International Affairs
- Does Bush really care about Iran?
- Five years to 9/11
- There is a Solution to Terrorism
- Punishment should not be Discriminative
- Muslim and Terrorist are not Synonymous
- Terror and peace are both relative terms: Who is to decide?
- Why no international action in the Middle East crisis?
- Terror in the Middle East
- Who is the Terrorist?
- July 7 Remembered
Does Bush really care about Iran?
Posted by
Sumaira Shaikh
Bush's interest in Iran is questionable.
On Sept. 30, President Biush signed into law H.R. 6198, the "Iran Freedom Support Act," which extends and amends the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996. It codifies certain existing sanctions against Iran, and authorizes assistance to support democracy in Iran.
The question is, who is the U.S. to state what the future of Iran should be?
While it may not be documented much in U.S. media, but Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, regardless of how much Bush dislikes him, was elected into power in Iran. Somehow, this is completely forgotten in coverage of Iran and it is made to seem as if he is some autocratic dictator.
Moreover, why is it predominantly Iran and the greater Middle East the area that is most in need of democracy? What about Africa? That continent is in much need of democracy as well. Why are such initiatives not drawn out for Africa? Africa seems to be forgotten in every circumstance. It seems the only reason why Africa is of no interest, is because they do not have any resources that are important to American interest.
We would be fooling ourselves if we were to believe that the U.S. really cared about the people in the Middle East.
Also, if Iran's nuclear program is a threat to the U.S. and Israel, what about North Korea, a country that has proclaimed to already have nuclear weapons? Isn't it a threat in the region and the world?
These questions must be answered and clarified before any U.S. armed action or economic sanctions can be seen as justified against Iran.
The question is, who is the U.S. to state what the future of Iran should be?
While it may not be documented much in U.S. media, but Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, regardless of how much Bush dislikes him, was elected into power in Iran. Somehow, this is completely forgotten in coverage of Iran and it is made to seem as if he is some autocratic dictator.
Moreover, why is it predominantly Iran and the greater Middle East the area that is most in need of democracy? What about Africa? That continent is in much need of democracy as well. Why are such initiatives not drawn out for Africa? Africa seems to be forgotten in every circumstance. It seems the only reason why Africa is of no interest, is because they do not have any resources that are important to American interest.
We would be fooling ourselves if we were to believe that the U.S. really cared about the people in the Middle East.
Also, if Iran's nuclear program is a threat to the U.S. and Israel, what about North Korea, a country that has proclaimed to already have nuclear weapons? Isn't it a threat in the region and the world?
These questions must be answered and clarified before any U.S. armed action or economic sanctions can be seen as justified against Iran.
Posted by
Sumaira Shaikh
9/11 left a tragic legacy, with the deaths of more than 3,000 people, but it also led to a dreadful rampage of violence and injustice at home and abroad.
As millions of people mourned the calamity that struck the U.S. on September 11, 2001, many also eyed its leaders for more answers and questioned the government's response to the tragic events.
In an address to the public from his Oval Office, President George W. Bush said that on 9/11 America "saw the face of evil," and talked about "our first victory on the 'war on terror." But the fact is that we are no closer to resolving the problems we were in five years ago, and in some ways, we are probably digging a deeper grave for more potential attacks, with increased civil liberty abuses and detainment of people with little or no due process, in the U.S. as well as in Canada. The random mass detainments of Arabs and Muslims after September 11 for quick "security check-ups," have angered those affected and these actions just feed more to the purposes of the purported enemy of the U.S. -- Osama bin Laden.
On the foreign policy scene, the U.S. could not have been more careless. With the rigidity with which it supports militarism rather than negotiation and with its absolute unconditional support for Israel and disregard for the Arab states for not conforming to America's vision of the "war on terror." This, regardless of the complexities, is causing international chaos and needs to be regulated in a very careful manner. Attacking Iraq, when Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 was not very accurate nor helpful to gaining legitimacy at home and even abroad. Although, Bush acknowledged the lack of any link between the two in his speech tonight, he of course, had a very different view when he first waged the war against Iraq. President Bush of course had to defend its involvement there by saying the world was much safer with Saddam out of Iraq. Clearly, Bush has to justify a ill-managed war when thousands are questioning the increased deaths in Iraq and questioning U.S. involvement in the country.
The U.S. is now generating arguments for an attack on Iran. Iran's fault once again is the potential of having nuclear power, something along the lines of "weapons of mass destruction," something that was claimed but never found in Iraq. Although, Iran has explicity stated its intention and current involvement in a nuclear program, we cannot conclude that it will create nuclear bombs, but even if it does, the U.S. has no right to attack it. That is not self-defense, that is pre-emptive war, which is clearly illegal in international law. Once again, it would be highly hypocritical as well, since the U.S. holds the largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons in the world and is the only nation on earth that has actually used them.
