13 - 19 December 2001
Issue No.564
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 13 - 19 December 2001 Issue No.564 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
Modest expectations
A series of international, Islamic and Arab meetings have failed to pressure Israel into curbing its aggression against Palestinians, reports Dina Ezzat
Arab foreign ministers are considering a full- or limited-scale meeting towards the end of December or in early January to follow up on the highly volatile situation in the Palestinian occupied territories. This would be the fifth in a series of meetings that have taken place on the international, Islamic and Arab fronts that, directly or indirectly, deals with the current state of affairs in the occupied territories.
The last of these meetings took place on Monday in Qatar, the current chair of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC). OIC foreign ministers, including all Arab foreign ministers, addressed increasing Israeli aggression against Palestinians. Earlier this month, the Arab League held an emergency meeting at the level of permanent representatives which dealt with the same subject.
In Geneva, the issue was discussed in two consecutive meetings. It came up late last month, when Israel presented its third periodic report to the regular session of the committee in charge of observing the implementation of the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The topic was subject to more focused debate during the conference of the High Contracting Parties of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which took place in Geneva on 5 December and dealt with the protection of civilians under military occupation.
Condemnation of aggressive tactics used by Israeli forces against Palestinians has been across the board at all relevant meetings, and it is likely that an Arab foreign ministers' meeting in the near future would emphasise the same line. All the heated castigations by concerned parties, however, are doing little to end Israel's aggressive practices. None of these meetings has been successful in nudging the US towards sending international observers to the region, as was recently recommended by several regional and international forums. In fact, the opposite seems to be the case.
Israel is making no effort to disguise its intentions to escalate military action against Palestinians. For its part, the US has shown that it is not concerned with disguising its tacit approval of this plan. US Vice President Dick Cheney defended the escalated Israeli attacks on Palestinian targets by saying that Israelis "have the right to take steps to defend themselves." US Secretary of State Colin Powell argued along similar lines, saying that "the burden is right now on Mr Arafat to do more to get the violence [in Israel] down to zero."
As for the Palestinians suffering under the much-discussed violence, they are reaching new levels of desperation. "We do not feel that the OIC meeting offered us anything as such, and we don't think that the message coming out of the two Geneva meetings was forceful enough," commented one Palestinian official. "Even so, it was better than anything offered by the Islamic meeting, or what could be offered by an Arab meeting, if it ever convenes." He added that none of these meetings have been able to get the US to agree to a UN Security Council hearing on the issue -- something that would hopefully lead to a resolution compelling Israel to accept a mission of international observers. Palestinians have been pushing hard to secure an observer force since it was recommended by the Arab summit in October 2000.
In the Qatari capital of Doha on Monday, Palestinians were offered renewed political support from the over 50 member states of the OIC. The meeting, which substituted for a full OIC summit originally requested by Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, also offered its full support to Arafat, who was prevented by the Israeli government from leaving the Palestinian Authority in order to attend the meeting.
"The emir of Qatar was in touch with US President George W Bush to ask him to interfere with [Israeli Prime Minister] Sharon and get him to agree to let Arafat out of the Palestinian territories," top Palestinian official Nabil Shaath said in Cairo on Sunday. But on Monday morning it was only chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erikat that the Palestinians could manage to send to Doha.
For their part, the Qatari authorities said that they had suspended their attempts to get Sharon to let Arafat out when, they say, "news was circulated that if allowed to go to Doha, Arafat would have been kept out of the Palestinian territories." The same worry was confirmed by President Hosni Mubarak, who told reporters that Sharon's response to Arafat's request to attend the Doha meeting was "I have no objection to letting him go to Doha -- as long as he doesn't return."
Meanwhile, the OIC meeting did not take the decision that Palestinians was hoping it would: to suspend all political and economic ties with Israel. Instead, the OIC decided to adopt a political platform suggested by Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa. The stance dismisses any attempts to apply Israel's version of peace, instead insisting on a viable Palestinian state. This point is particularly relevant given growing calls to have a Gaza-based Palestinian state. The platform also refutes all attempts to portray legitimate resistance to military occupation as terrorism and endorses implementing all necessary measures for the protection of civilians, including the presence of international observers. Finally, the OIC meeting decided to send envoys to the US to better acquaint the American side with the Palestinian point of view.
Despite the obvious efforts to offer a strong show of support, the Palestinians have made it clear that they are not particularly impressed by the outcome of the meeting. Both publicly and privately, Palestinian officials have expressed their frustration about the weak outcome of the Doha gathering. This sentiment is compounded by the absence of a high- level Arab meeting, which Palestinians feel sends a "negative message to Israel."
Moussa does not agree. "I know that some will say, 'What is in another communiqué?' But when the Arab or Islamic foreign ministers meet to issue a political communiqué, this means that this communiqué will decide the political approach to be adopted by the countries who agreed to it in relation to the issues involved," he said. As far as the Arab League secretary-general is concerned, this would mean, for example, that all attempts to address resistance to foreign military occupation as a form of international terrorism will be flatly turned down. "And all attempts to convince us to accept the Israeli version of peace or vision for a Palestinian state will be turned down," he added. Moussa noted that when Arab foreign ministers come together again in a few weeks time -- perhaps even sooner -- the situation will be further reviewed.
