Palestine Updates: Speaking frankly about Israel and Palestine
by Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter says his recent book is drawing knee-jerk accusations of anti-Israel bias.

By Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States. His newest book is “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” published last month. He is scheduled to sign books Monday at Vroman’s in Pasadena.
December 8, 2006

I signed a contract with Simon & Schuster two years ago to write a book about the Middle East, based on my personal observations as the Carter Center monitored three elections in Palestine and on my consultations with Israeli political leaders and peace activists.

We covered every Palestinian community in 1996, 2005 and 2006, when Yasser Arafat and later Mahmoud Abbas were elected president and members of parliament were chosen. The elections were almost flawless, and turnout was very high — except in East Jerusalem, where, under severe Israeli restraints, only about 2% of registered voters managed to cast ballots.

The many controversial issues concerning Palestine and the path to peace for Israel are intensely debated among Israelis and throughout other nations — but not in the United States. For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices.

It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine, to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defense of justice or human rights for Palestinians. Very few would ever deign to visit the Palestinian cities of Ramallah, Nablus, Hebron, Gaza City or even Bethlehem and talk to the beleaguered residents. What is even more difficult to comprehend is why the editorial pages of the major newspapers and magazines in the United States exercise similar self-restraint, quite contrary to private assessments expressed quite forcefully by their correspondents in the Holy Land.

With some degree of reluctance and some uncertainty about the reception my book would receive, I used maps, text and documents to describe the situation accurately and to analyze the only possible path to peace: Israelis and Palestinians living side by side within their own internationally recognized boundaries. These options are consistent with key U.N. resolutions supported by the U.S. and Israel, official American policy since 1967, agreements consummated by Israeli leaders and their governments in 1978 and 1993 (for which they earned Nobel Peace Prizes), the Arab League’s offer to recognize Israel in 2002 and the International Quartet’s “Roadmap for Peace,” which has been accepted by the PLO and largely rejected by Israel.

The book is devoted to circumstances and events in Palestine and not in Israel, where democracy prevails and citizens live together and are legally guaranteed equal status.

Although I have spent only a week or so on a book tour so far, it is already possible to judge public and media reaction. Sales are brisk, and I have had interesting interviews on TV, including “Larry King Live,” “Hardball,” “Meet the Press,” “The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer,” the “Charlie Rose” show, C-SPAN and others. But I have seen few news stories in major newspapers about what I have written.

Book reviews in the mainstream media have been written mostly by representatives of Jewish organizations who would be unlikely to visit the occupied territories, and their primary criticism is that the book is anti-Israel. Two members of Congress have been publicly critical. Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for instance, issued a statement (before the book was published) saying that “he does not speak for the Democratic Party on Israel.” Some reviews posted on Amazon.com call me “anti-Semitic,” and others accuse the book of “lies” and “distortions.” A former Carter Center fellow has taken issue with it, and Alan Dershowitz called the book’s title “indecent.”

Out in the real world, however, the response has been overwhelmingly positive. I’ve signed books in five stores, with more than 1,000 buyers at each site. I’ve had one negative remark — that I should be tried for treason — and one caller on C-SPAN said that I was an anti-Semite. My most troubling experience has been the rejection of my offers to speak, for free, about the book on university campuses with high Jewish enrollment and to answer questions from students and professors. I have been most encouraged by prominent Jewish citizens and members of Congress who have thanked me privately for presenting the facts and some new ideas.

The book describes the abominable oppression and persecution in the occupied Palestinian territories, with a rigid system of required passes and strict segregation between Palestine’s citizens and Jewish settlers in the West Bank. An enormous imprisonment wall is now under construction, snaking through what is left of Palestine to encompass more and more land for Israeli settlers. In many ways, this is more oppressive than what blacks lived under in South Africa during apartheid. I have made it clear that the motivation is not racism but the desire of a minority of Israelis to confiscate and colonize choice sites in Palestine, and then to forcefully suppress any objections from the displaced citizens. Obviously, I condemn any acts of terrorism or violence against innocent civilians, and I present information about the terrible casualties on both sides.

The ultimate purpose of my book is to present facts about the Middle East that are largely unknown in America, to precipitate discussion and to help restart peace talks (now absent for six years) that can lead to permanent peace for Israel and its neighbors. Another hope is that Jews and other Americans who share this same goal might be motivated to express their views, even publicly, and perhaps in concert. I would be glad to help with that effort

Choice a cornerstone of Islam
by Jacqueline Ann Surin

Source : The Sun

Islam grants freedom to its adherents because submission to God – which is what “Islam” means in Arabic – cannot take place through force or compulsion, a noted scholar said.

The director of the Institute of Islamic Political Thought in London, Dr Azzam Tamimi, said freedom of expression and freedom of choice were the cornerstones of Islam.

He noted that in the early days of Islam, the Prophet Muhammad’s freedom of expression was crucial in ensuring that God’s message was shared with the people.

At the same time, freedom of choice was essential for the people to choose Islam over existing traditions, he added.

“Submitting to Allah also means not accepting the authority of any human being without questioning,” Azzam said on Monday (Nov 20, 2006) at a talk titled “The Concept of Freedom in Islam” at Universiti Malaya’s Asia Europe Institute.

“The early part of Islam was about freeing the minds of people so that they would not follow the traditions of their forefathers blindly,” he said, noting that after the Prophet Muhammad, all persons are considered fallible.

Azzam was in Malaysia at the invitation of the Muslim Professional Forum to launch his book Hamas, the Unwritten Chapters.

He said because there was no compulsion in Islam, some scholars have argued that it was not right for a Muslim to invite his or her non-Muslim spouse to convert lest it be seen as compulsion.