Bush also addressed the need to set aside differences on terrorism and to unite on a day as tragic as 9/11. But it is quite difficult to unite under a flag that holds all members of the Arab and Muslim community responsible for the attacks, by throwing hundreds in jails and by implementing stringent and special immigration laws and procedures targetted exclusively to countries of the Middle East and Muslim Asia and Africa. If this is not discrimination, then what is?
The fact is we need a solid solution to terrorism. Wishy-washy name-calling and pointing at the so-called enemy will not get us anywhere. Bush needs to try to negotiate with Iran and Syria, needs to work out its foreign policy in the Middle East, call back its forces that are stationed through out the region, and try to make its involement more balanced and fair, rather than biased and agenda-driven. We understand killing is bad, and that 9/11 was a tragic event, but we need to move on to phase two, which we have not even taken a baby step towards. We are still at ground zero, looking at it hopelessly as we frantically try to think like terrorists to discover the next way they will seek to target the U.S. and its allies. Leadership is now needed more than ever from leaders all around the world.
In an address to the public from his Oval Office, President George W. Bush said that on 9/11 America "saw the face of evil," and talked about "our first victory on the 'war on terror." But the fact is that we are no closer to resolving the problems we were in five years ago, and in some ways, we are probably digging a deeper grave for more potential attacks, with increased civil liberty abuses and detainment of people with little or no due process, in the U.S. as well as in Canada. The random mass detainments of Arabs and Muslims after September 11 for quick "security check-ups," have angered those affected and these actions just feed more to the purposes of the purported enemy of the U.S. -- Osama bin Laden.
On the foreign policy scene, the U.S. could not have been more careless. With the rigidity with which it supports militarism rather than negotiation and with its absolute unconditional support for Israel and disregard for the Arab states for not conforming to America's vision of the "war on terror." This, regardless of the complexities, is causing international chaos and needs to be regulated in a very careful manner. Attacking Iraq, when Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 was not very accurate nor helpful to gaining legitimacy at home and even abroad. Although, Bush acknowledged the lack of any link between the two in his speech tonight, he of course, had a very different view when he first waged the war against Iraq. President Bush of course had to defend its involvement there by saying the world was much safer with Saddam out of Iraq. Clearly, Bush has to justify a ill-managed war when thousands are questioning the increased deaths in Iraq and questioning U.S. involvement in the country.
The U.S. is now generating arguments for an attack on Iran. Iran's fault once again is the potential of having nuclear power, something along the lines of "weapons of mass destruction," something that was claimed but never found in Iraq. Although, Iran has explicity stated its intention and current involvement in a nuclear program, we cannot conclude that it will create nuclear bombs, but even if it does, the U.S. has no right to attack it. That is not self-defense, that is pre-emptive war, which is clearly illegal in international law. Once again, it would be highly hypocritical as well, since the U.S. holds the largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons in the world and is the only nation on earth that has actually used them.
Bush also addressed the need to set aside differences on terrorism and to unite on a day as tragic as 9/11. But it is quite difficult to unite under a flag that holds all members of the Arab and Muslim community responsible for the attacks, by throwing hundreds in jails and by implementing stringent and special immigration laws and procedures targetted exclusively to countries of the Middle East and Muslim Asia and Africa. If this is not discrimination, then what is?
The fact is we need a solid solution to terrorism. Wishy-washy name-calling and pointing at the so-called enemy will not get us anywhere. Bush needs to try to negotiate with Iran and Syria, needs to work out its foreign policy in the Middle East, call back its forces that are stationed through out the region, and try to make its involement more balanced and fair, rather than biased and agenda-driven. We understand killing is bad, and that 9/11 was a tragic event, but we need to move on to phase two, which we have not even taken a baby step towards. We are still at ground zero, looking at it hopelessly as we frantically try to think like terrorists to discover the next way they will seek to target the U.S. and its allies. Leadership is now needed more than ever from leaders all around the world.
There is a Solution to Terrorism
Posted by
Sumaira Shaikh
There is a clear correlation between terror and justice. We just need to look beneath all the rhetoric.
Terrorism has been coined as something that has erupted from evil, among people that are absolutely against the virtues of freedom, liberty, justice and democracy--qualities that have been identified as exclusively belonging to the West. The fact is that beneath all this rhetoric is a hidden fact that is not really all that far from the truth.
If one reads or hears the statements of even the most renowned enemy of the U.S., Osama Bin Laden--the fact is that he asks for the West to put an end to its presence on all Muslim lands, but apart from that, he also demands justice, and questions the justice that the U.S claims to pioneer around the world. Although, quite controversially, he equates justice with revenge, and believes that if the U.S. has the right to kill innocent Muslims, and back a state such as Israel in killing Palestinians, he has the right to wage the same sort of war against the West. It is the same appraoch, just from the opposite side.
