Main Page «
Front Page «
Metro «
Business «
International «
Sports «
National «
Editorial «
Home «
Timeout «
Letters «

Archive «
Launch Supplement «
Special Supplements «

THE Obama-Netanyahu-Abbas meetings in May, followed by Obama’s speech in Cairo, have been widely interpreted as a turning point in US Middle East policy, leading to consternation in some quarters, exuberance in others. Fairly typical is Middle East analyst Dan Fromkin of the Washington Post, who sees ‘signs Obama will promote a new regional peace initiative for the Middle East, much like the one championed by Jordan’s King Abdullah...[and also] the first distinct signs that Obama is willing to play hardball with Israel’ (WP, May 29). A closer look, however, suggests considerable caution.
   King Abdullah insists that ‘There is no change to the Arab Peace Initiative, and there is no need to amend it. Any talk about amending it, is baseless’ (AFP, May 16). Abbas, regularly described as the president of the Palestinian Authority (his term expired in January), firmly agrees. The Arab Peace Initiative reiterates the long-standing international consensus that Israel must withdraw to the international border, perhaps with ‘minor and mutual adjustments’, to adopt official US terminology before it departed sharply from world opinion in 1971, endorsing Israel’s rejection of peace with Egypt in favour of settlement expansion (in the northeast Sinai). Furthermore, the consensus calls for a Palestinian state to be established in Gaza and the West Bank after Israel’s withdrawal. The Arab Initiative adds that the Arab states should then normalise relations with Israel.
   The initiative was later adopted by the Organisation of Islamic States, including Iran (Akiva Eldar, Ha’aretz, June 1).
   Obama has praised the initiative and called on the Arab states to proceed to normalise relations with Israel. But he has so far scrupulously evaded the core of the proposal, thus implicitly maintaining the US rejectionist stand that has blocked a diplomatic settlement since the 1970s along with its Israeli client, in virtual isolation. There are no signs that Obama is willing even to consider the Arab Initiative, let alone ‘promote’ it. That was underscored in Obama’s much heralded address to the Muslim world in Cairo on June 4, to which I will return.
   The US-Israel confrontation – with Abbas on the sidelines – turns on two phrases: ‘Palestinian state’ and ‘natural growth of settlements’. Let’s consider these in turn.
   Obama has indeed pronounced the words ‘Palestinian state’, echoing Bush. In contrast, the (unrevised) 1999 platform of Israel’s governing party, Netanyahu’s Likud, ‘flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.’ Nevertheless, it was Netanyahu’s 1996 government that was the first to use the phrase. It agreed that Palestinians can call whatever fragments of Palestine are left to them ‘a state’ if they like – or they can call them ‘fried chicken’ (David Bar- Illan, director of Communications and Policy Planning in the office of the prime minister; Interview, Palestine-Israel Journal, Summer/Autumn 1996).
   The 1996 Netanyahu government’s contemptuous reference to Palestinian aspirations was a shift towards accommodation in US-Israeli policy. As he left office shortly before, Shimon Peres forcefully declared that there will never be a Palestinian state (Amnon Barzilai, Ha’aretz, October 24, 1995). Peres was reaffirming the official 1989 position of the US (Bush-Baker) and the Israeli coalition government (Shamir-Peres) that there can be no ‘additional Palestinian state’ between Israel and Jordan – the latter declared to be a Palestinian state by US-Israeli fiat. In the Peres-Shamir-Baker plan, barely reported (if at all) in the US, the fate of the occupied territories was to be settled in terms of the guidelines established by the government of Israel, and Palestinians were permitted to take part in negotiations only if they accepted these guidelines, which rule out Palestinian national rights.
   Contrary to much misunderstanding, the Oslo agreements of September 1993 – the ‘Day of Awe’, as the press described it – changed little in this regard. The Declaration of Principles accepted by all participants established that the end point of the process would be realisation of the goals of UN 242, which accords no rights to Palestinians. And by then, the US had withdrawn its earlier interpretation of 242 as requiring Israeli withdrawal from the territories conquered in 1967, leaving the matter open.
   The Peres-Shamir-Baker declarations of 1989 were in response to the official Palestinian acceptance of the international consensus on a two-state solution in 1988. That proposal was first formally enunciated in 1976 in a Security Council resolution introduced by the major Arab states with the tacit support of the PLO, vetoed by the US (again in 1980). Since then US-Israeli rejectionism has persisted unchanged, with one brief but significant exception, in President Clinton’s final month in office.