But reaching a collective and compelling Arab consensus that will be satisfactory to the Palestinians is not an easy thing to do. The traditional disagreements among Arab states on how to send Israel a strong message have never gone away. This week's handshakes in Jerusalem between Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher and Israeli Prime Minister Sharon and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres infuriated the Syrians, among others.
America applauded Maher's surprising mission in Tel Aviv, but Palestinians were already angry that Maher decided to stop in Israel first before visiting the Palestinian territories. News that Jordanian King Abdullah is considering sending his foreign minister, Abdel-Ilah El- Khatib, to try and achieve the truce that Maher, in his own words, "failed to accomplish," did not pacify angry elements in the Palestinian side who argue that this will only give Sharon political credibility with his people. "It is a message that Arab countries will keep up business as usual with Israel, no matter how hard Israel hits Palestinian targets," said one Palestinian Authority official who requested anonymity. According to this source, "impressing the Americans is one thing. Offering real political support to the Palestinians is another."
Meanwhile, Syria's attempts to get Arab countries to re-visit a decision to suspend all ties with Israel have been categorically refused by the Egyptians and Jordanians, who argue that it is not wise to suspend contacts with Israel at a time when doing so would unduly antagonise Washington. "We also believe that it is important to try and influence Israeli decision-making regarding the Palestinian issue," an Egyptian diplomat noted.
In Arab diplomatic circles, it is well known that the Palestinians do not expect Arab or Muslim states to do much beyond attempting to influence the EU and the US to better comprehend the Palestinian point of view on the ongoing conflict. It happened before, said Palestinian Cabinet Minister Nabil Shaath, who points to Arab political lobbying as the force behind Powell's recent balanced statement regarding a settlement in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
That the Palestinians feel it is ultimately the international community -- not Arab and Muslim pressure -- that will make a real difference is no secret. It is indeed no coincidence that Shaath's statements to the press always include a reference to "our Arab brothers and European friends." Palestinian officials in Cairo have been nothing short of blunt when they refer to recent meetings in Geneva, particularly that of the High Contracting Parties of the Fourth Geneva Convention, as "much more important than anything that happened in Doha." The declaration coming out of this meeting, which called for the protection of civilians under occupation and encouraged the presence of neutral international observers to watch over the safety of civilians, has significant political weight, Palestinian sources say. Because the Geneva meeting was attended by EU member states, Canada and other "influential" countries, its statements ultimately hold more significance that any Arab or Islamic communiqué.
The Geneva meeting was boycotted by Israel, the US and Australia -- a fact that Palestinians considered a small victory. That it took place at all in the face of serious Israeli and US opposition is a considerable achievement. The fact that it reaffirmed that all Palestinian territories seized by Israel in 1967, including East Jerusalem, are occupied lands where Palestinian civilians should be treated in accordance with the international rules of human rights, is an even greater success. "Moreover, the statements made at this meeting by the UN high commissioner for human rights, the head of the International Committee of the Red Cross and the commissioner of the UN Refugee and Works Agency about Israeli violations of Palestinians' basic human rights as an occupied people are indeed international testimonies to the brutalities of the Sharon government," commented Said Kamal, assistant Arab League secretary- general.
The meeting came only a few days after the UN committee against torture expressed its concern over the level of Israel's implementation of the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The committee acknowledged the importance of the September 1999 decision by the Israeli Supreme Court to annul the Landau rules that allowed for the use of some "physical pressure" during interrogation. However, the committee expressed concern that the ruling "does not contain a definite prohibition of torture." It also regretted that while the court prohibits the use of sleep deprivation for the purpose of "breaking" a detainee, it nonetheless indicated that if sleep deprivation was merely incidental to interrogation, it was not unlawful. "In practice in cases of prolonged interrogation, it will be impossible to distinguish between the two conditions," the committee stated. The committee also criticised the court for its stance that Israeli interrogators who use "physical pressure" in "extreme circumstances" might not be criminally liable, as they may be able to rely on the so-called defence necessity -- that is, contend that such pressure was necessary for self-defence.
"So the fact of the matter is that this UN committee acknowledges that Israel is making physical torture legal -- in violation of the basic rule of the UN convention against torture, which stipulates that nothing whatsoever justifies torture," commented Ambassador Sayed Qassim El-Masri, a member of the committee.
However, neither the declaration coming out of the conference of the Fourth Geneva Convention committee, nor the statements made by the committee against torture, have any particularly compelling impact. While they may have more political weight than a solely Arab or Islamic communiqué, they still prove equally incapable of changing the situation on the ground. Without American pressure, this simply seems impossible.
The vital role of the US, says Moussa, is something that all Arab countries are trying to encourage. "The fairly balanced statement that was made by Powell about the Middle East could still be applied if the US chooses to pursue this," he said.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
Recommend this page