Bin Laden sees justice in getting even, but is that not what the U.S. did as well, when it waged its war on Afghanistan and Iraq, in the name of justice and to conquer the 'terror' that the Taliban and Saddam Hussein put their people under. From the same perspective, Bin Laden did the same thing, attacked the U.S. to put an end to what he viewed as the hegemonic terror of the U.S. It is pure perspective, but both speak about justice and demand freedom from each other. This, however, only explains the fact that there are different perspectives of what terror is and what constitutes terrorism. By any definition, any side can be qualified as a terrorist.
Hezbollah and Hamas, organizations that have been enlisted as terrorist organizations in Canada, U.S., Israel and a few other countries, are organizations that also talk about justice and in fact also provide social services, like the American government, to their people. They are fully functioning organizations that have popular backing from their people, something that even the Americans can't claim--George W. Bush's support seems to be only in the decline and for him to claim popular support and backing would be a complete exaggeration of the true reality.
A more development-oriented perspective is how the U.S. has enough food to feed the whole world, but it doesn't. While people spend away in the West, there are people simultaneoulsy dying in Africa and Asia of malnutrition and poverty. This, these people view as injustice. And when countries as powerful as the U.S. engage in their political affairs, when they never bothered to care for them before, and end up making a situation that is bad into worse, it has often led to anger and dissatisfaction and hostile feelings towards the entire West, predominantly the U.S. For these people who are left at the peripheries of the world, in the north-south divide, they feel the West is the prime contributor to injustice, and at times, many would feel the urge to defend themselves from its vice and may go as far as using violent means to achieve their goal, to create change or to make a point. It is now time that the West understand that regardless of the questionable tactics that these terrorist organizations deploy, it cannot ignore these organizations forever. The U.S. has to listen more than react. Maybe if the U.S. forgave developing countries' debts, or gave them food aid or did not get involved in their internal problems so much, these problems wouldn't exist. Some would question why should the U.S. help when it is disliked so much and criticized so much? Well, reality is that nothing comes for free, and power comes with responsibility. As the ultimate power of the world, it cannot endlessly consume and let others suffer. It cannot unconditionally back governments for its own strategic interests. It must understand that some of these alleged 'terrorists' may actually have some legitimate grievances, such as the Tamils do in Sri Lanka and the Palestinians in Israel. No nation that is oppressed can truthfully be terrorists and even the U.S. and its top policy makers know this. Someone who is oppressed will react, one day or the other, and now is the time to address these grievances.
The fact is that both sides claim they are just, they want justice, freedom and liberty for their people, but that however, is not being achieved. The U.S. the undeniable 'hyper-power' of the world has complete control over the popular perception of the world, and has a stronghold on the economy of the world as well. It cannot relentlessly hope to consume forever without giving back and it cannot hope for its rhetorical and media monopoly to go on forever either. It will at sometime have to come to terms with the causes of violence and the reasons for the creation of these organizations, rather than reacting to them. The U.S. must try to find a viable solution to achieve peace and stability in the world, especially if it wishes to enjoy peace while it remains the one and only power on earth.
If one reads or hears the statements of even the most renowned enemy of the U.S., Osama Bin Laden--the fact is that he asks for the West to put an end to its presence on all Muslim lands, but apart from that, he also demands justice, and questions the justice that the U.S claims to pioneer around the world. Although, quite controversially, he equates justice with revenge, and believes that if the U.S. has the right to kill innocent Muslims, and back a state such as Israel in killing Palestinians, he has the right to wage the same sort of war against the West. It is the same appraoch, just from the opposite side.
Bin Laden sees justice in getting even, but is that not what the U.S. did as well, when it waged its war on Afghanistan and Iraq, in the name of justice and to conquer the 'terror' that the Taliban and Saddam Hussein put their people under. From the same perspective, Bin Laden did the same thing, attacked the U.S. to put an end to what he viewed as the hegemonic terror of the U.S. It is pure perspective, but both speak about justice and demand freedom from each other. This, however, only explains the fact that there are different perspectives of what terror is and what constitutes terrorism. By any definition, any side can be qualified as a terrorist.
Hezbollah and Hamas, organizations that have been enlisted as terrorist organizations in Canada, U.S., Israel and a few other countries, are organizations that also talk about justice and in fact also provide social services, like the American government, to their people. They are fully functioning organizations that have popular backing from their people, something that even the Americans can't claim--George W. Bush's support seems to be only in the decline and for him to claim popular support and backing would be a complete exaggeration of the true reality.