   Clinton recognised that the terms he had offered at the failed 2000 Camp David meetings were not acceptable to any Palestinians, and in December, proposed his ‘parameters’, inexplicit but more forthcoming. He then announced that both sides had accepted the parameters, though both had reservations. Israeli and Palestinian negotiators met in Taba, Egypt to iron out the differences, and made considerable progress. A full resolution could have been reached in a few more days, they announced in their final joint press conference. But Israel called off the negotiations prematurely, and they have not been formally resumed.
   The single exception suggests that if an American president were willing to tolerate a meaningful diplomatic settlement, it might very well be reached.
   The facts are well documented in Hebrew and English sources (for review, see Chomsky, Failed States). But like much of the relevant history, they are regularly reshaped to suit doctrinal needs; for example by Jeffrey Goldberg, who writes that ‘By December of 2000, Israel had accepted President Bill Clinton’s “parameters”, offering the Palestinians all of the Gaza Strip, 94 per cent to 96 per cent of the West Bank and sovereignty over Arab areas of East Jerusalem. Arafat again rejected the deal’ (NYT, May 24). That is a convenient tale, false or seriously misleading in all particulars, and another useful contribution to US-Israeli rejectionism.
   Returning to the phrase ‘Palestinian state’, the crucial question on the US side is whether Obama means the international consensus or ‘fried chicken’. So far that remains unanswered, except by studious omission, and – crucially – by Washington’s steady funding of Israel’s programmes of settlement and development in the West Bank. All of these programmes violate international law, as Israeli defence minister Moshe Dayan conceded in 1967 and as has been reaffirmed by the Security Council and the World Court. Probably Netanyahu would still accept his 1996 position.
   The contours of ‘fried chicken’ are being carved into the landscape daily by US-backed Israeli programmes. The general goals were outlined by Prime Minister Olmert in May 2006 in his ‘“Convergence programme’, later expanded to ‘Convergence plus’. Under ‘Convergence’, Israel was to take over the territory within the illegal ‘separation wall’ along with the Jordan Valley, thus imprisoning what is left, which is broken into cantons by several salients extending to the east. Israel also takes over Greater Jerusalem, the site of most of its current construction projects, driving out many Arabs. These Jerusalem projects not only violate international law, as do all the others, but also Security Council resolutions (at the time, still backed by the US).
   The plans being executed right now are designed to leave Israel in control of the most valuable land in the West Bank, with Palestinians confined to unviable fragments, all separated from Jerusalem, the traditional centre of Palestinian life. The ‘separation wall’ also establishes Israeli control of the West Bank aquifer. Hence Israel will be able to continue to ensure that Palestinians receive one-fourth as much water as Israelis, as the World Bank reported in April, in some cases below minimum recommended levels. In the other part of Palestine, Gaza, regular Israeli bombardment and the cruel siege reduce consumption far below.
   Obama continues to support all of these programmes, and has even called for substantially increasing military aid to Israel for an unprecedented ten years (Stephen Zunes, Foreign Policy in Focus, March 4). It appears, then, that Palestinians may be offered fried chicken, but nothing more. Israel’s forced separation of Gaza from the West Bank since 1991, intensified with US support after a free election in January 2006 came out ‘the wrong way’, has also been studiously ignored in Obama’s ‘new initiative’, thus further undermining prospects for any viable Palestinian state.
   To be continued
   ZNet, June 8. Noam Chomsky, an Institute Professor (retired) at MIT, is a linguist and social critic.

FOR the last one week the Bangladesh Inland Water Transport Authority is carrying out eviction drive against river grabbers on the Tongi part of the river Turag. Eviction drive extends to the Shitalakhya as well. Similar drives will be conducted to free the city canals from the encroachers. The Dhaka Water Supply and Sewerage Authority already evicted illegal constructions near Mohammadpur Kaderabad Housing to save the city from water-logging. According to government officials, this drive will continue and gradually other canals of the city will also come under the drive. It is a laudable initiative jointly undertaken by the BIWTA and WASA; though a late initiative but nevertheless a timely approach by the government.
   It is about time that the concerned citizens of Bangladesh really took a stand for what is right. There are so many of us who are silent observers to all the illegal, immoral and unethical activities that go on in Bangladesh. Therefore, such an effort is definitely appreciable and there is also genuine cause behind this effort.
