that the Israeli government acknowledges are living illegally in the West Bank. This is not a matter of neglect but of policy and I'm not sure how it's any less abhorrent than Jim Crow laws discriminating against African-Americans in the American South.
This is also one of the many things that makes Israel's continuing occupation of the West Bank (and Golan Heights) so different than so many modern military occupations. The Israeli military is not only attempting to pacify a population hostile to their presence, but protect and encourage civilians that live in scattered villages, towns, and cities that checker the occupied territory.
I cannot help from being reminded of the Jacob's Tomb incident of several weeks ago in which an Israeli visitor to Jacob's Tomb was shot and killed by a Palestinian Authority policeman after members of his group attempted to drive through a PA checkpoint. The group of worshipers had failed to coordinate their visit to the site (which lies in Area A, under full civil and security control of the Palestinian Authority) with the IDF and PA. The police officer reported that he fired on the cars of visitors after they failed to heed the PA checkpoint and warning shots fired into the air.
The village of Al-Mughayyir (where the mosque arson took place) is within Area A/B where the PA has either full or joint security control with the IDF. What exists in much of the West Bank is an extremely unstable situation in which both the Palestinian Authority and Israeli settlers are attempting to assert competing authorities over the same lands. The failure to draw up any recognizable borders between Palestinians and Israelis only makes problems like the price tag attacks and the killing of an Israeli worshiper at Jacob's Tomb all the more likely. While a final status agreement would certainly draw borders between the two sides, the current situation (in which Israeli settlements are scattered haphazardly on hilltops across the West Bank) is terrible for the stability and safety of both sides.
This is certainly not the first price tag attack by angry settlers on Palestinians and their property but I think it perfectly illustrates the serious discrepancy and bias of the Israeli military in administering the occupation of the West Bank. The IDF is generally pretty effective at keeping Palestinians out of Israeli settlements in the occupied territory, but is not nearly as effective (as a matter of policy and resources) at keeping settlers out of Palestinian towns and villages. Palestinians living under Israeli control and administration in Area C and partially in Area B in the West Bank have far different access to police and legal services than (not to mention transportation and zoning access) do Israeli settlers - even those that the Israeli government acknowledges are living illegally in the West Bank. This is not a matter of neglect but of policy and I'm not sure how it's any less abhorrent than Jim Crow laws discriminating against African-Americans in the American South.
This is also one of the many things that makes Israel's continuing occupation of the West Bank (and Golan Heights) so different than so many modern military occupations. The Israeli military is not only attempting to pacify a population hostile to their presence, but protect and encourage civilians that live in scattered villages, towns, and cities that checker the occupied territory.
I cannot help from being reminded of the Jacob's Tomb incident of several weeks ago in which an Israeli visitor to Jacob's Tomb was shot and killed by a Palestinian Authority policeman after members of his group attempted to drive through a PA checkpoint. The group of worshipers had failed to coordinate their visit to the site (which lies in Area A, under full civil and security control of the Palestinian Authority) with the IDF and PA. The police officer reported that he fired on the cars of visitors after they failed to heed the PA checkpoint and warning shots fired into the air.
The village of Al-Mughayyir (where the mosque arson took place) is within Area A/B where the PA has either full or joint security control with the IDF. What exists in much of the West Bank is an extremely unstable situation in which both the Palestinian Authority and Israeli settlers are attempting to assert competing authorities over the same lands. The failure to draw up any recognizable borders between Palestinians and Israelis only makes problems like the price tag attacks and the killing of an Israeli worshiper at Jacob's Tomb all the more likely. While a final status agreement would certainly draw borders between the two sides, the current situation (in which Israeli settlements are scattered haphazardly on hilltops across the West Bank) is terrible for the stability and safety of both sides.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Human Interest Thursday: Struggle in Gaza
One of the things I enjoy doing on this blog is taking a break from taking about large, often-vague matters and focus on the individual stories. The book I am currently reading by Israeli author David Grossman, "Sleeping On a Wire" is perfect at putting a face to the struggle of Palestinians in Israel. I'm just finishing that book up and should have the review up sometime early next week.
Until then, here are two interesting stories illustrating the immense struggles of Gazans:
Until then, here are two interesting stories illustrating the immense struggles of Gazans:
Palestinian feminist Asma Al-Ghoul is fighting against both the Islamist Hamas government in Gaza and Israeli military's blockade of the Gaza Strip, asserting her desires for freedom as a Palestinian woman. She's also currently writing a novel about the Islamization of Gaza, entitled City of Love and Taboo.
Meanwhile, Nader el Masri has dreams of running the 5,000m race in the London Olympics. He's become a hero for dozens of Gazan school children.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Hillary Clinton's new strategy for peace sounds a lot like the old one
Last Friday American Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lamented the failure of the first 18 months of the Obama peace process and explained the new direction the administration intends to take in order to achieve peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Clinton's speech was illuminating in that it showed the total lack of vision of the U.S.-mediated process since Obama took office and demonstrated that the administration is still making things up as they go along.
This is not a peace process reset. This is simply a transparent effort to throw up a facade and avoid the media from reporting what has transpired as a total collapse which would bring into question the continued viability of the two-state solution. Make no mistake, what has happened with the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is a total collapse that should cause us to question whether U.S.-mediated negotiations can ever result in a final two-state solution.