A more development-oriented perspective is how the U.S. has enough food to feed the whole world, but it doesn't. While people spend away in the West, there are people simultaneoulsy dying in Africa and Asia of malnutrition and poverty. This, these people view as injustice. And when countries as powerful as the U.S. engage in their political affairs, when they never bothered to care for them before, and end up making a situation that is bad into worse, it has often led to anger and dissatisfaction and hostile feelings towards the entire West, predominantly the U.S. For these people who are left at the peripheries of the world, in the north-south divide, they feel the West is the prime contributor to injustice, and at times, many would feel the urge to defend themselves from its vice and may go as far as using violent means to achieve their goal, to create change or to make a point. It is now time that the West understand that regardless of the questionable tactics that these terrorist organizations deploy, it cannot ignore these organizations forever. The U.S. has to listen more than react. Maybe if the U.S. forgave developing countries' debts, or gave them food aid or did not get involved in their internal problems so much, these problems wouldn't exist. Some would question why should the U.S. help when it is disliked so much and criticized so much? Well, reality is that nothing comes for free, and power comes with responsibility. As the ultimate power of the world, it cannot endlessly consume and let others suffer. It cannot unconditionally back governments for its own strategic interests. It must understand that some of these alleged 'terrorists' may actually have some legitimate grievances, such as the Tamils do in Sri Lanka and the Palestinians in Israel. No nation that is oppressed can truthfully be terrorists and even the U.S. and its top policy makers know this. Someone who is oppressed will react, one day or the other, and now is the time to address these grievances.
The fact is that both sides claim they are just, they want justice, freedom and liberty for their people, but that however, is not being achieved. The U.S. the undeniable 'hyper-power' of the world has complete control over the popular perception of the world, and has a stronghold on the economy of the world as well. It cannot relentlessly hope to consume forever without giving back and it cannot hope for its rhetorical and media monopoly to go on forever either. It will at sometime have to come to terms with the causes of violence and the reasons for the creation of these organizations, rather than reacting to them. The U.S. must try to find a viable solution to achieve peace and stability in the world, especially if it wishes to enjoy peace while it remains the one and only power on earth.
Punishment should not be Discriminative
Posted by
Sumaira Shaikh
Punishment should not be selective, and law should apply equally to everyone, everywhere--that is the basis of a just state.
A 63 year-old Edmonton man receives a 16-month sentence to jail for publishing material on his website that was anti-Semitic and promoted hate towards the Jewish community. This is something that is a just and reasonable action by the government. But the justice system has not been just with everyone in the community and has not punished such action everywhere it should have.
Punishment should be given wherever it is warranted, as in this situation, but discriminatory and selective law, leads to the dismantling of the justice system and may erode the system and create a state with an erratic form of justice. While the law has come strong onto people like Ernst Zundel,the controversial holocaust denier, which is well-deserving, the fact is that, it has let the widespread speeches, blogs, media presentations, and much more, go unnoticed and unpunished against the Muslim and Arab community.
As bad as anti-Semitism is, anti-Muslim and anti-Arab sentiment is equally as bad, and we should not require another holocaust on the Muslim and Arab communities to finally get equal treatment. It is a basic human right.
Punishment should be given wherever it is warranted, as in this situation, but discriminatory and selective law, leads to the dismantling of the justice system and may erode the system and create a state with an erratic form of justice. While the law has come strong onto people like Ernst Zundel,the controversial holocaust denier, which is well-deserving, the fact is that, it has let the widespread speeches, blogs, media presentations, and much more, go unnoticed and unpunished against the Muslim and Arab community.
As bad as anti-Semitism is, anti-Muslim and anti-Arab sentiment is equally as bad, and we should not require another holocaust on the Muslim and Arab communities to finally get equal treatment. It is a basic human right.
Muslim and Terrorist are not Synonymous
Posted by
Sumaira Shaikh
Muslims and Arabs are not terrorists.
With all the "terror" fervour that has stimulated around the world, and as men with Arabic scarves and AK-47s in Afghanistan appear on the screens of televisions worldwide, some have come to the conclusion that what George W. Bush identified as the enemy is the Muslim.
Soon after 9/11, hate crimes were on the rise, anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiment was common to read on websites and to watch on TV. Somehow no one stopped to think that an Arab does not translate into a terrorist and a Muslim does not translate into a terrorist either.
An Arab can be Christian, Muslim and some Jews also identify themselves as Arabs. Arabs span across 22 countries and have emerged from countries with different histories. In sum, they are a diverse community with different backgrounds, but also hold a strong sense of unity and solidarity with each other, regardless of the differences.
Muslims on the other hand, are not necessarily only Arab. A Muslim can be Indonesian, Indian, Arab or Albanian--in sum, there is no one definition of what comprises a Muslim. Like Christianity transgresses beyond national borders and has a following of billions, Islam, has a following of roughly 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide. And clearly, 1.2 billion Muslims cannot be all terrorists.
What needs to be understood is that ignorance is not really bliss when it comes to labeling and stigmatizing communities, because it does not help multiculturalism and it isolates a community that is trying to integrate and find its spot in Canadian society.
Soon after 9/11, hate crimes were on the rise, anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiment was common to read on websites and to watch on TV. Somehow no one stopped to think that an Arab does not translate into a terrorist and a Muslim does not translate into a terrorist either.
An Arab can be Christian, Muslim and some Jews also identify themselves as Arabs. Arabs span across 22 countries and have emerged from countries with different histories. In sum, they are a diverse community with different backgrounds, but also hold a strong sense of unity and solidarity with each other, regardless of the differences.