   This drive has been undertaken because people are concerned about supply of fresh water for drinking and meeting other needs. Lack of clean water supply is already a major cause of various health-related illnesses such as diarrhoea, jaundice, etc.
   The rivers around Dhaka city can hardly be termed as rivers anymore and all the credit for this goes to the insatiable river grabbers of Bangladesh. As it is, the rivers are in a terrible condition due to continuous pollution by industries and careless citizens. On top of that, these river grabbers are adamant to actually erase these rivers from existence. The question is why? How much money do these people actually need?
   The existence of rivers is already threatened due to massive urbanisation in Dhaka city to keep up with the rising population in the capital. Not far in the distant future, civic life would be at stake as there is going to be an acute shortage of fresh water as more rivers are being filled up to build houses. This is not only happening in the capital but all over Bangladesh. No river is safe from the greedy encroachers. There is also pollution to add to this already grim situation. When the topic for river pollution comes up, one river that is nearly ceasing to exist is the Buriganga. The Buriganga is the most polluted river in Bangladesh. It is so polluted that there are no fish in the river and, according to an article published in The Daily Star recently, there is a ten-foot layer of waste covering the bed of the river. This layer has been caused due to wastes dumped by surrounding factories, dumping of medicinal waste and of river passengers.
   The question which arises is how it is possible for the encroachers to grab rivers so easily. It seems absurd that an entire river would be filled up and no one would notice it. This has actually happened and this has been possible mainly because the very people who are responsible for protection of the rivers are involved in the act. There are known facts that many renowned real estate companies have built luxurious housing estates in areas which were created after filling up lakes or rivers. To name a few, several housing projects have been established by Dangurdia, Durdi, Vatara, Telikhola and Brahmankhola canals in Satarkul and Vatara unions under the Badda police station. These land grabbers have also filled up both the sides of the Dhaka flood protection embankment from Kamrangirchar to Gabtali through Rayer Bazar. If anyone visits the Kanchpur Bridge, s/he would see the flourishing businesses some stone crushing companies and sand traders have set up on one side of the river bank while other industries have boldly occupied the other side. The condition is so severe that the BIWTA has decided to dredge the Balu River in an effort to create only a 100-foot channel navigable as the river has been severely narrowed down by the river grabbers.
   For some, river grabbing has become even easier. Since the started construction of the circular waterway, sand and soil dredged up for this process is being used to fill up the rivers. Nowadays, hardly any boats can be seen in the Buriganga, Shitalakhya, Balu and Turag rivers. Rather, dredgers and bolgets (sand cargo boats) can be seen either carrying sand or earth to fill up wetland, floodplains and rivers around the city.
   A lot is written about these river grabbers in newspapers but usually no action is taken against these so-called ‘eminent’ citizens. Usually, these so-called ‘distinguished’ people with strong political links are known to be involved in this. That is why the authorities concerned are oblivious to such nefarious acts. Because the land or river grabbers are always influential people, the authorities are often intimidated by them or they are also somehow benefited in the process. So, they remain silent and turn a blind eye to such acts. Even the local representatives of the area, such as lawmakers or ward commissioners, in most cases, remain silent, perhaps hoping for gains in the next elections.
   Eviction drives to clear illegal establishments along riverbanks had been taken in the past also. Even during the period of the caretaker government, such efforts had been undertaken. The rivers were free to flow, but only for a short time. Again the establishments sprung up exactly as they had been before the eviction. The reason is the same as already mentioned. It is a vicious cycle.
   The parties involved in the act of river grabbing must be identified and seriously punished to set an example so that such acts are not repeated in future. It must also be ensured that evicted structures along the riverbanks are not reclaimed after the elapse of a certain time as has been going on. The concerned authorities must be very firm in their efforts to protect the rivers. Also, everyone must be made aware about protection and conservation of the rivers for their own well-being. This might also cause people to refrain from contributing to jeopardising the existence of the rivers. Proper laws have to be introduced which must be strictly enforced for saving the rivers.
   It is not yet too late. The united efforts of the general public, the government, the political parties, and civil society can together stop this already bad situation from becoming worse. If action is not taken now and people are not made aware of the impending danger, very soon nearly all the rivers in Bangladesh would dry up and nothing will undo the wrongdoings of the past.