The Obama administration has apparently dropped the peace process on Clinton's desk and George Mitchell is still eyes on the ground, responsible for the actual negotiations. According to Clinton, the new old strategy will consist of the U.S. pursuing indirect negotiations with Mitchell shuttling between them. This is piece for piece exactly what the administration set into motion 18 months ago and which failed to result in any meaningful breakthroughs. The only difference between now and the start of Obama's presidency is that the U.S. will stop pressing Israel over settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, despite the fact that the this was the only smart component of Obama's doomed strategy.
Clinton has promised that, in contrast to the indirect negotiations of 18 months ago, these shuttle talks will focus on substantive issues such as borders, the status of Jeruslaem, refugees, and settlements. This statement begs the question of what the old talks were even focused on. Why was the administration even talking to the parties and attempting to get them to talk if they were not going to bother to focus on issues that actually cause this conflict. The more the administration talks about the "new" strategy the more terribly planned and executed the "old" strategy sounds.
Furthermore, Clinton's assertion that the U.S. will not bother Israel over settlements (despite the fact that the administration and Clinton herself see settlements and their growth as obvious obstacles to peace) is contradictory to her statements that settlements are one of the core issues. According to Clinton the indirect negotiations must include discussions about the ever-expanding settlements but cannot include discussion of stopping them from ever-expanding while the negotiations are going on. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his Fateh party leaders reject negotiations with Israel without a stop to settlement expansion. Despite Abbas' seemingly hard assertions, his announcement is certainly vague enough to allow him to continue to repeat the mantra ad infinitum while still sending his negotiating team to take part in shuttle negotiations with George Mitchell.
The "new" strategy's lack of focus on Israeli settlements also shows the Obama administration's refusal to acknowledge the errors learned from the Camp David process. In the immediate aftermath of that failure, American negotiator Aaron David Miller lamented that the U.S. had far too often acted as Israel's lawyer instead of an impartial mediator and Israeli and American negotiators had failed to fully appreciate how important stopping settlement growth was to the Palestinians.
To wrap up, the Obama administration has proposed a "new" strategy for Middle East peace that hinges on engaging the two parties in indirect talks with Special Envoy George Mitchell conducting the shuttle diplomacy. Eventually Mitchell hopes to induce the two parties to begin direct negotiations. The U.S. will refrain from pressing the Israelis on settlement expansion, despite the fact that this growth is of critical concern to the Palestinians. Why anyone, including the American administration, thinks this will work is beyond me. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, I have a sneaking suspicion that everyone involved in this plan is insane.
Links:
New York Times, Haaretz
This is not a peace process reset. This is simply a transparent effort to throw up a facade and avoid the media from reporting what has transpired as a total collapse which would bring into question the continued viability of the two-state solution. Make no mistake, what has happened with the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is a total collapse that should cause us to question whether U.S.-mediated negotiations can ever result in a final two-state solution.
 |
| The U.S. has been pursuing the same peace process strategy since Hillary Clinton looked like this. Seriously. |
Clinton has promised that, in contrast to the indirect negotiations of 18 months ago, these shuttle talks will focus on substantive issues such as borders, the status of Jeruslaem, refugees, and settlements. This statement begs the question of what the old talks were even focused on. Why was the administration even talking to the parties and attempting to get them to talk if they were not going to bother to focus on issues that actually cause this conflict. The more the administration talks about the "new" strategy the more terribly planned and executed the "old" strategy sounds.
Furthermore, Clinton's assertion that the U.S. will not bother Israel over settlements (despite the fact that the administration and Clinton herself see settlements and their growth as obvious obstacles to peace) is contradictory to her statements that settlements are one of the core issues. According to Clinton the indirect negotiations must include discussions about the ever-expanding settlements but cannot include discussion of stopping them from ever-expanding while the negotiations are going on. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his Fateh party leaders reject negotiations with Israel without a stop to settlement expansion. Despite Abbas' seemingly hard assertions, his announcement is certainly vague enough to allow him to continue to repeat the mantra ad infinitum while still sending his negotiating team to take part in shuttle negotiations with George Mitchell.
The "new" strategy's lack of focus on Israeli settlements also shows the Obama administration's refusal to acknowledge the errors learned from the Camp David process. In the immediate aftermath of that failure, American negotiator Aaron David Miller lamented that the U.S. had far too often acted as Israel's lawyer instead of an impartial mediator and Israeli and American negotiators had failed to fully appreciate how important stopping settlement growth was to the Palestinians.
To wrap up, the Obama administration has proposed a "new" strategy for Middle East peace that hinges on engaging the two parties in indirect talks with Special Envoy George Mitchell conducting the shuttle diplomacy. Eventually Mitchell hopes to induce the two parties to begin direct negotiations. The U.S. will refrain from pressing the Israelis on settlement expansion, despite the fact that this growth is of critical concern to the Palestinians. Why anyone, including the American administration, thinks this will work is beyond me. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, I have a sneaking suspicion that everyone involved in this plan is insane.
Links:
New York Times, Haaretz
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