Muslims on the other hand, are not necessarily only Arab. A Muslim can be Indonesian, Indian, Arab or Albanian--in sum, there is no one definition of what comprises a Muslim. Like Christianity transgresses beyond national borders and has a following of billions, Islam, has a following of roughly 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide. And clearly, 1.2 billion Muslims cannot be all terrorists.
What needs to be understood is that ignorance is not really bliss when it comes to labeling and stigmatizing communities, because it does not help multiculturalism and it isolates a community that is trying to integrate and find its spot in Canadian society.
Terror and peace are both relative terms: Who is to decide?
Posted by
Sumaira Shaikh
One man's terrorist is the other man's freedom fighter, and one man's peace may be the other man's threat.
Terror and peace, both two commonly used words, especially in the context of the Middle East and Sri Lanka. But as widely as they are used, the more relative and complicated they have become.
Everyone has heard of the phrase that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, yet somehow, the West is quite disaffectionate to the feelings of millions of Lebanese and millions of Palestinians and millions of Tamils, who view Hezbollah, Hamas, and the LTTE respectively, as organizations that represent them and as organizations that are pioneers of their cause. The fact is that, these same people, see the other side as the terorrist, their only fault is they do not have the power of declaring the other as the terrorist-- they do not have the power of sovereignty. For them, Israel, the U.S. and the Sri Lankan government are terrorists that are killing their people and are politically aiming to throw them to the peripheries of the negotiating table, by labelling them as 'terrorists'and thus a party not to be reckoned with.
In sum, the term terrorist is quite relative, and no one can state that the other is a terrorist with total unanimity.
The same situation appears to be the case for the word 'peace.' Each side claims that they want peace, the U.S. and its self-proclaimed duty to 'civilize' the world and bring democracy to the Middle East will bring peace, along with Israel's attempt to attain peace by engaging in 'self-defense,' and the building of a security-wall along all Palestinian territory to deter the 'suicide-bombers' from penetrating into Israel, the destruction of Hezbollah, and the Sri Lankan government's 'limited operation' of violence against the LTTE will lead to peace.
For the opposite side, peace is absolutely different. For the Tamils, negotiation has come to an end, Sri Lanka's Sinhalese are unable to treat the Tamils with equality so a separate state or a sovereign province for Tamils would be an ideal situation for peace. For the Palestinians and Lebanese, the situation for peace would be the dismantling of the Zionist ideology and a state where everyone can live together with no racism, with no wall in Palestine, and with no Israeli occupation and intrusion in Lebanon.
Clearly, terror and peace mean two different things for two different set of people. If people want peace, they have to attain it by negotiating between the two radically different views of peace, and stop clinginig to name-calling and labeling the other as a terrorist, because if we all just call the other a terorrist and say we want peace, and think we are thinking of the same thing, we are not going to achieve anything, and will only end up fooling ourselves.
Everyone has heard of the phrase that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, yet somehow, the West is quite disaffectionate to the feelings of millions of Lebanese and millions of Palestinians and millions of Tamils, who view Hezbollah, Hamas, and the LTTE respectively, as organizations that represent them and as organizations that are pioneers of their cause. The fact is that, these same people, see the other side as the terorrist, their only fault is they do not have the power of declaring the other as the terrorist-- they do not have the power of sovereignty. For them, Israel, the U.S. and the Sri Lankan government are terrorists that are killing their people and are politically aiming to throw them to the peripheries of the negotiating table, by labelling them as 'terrorists'and thus a party not to be reckoned with.
In sum, the term terrorist is quite relative, and no one can state that the other is a terrorist with total unanimity.
The same situation appears to be the case for the word 'peace.' Each side claims that they want peace, the U.S. and its self-proclaimed duty to 'civilize' the world and bring democracy to the Middle East will bring peace, along with Israel's attempt to attain peace by engaging in 'self-defense,' and the building of a security-wall along all Palestinian territory to deter the 'suicide-bombers' from penetrating into Israel, the destruction of Hezbollah, and the Sri Lankan government's 'limited operation' of violence against the LTTE will lead to peace.
For the opposite side, peace is absolutely different. For the Tamils, negotiation has come to an end, Sri Lanka's Sinhalese are unable to treat the Tamils with equality so a separate state or a sovereign province for Tamils would be an ideal situation for peace. For the Palestinians and Lebanese, the situation for peace would be the dismantling of the Zionist ideology and a state where everyone can live together with no racism, with no wall in Palestine, and with no Israeli occupation and intrusion in Lebanon.
Clearly, terror and peace mean two different things for two different set of people. If people want peace, they have to attain it by negotiating between the two radically different views of peace, and stop clinginig to name-calling and labeling the other as a terrorist, because if we all just call the other a terorrist and say we want peace, and think we are thinking of the same thing, we are not going to achieve anything, and will only end up fooling ourselves.
Why no international action in the Middle East crisis?