   Officials of the BIWTA are saying that after the demolition demarcation pillars would be set up to protect the riverbanks. During the demolition process in different parts of Dhaka, the mayor, the deputy commissioner, and local ward commissioners were present and all said the same thing that they had been fighting for long for saving rivers, but unfortunately their efforts were in vain. These sorts of statements from the top government officials are very unfortunate. At the end of the day it’s their responsibility to protect our rivers and canals. Laws are there and the officials’ job is to implement these laws. Finally, the process has started and we hope once the eviction process is over, the government officials will ensure that no more illegal constructions take place. Also, in the future the concerned citizens should take a stand on the issue of these illegal constructions to protect our rivers.
   Dr Nadim Jahangir is associate professor, Independent University, Bangladesh

EVERY time I see Professor Mushirul Hasan turning in the wind, grappling with this circumstance in Jamia Millia, I am afflicted by a sense of déjà vu, a seamless flow of the eternal yesterday. Somewhere in these upheavals is also embedded a metaphor for the Muslim condition in India.
    The Mushir saga in Jamia is in two interconnected chapters. Let us begin at the beginning.
   The first chapter begins in 1992 when the Aligarh and Cambridge-trained historian, entered the portals of Jamia as its pro-vice chancellor. The vice-chancellor then was an equally liberal educationist, Professor Basheeruddin Ahmad.
   The two were embarked on projects of modernising Jamia which must have caused an accumulation of grievances. Jamia has vast tracts of land various interests have cornered. That the pair were taking a lively interest in the investigations into the lad grab must have alarmed vested interests.
   An almighty agitation cannot be launched overtly to thwart land grab investigations. So, like highway robbers, such vested interests lie in wait, patiently, very patiently, until an opportunity presents itself. And it did in 1992.
   Jamia university union elections were round the corner. The union president had hitched his wagon to the Congress. The vice-president had a reputation for being close to the Janata Dal. Now began the quest for an issue.
   A Sunday magazine published interviews with prominent Muslims on whether Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses should have been banned in India. Hasan said Rushdie had offended all Muslims but banning books is wrong. In fact, a ban is counterproductive because adverse publicity boosts sales.
   All those crooks lying in wait, plus the Jamia Union contestants, found in Hasan’s statement that one line which could be distorted into lethal propaganda: Professor Hasan supports Rushdie!
   All hell broke loose. Hasan was beaten, hospitalised, not allowed to enter the campus for years, but Professor Basheeruddin Ahmad stood by him.
   Subsequently, Lt Gen Zaki was brought in as vice-chancellor to restore law and order. He was followed by Shahid Medhi, a retired IAS officer, to streamline administrative systems.
    Then came Professor Hasan’s second innings in Jamia, this time as vice-chancellor with total support of the UPA government, particularly the HRD minister, Arjun Singh. Not just the minister, but the education secretary, the late Sudeep Bannerjee, took extraordinary interest in the campus. Funds were liberally made available and imaginatively used.
   Hasan’s reputation in academic circles around the world created a steady stream of internationally known scholars.
   On any given day, you could walk into any one of the centres or halls and participate in a stimulating seminar, discussion. There was an extraordinary situation when an Israeli scholar, to his utter bewilderment, found himself addressing a seminar in a hall named after Yasser Arafat! Jamia was beginning to resemble a liberal campus anywhere in the world.
   Almost synchronising with the 2009 Lok Sabha elections, Hasan’s term was coming to an end.
   A search committee of three members was required to send a panel of names to the president of India as the supreme authority for the campus.
   One member of the committee, a retired judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Saghir Ahmad, dug his heels in against Professor Hasan. It is believed that the other two members, Syed Hamid, retired civil servant and Professor Yashpal were of the view that Professor Hasan was in the process of imparting to Jamia a truly international aspect. Yes, he made some administrative gaffes but he should be allowed to continue. Saghir Ahmad would not agree. His tactic was to allow the incoming government to settle down. In the absence of Arjun Singh, Hasan would have no support in government.
   Justice Saghir and his cohorts would rather have a pliable, retired IAS, IPS officer. Why only a replacement from among these categories? Because the great community of Indian Muslims has no great body of academics of suitable stature to choose the next vice-chancellor from.
   My question is: why is a retired Muslim IAS or IPS officer preferable for Jamia compared to a first rate Hindu, Parsi, Sikh, Christian academic? Do we want a campus of academic excellence or a second rate Muslim sanctuary which will churn out men and women who will be unemployable in an extremely competitive environment? An IAS officer can be the registrar of the university. But whoever heard of retired officers churning out academic excellence.
   Saeed Naqvi is a distinguished fellow of the Observer Research Foundation and senior journalist