Posted by
Sumaira Shaikh
Violence is on the rise in the Middle East, generating a greater demand for an international response for a peace settlement.
As violence mounts in the Middle East, and the death toll rises, one must wonder when the presence of the UN will show up on the stage and when will this violence end.
There is now an urgent need for the UN to respond and take action in the situation. The U.S. and the international community need to recognize the reality of the situation, and place all personal political agendas aside and take action with an aim to reach a peace settlement.
The international community was quick to denounce the Israeli attacks that killed nearly 60 people, mostly women and children. The UN also denounced those attacks, but somehow responsibility for the situation seems to end up in the lap of Hezbollah at all times, which has been asked several times to disarm itself. But aren't there a number of UN conventions that Israel is not in compliance with either? The international community needs to come to terms with both sides and bring them to the negotiation table and reach a diplomatic resolution.
There must also be recognition of the fact that the current war is between Hezbollah and Israel, not Lebanon and Israel as two sovereign entities, and if there is to be peace between the two, negotiation will have to be between these two powers. Israel and the U.S. must recognize the context and understand that they must negotiate with those who they label as "terrorists." Nonetheless, if Hezbollah is a terrorist organization or it is not, reality is that they are engaged in this conflict and a peace settlement can only be achieved by talking to them, not by constant accusations and denial of coming to terms with them.
People are dying and political rigidity on both sides needs to stop. Hezbollah needs to sit on the table with Israel and both need to negotiate a deal, and the international community must encourage peace and mediate the process, rather than discourage Israel from negotiating peace with a so-called "terrorist organization." It is now time for peace, not more bloodshed.
There is now an urgent need for the UN to respond and take action in the situation. The U.S. and the international community need to recognize the reality of the situation, and place all personal political agendas aside and take action with an aim to reach a peace settlement.
The international community was quick to denounce the Israeli attacks that killed nearly 60 people, mostly women and children. The UN also denounced those attacks, but somehow responsibility for the situation seems to end up in the lap of Hezbollah at all times, which has been asked several times to disarm itself. But aren't there a number of UN conventions that Israel is not in compliance with either? The international community needs to come to terms with both sides and bring them to the negotiation table and reach a diplomatic resolution.
There must also be recognition of the fact that the current war is between Hezbollah and Israel, not Lebanon and Israel as two sovereign entities, and if there is to be peace between the two, negotiation will have to be between these two powers. Israel and the U.S. must recognize the context and understand that they must negotiate with those who they label as "terrorists." Nonetheless, if Hezbollah is a terrorist organization or it is not, reality is that they are engaged in this conflict and a peace settlement can only be achieved by talking to them, not by constant accusations and denial of coming to terms with them.
People are dying and political rigidity on both sides needs to stop. Hezbollah needs to sit on the table with Israel and both need to negotiate a deal, and the international community must encourage peace and mediate the process, rather than discourage Israel from negotiating peace with a so-called "terrorist organization." It is now time for peace, not more bloodshed.
Posted by
Sumaira Shaikh
The July Lebanese-Israeli War re-analyzed.
The whole word looks into the Middle East and frowns on Hezbollah for its rocket attacks and Israel's aggression in Lebanon, and the question some may ask is who is terrorizing who?
Hezbollah, a southern Lebanese Shi'a group, which has been declared a terrorist organization by Israel and the U.S. leads many to believe the situation has escalated to this level only because of the terrorist tactics employed by Hezbollah and its consistent rocket attacks on Israel.
But is this really the reality? A war is fought by two sides, not one. While Hezbollah is not all innocent, Israel is not just defending itself.
The death toll in Lebanon as reported on July 19 had passed beyond 300, while Israel stood still at 29. Who is the terrorist really? Who is killing who? Israel is engaged in an offensive, not a defensive and the Lebanese people, who like anyone else, want to live their life, are paying for it.
It seems right now for every one Israeli who dies, there are 10 Lebanese who die. Just a week ago 11 Lebanese soldiers were killed, while the initial offensive of Israel began over the eight Israeli soldiers who were killed and the three that have so-called been "kidnapped." So isn't it even now--11 for 11? Even I was mistaken into saying it was a kidnapping, but it was not. The three Israeli soldiers are prisoners of war, just like the thousands of Palestinians now rotting in Israeli jails.
Israel continues to pursue its aggression on a state that has nothing to do with any of the actions of Hamas or Hezbollah. It was Hezbollah that took the Israeli soldiers prisoner, not the Lebanese people or even the state of Lebanon. If Israel really wanted to get even, it should have strategically targeted southern Lebanon, and even there only the offices of Hezbollah members should be targeted, not all of southern Lebanon, because all southern Lebanese people should not be held responsible for the presence of Hezbollah in their region. But instead, Israel has not only bombed the south, but the whole country is being bombed, leading to the death of hundreds of innocent lives.
Bush should not be saying that Hezbollah should stop their 's---' as he said, but instead should look to Israel, who has much more power and military capability, to stop its instigation of violence—not Hezbollah or Hamas, who remotely do not even bear a blemish of the military power that the Israeli state has.
Hezbollah, a southern Lebanese Shi'a group, which has been declared a terrorist organization by Israel and the U.S. leads many to believe the situation has escalated to this level only because of the terrorist tactics employed by Hezbollah and its consistent rocket attacks on Israel.
But is this really the reality? A war is fought by two sides, not one. While Hezbollah is not all innocent, Israel is not just defending itself.
The death toll in Lebanon as reported on July 19 had passed beyond 300, while Israel stood still at 29. Who is the terrorist really? Who is killing who? Israel is engaged in an offensive, not a defensive and the Lebanese people, who like anyone else, want to live their life, are paying for it.
It seems right now for every one Israeli who dies, there are 10 Lebanese who die. Just a week ago 11 Lebanese soldiers were killed, while the initial offensive of Israel began over the eight Israeli soldiers who were killed and the three that have so-called been "kidnapped." So isn't it even now--11 for 11? Even I was mistaken into saying it was a kidnapping, but it was not. The three Israeli soldiers are prisoners of war, just like the thousands of Palestinians now rotting in Israeli jails.
Israel continues to pursue its aggression on a state that has nothing to do with any of the actions of Hamas or Hezbollah. It was Hezbollah that took the Israeli soldiers prisoner, not the Lebanese people or even the state of Lebanon. If Israel really wanted to get even, it should have strategically targeted southern Lebanon, and even there only the offices of Hezbollah members should be targeted, not all of southern Lebanon, because all southern Lebanese people should not be held responsible for the presence of Hezbollah in their region. But instead, Israel has not only bombed the south, but the whole country is being bombed, leading to the death of hundreds of innocent lives.
Bush should not be saying that Hezbollah should stop their 's---' as he said, but instead should look to Israel, who has much more power and military capability, to stop its instigation of violence—not Hezbollah or Hamas, who remotely do not even bear a blemish of the military power that the Israeli state has.
Posted by
Sumaira Shaikh
An insight into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The Israeli-Palestinian dispute takes another turn, while one side accuses the other as the terrorist, violence escalates in the region and people cling to either a pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli stance.
But the issue at hand should not be about being pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli, or proving whether the other side is engaging in terrorism or not. The fact is the death toll is on the rise--does it really matter whether a Palestinian, Israeli or Lebanese has died? The reality is "people" are dying.
The major problem in this dispute is the de-humanization of people. A majority of the Israelis do not recognize or even want to listen to what sort of life a Palestinian lives. The result of this lack of recognition has been turmoil and war, and violence has become the only phenomenon apparent in the holy land.
The state of Israel, if not recognized by its neighbours, is nonetheless recognized by the most powerful nations in the world, including the U.S. It is clear that there is more power in the hands of the Israeli government to take real action and to fix the situation. But rather than taking action, Israel has instead been quick to accuse others of violence, while they themselves attack Lebanon and re-enter Gaza. Israel should know from its own history that such actions will not solve the problem. This decision by the Israeli government has just opened the door to another terrain of violence, adding another sorrowful chapter in the history of the Middle East.
It is not to say that only Israel can call all the shots. Violence has come from both sides, and the Palestinian people regardless of how frustrating their situation has been under what they view as sheer “occupation,” should really think: Is violence going to help our situation? No, it will just lead to more Palestinians and Israelis dead. Will it lead to peace? No. But Israel needs to think the same way. Israel is the one with the nuclear weapons, not the Palestinians. The bargaining power tilts towards the side of the Israelis, yet Israel is the one that made the rash decision to respond with more violence? This violence must come to an end if either side wants to live in peace.
But the issue at hand should not be about being pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli, or proving whether the other side is engaging in terrorism or not. The fact is the death toll is on the rise--does it really matter whether a Palestinian, Israeli or Lebanese has died? The reality is "people" are dying.
The major problem in this dispute is the de-humanization of people. A majority of the Israelis do not recognize or even want to listen to what sort of life a Palestinian lives. The result of this lack of recognition has been turmoil and war, and violence has become the only phenomenon apparent in the holy land.
The state of Israel, if not recognized by its neighbours, is nonetheless recognized by the most powerful nations in the world, including the U.S. It is clear that there is more power in the hands of the Israeli government to take real action and to fix the situation. But rather than taking action, Israel has instead been quick to accuse others of violence, while they themselves attack Lebanon and re-enter Gaza. Israel should know from its own history that such actions will not solve the problem. This decision by the Israeli government has just opened the door to another terrain of violence, adding another sorrowful chapter in the history of the Middle East.
It is not to say that only Israel can call all the shots. Violence has come from both sides, and the Palestinian people regardless of how frustrating their situation has been under what they view as sheer “occupation,” should really think: Is violence going to help our situation? No, it will just lead to more Palestinians and Israelis dead. Will it lead to peace? No. But Israel needs to think the same way. Israel is the one with the nuclear weapons, not the Palestinians. The bargaining power tilts towards the side of the Israelis, yet Israel is the one that made the rash decision to respond with more violence? This violence must come to an end if either side wants to live in peace.
Posted by
Sumaira Shaikh
One year to the 7/7 bombings in the U.K.
Britain remembered the first anniversary of its own terrorist attacks on July 7, recalling the terror that swung through London, while the city silenced for two minutes to mourn the slain.
On July 7, 2005, four Britons blew themselves up on the London transport system, killing 52 people and wounding 700. This attack, however, according to a new videotape released this week by the Arabic news network, Al-Jazeera, is just the start.
“This is only the beginning of a string of attacks that will continue and become stronger until you pull your forces out of Afghanistan and Iraq and until you stop your financial and military support to America and Israel,” said a man identified as Shehzad Tanweer in a statement he recorded before his suicide bombing in London last year. Ayman al-Zawahri, a top-ranking al-Qaeda member is also seen praising Tanweer in the video, according to Reuters.
Statements by the city’s police chief along with Prime Minister Tony Blair demonstrated the likelihood of another attack. The tape only confirmed that.
But there is another grim side to this story.
No one doubts how mournful July 7 is for all Britons and for the rest of the sane world, but somehow the Muslim Britons are not treated as among the sane lot. The whole Muslim community looks apologetically to the floor, as if responsible for the actions of those four radicals. The fact is that Muslim Britons, like millions of other Muslims over the world would disagree with the actions of those four men. But like the September 11 attacks, the July 7 attacks have had the common by-product of stigmatizing the whole Muslim community as terrorists.
The question that everyone should ask themselves is whether a whole community can be held responsible for the actions of a few that may pledge allegiance to a certain community? Logically thought out, probably not. It is impossible that a diverse population of 1.2 billion Muslims or even all the Muslims in Britain can be blameworthy for the actions of these four British men. If we follow the same logic, all Catholics cannot be held responsible for some radical that speaks in the name of the Pope and Jesus and blows up an abortion clinic, and along the same lines, some radical Muslim that speaks in the name of God can definitely not be taken as the average Muslim either.
With the arrest of the 17 Muslims in Canada, the detainment and continuing discrimination of Muslims in the U.S. and the ongoing mistreatment of British Muslims, there is only one thing that can be said to the policy-makers of these countries: locking these men up and eyeing the whole community like a hawk will not solve the problem; actually, holding a whole community suspect, as if taking them all to trial at once, may even erupt into unwarranted and unwanted reactions, such as the French riots last year. Unfair treatment and discrimination has led to a long terrain of unrest in the past. We should remember the 1960s and the civil rights movement in the U.S. People should learn from history.
On July 7, 2005, four Britons blew themselves up on the London transport system, killing 52 people and wounding 700. This attack, however, according to a new videotape released this week by the Arabic news network, Al-Jazeera, is just the start.
“This is only the beginning of a string of attacks that will continue and become stronger until you pull your forces out of Afghanistan and Iraq and until you stop your financial and military support to America and Israel,” said a man identified as Shehzad Tanweer in a statement he recorded before his suicide bombing in London last year. Ayman al-Zawahri, a top-ranking al-Qaeda member is also seen praising Tanweer in the video, according to Reuters.
Statements by the city’s police chief along with Prime Minister Tony Blair demonstrated the likelihood of another attack. The tape only confirmed that.
But there is another grim side to this story.
No one doubts how mournful July 7 is for all Britons and for the rest of the sane world, but somehow the Muslim Britons are not treated as among the sane lot. The whole Muslim community looks apologetically to the floor, as if responsible for the actions of those four radicals. The fact is that Muslim Britons, like millions of other Muslims over the world would disagree with the actions of those four men. But like the September 11 attacks, the July 7 attacks have had the common by-product of stigmatizing the whole Muslim community as terrorists.
The question that everyone should ask themselves is whether a whole community can be held responsible for the actions of a few that may pledge allegiance to a certain community? Logically thought out, probably not. It is impossible that a diverse population of 1.2 billion Muslims or even all the Muslims in Britain can be blameworthy for the actions of these four British men. If we follow the same logic, all Catholics cannot be held responsible for some radical that speaks in the name of the Pope and Jesus and blows up an abortion clinic, and along the same lines, some radical Muslim that speaks in the name of God can definitely not be taken as the average Muslim either.
With the arrest of the 17 Muslims in Canada, the detainment and continuing discrimination of Muslims in the U.S. and the ongoing mistreatment of British Muslims, there is only one thing that can be said to the policy-makers of these countries: locking these men up and eyeing the whole community like a hawk will not solve the problem; actually, holding a whole community suspect, as if taking them all to trial at once, may even erupt into unwarranted and unwanted reactions, such as the French riots last year. Unfair treatment and discrimination has led to a long terrain of unrest in the past. We should remember the 1960s and the civil rights movement in the U.S. People should learn from history.