He added that it was also wrong for someone to convert just to marry a Muslim, adding: “Conversion should be because one believes that Islam is better than other religions, not because one loves someone.”

Azzam, the author of several books and a commentator on Al-Jazeera and the BBC, also said Muslims should not make such a big deal of those who chose to leave the religion.

“If submission to Allah involves free choice, then the same principle must apply if one wants to leave the faith,” he said.

He noted that the Quran did not stipulate any punishment for apostates at all, and the punishments spelt out by the hadiths had to be contextualised.

“In Islam’s formative years, going in and out of Islam was used to sabotage the community, and hence was viewed as treason.

“But if one leaves the religion out of free choice, let them become what they want.”

He said Muslims should be more confident. “Nothing will happen to Islam if people leave the religion.”

Text rumour tests religious ties
by Claudia Theophilus

A widely circulated text message is being blamed for stoking religious tensions in Malaysia.

The SMS sent this month led to hundreds of Muslim protesters gathering outside a Roman Catholic church in the northern town of Ipoh to try to stop a rumoured conversion of 600 Muslim students to Christianity.

The incident on November 5 outside the Our Lady of Lourdes church is being investigated under Malaysia’s sedition act.

Police have said they intend to question Harussani Zakaria, the mufti of the northern state of Perak, and Azhar Mansor, a locally famous sailor, who were both named in the message.

Officials said they were trying to find out whether the allegations – that Azhar would be leading 600 Muslim students through baptism – originated from a talk Harussani gave at a mosque programme this month.

Neither man could be contacted. However, Harussani has since identified a woman in her 40s as the source of the SMS, which he said he sent to representatives of Muslim groups out of concern.

But, speaking to reporters this week, he said he had cautioned against any protest without evidence.

Verbal threats

Bernard Paul, a parish priest in Ipoh, said that about 100 children were in his church when he saw between 200 and 300 protesters approaching.

“We heard chanting of anti-apostasy slogans,” he said. “Police were trying to seal off the roads around the church but that attracted more curious onlookers. The protesters ignored warnings to disperse until about noon.

“Senior officers assured us that everything was under control but the crowd kept swelling. There were verbal threats of burning down the church and someone threw firecrackers into the compound.

“That night, a motorcycle gang rode past the church chanting and hurling rocks. A lady was hit on the thigh and later lodged a police report. We made similar report earlier over the disruption of a religious service.”

Paul said that police had asked him about conversion procedures and the presence of Malays in the church about three weeks ago.

“But if police already knew about the allegations, why didn’t they do anything to verify the facts’ They could have informed the church and we could have easily cleared the air in a statement to diffuse the tension,” he said.

Recent years have seen a series of anti-apostasy protests by Muslim groups claiming that Islam is being undermined by liberal Muslims and Malaysians who demand that their right to religious freedom under the constitution be upheld.

Just over 60 per cent of Malaysia’s population of 27 million are ethnic Malay-Muslims.

According to the Malaysian constitution a Malay is defined, among others things, as being a Muslim.

Hermen Shastri, the general-secretary of the Council of Churches, Malaysia, described the reaction to the SMS rumour as “very worrying”.

“There definitely needs to be a defined policy on SMS messages,” he said. “This is not the first time such a message has been circulated.”

He said he had frequently received circulated SMS relating to the case of Lina Joy, a Malay woman who is trying to remove the word Islam from her national identity card.

The landmark case is currently awaiting a decision from the country’s highest court.

‘Intimidation tactic’

Hermen blamed “people with malicious and ill-intent” for circulating the SMS and trying to agitate more Muslims into taking to the streets stoke inter-religious tensions.

“The government has to come up with rules,” he said.

“If there are any grievances, people should lodge a police report. This is an intimidation tactic to instill fear. The rule should be that no one should go to places of worship of other faiths and interfere in their worship.”

Musa Mohd Nordin, founding member of the Muslim Professionals Forum ‘ a body which aims to increase understanding of Islam in the English-speaking world – condemned the reaction.

“No ethnic or racial group should be acting on hearsay,” he said. “If the group of Muslims had congregated at the church based on an SMS and not evidence, I think that is very unfortunate and unbecoming for a Muslim group.

“A particularly inflammatory issue like this must be based on clear evidence. Even if the allegations were true, it was uncalled for them to demonstrate. A negotiation or meeting with the church would have been a better way to handle the situation.”

He also warned liberal Muslims against linking Sunday’s “isolated” incident with other anti-apostasy protests and said it was dangerous to use words such as “hate ideology”.

‘Despicable act’

Zaitun Kasim of women’s rights group Sisters In Islam apologised for what she said was the “fear and anxiety” caused by the “actions of a small, ill-informed group of Muslims”.

“The despicable act of writing and forwarding the SMS itself was designed to sow hatred and ill-will,” she said.

“Islam, as with other religions, does not in any way condone any form of violence.”

She said she was “gravely disappointed that the actions of some Muslims have not only brought the religion into disrepute but have caused harm to other Malaysians”.

Citing a recent spate of incidents, Zaitun said that the Ipoh case pointed to “a regressive and damaging trend where individuals and groups have deliberately used religion to drive a wedge between the different ethnic groups”.

Source: Al Jazeera

Interesting Read: Al-Jazeera launch
by Michael Binyon

Ten years after it began broadcasting, al-Jazeera launched its first English-language news channel at noon today. Michael Binyon of The Times tuned in to watch the channel’s explosive start, which he says, could attract a loyal following around the world

It made its name with dramatic pictures of conflict and exclusive scoops: the war against the Taleban, Bin Laden’s tapes, the bombings and US-led attack on Baghdad, the war in Lebanon, the rising anger in the Middle East. Al-Jazeera quickly became the voice of the Arab street, a must-watch station for Arabs and for newsmen around the world – assuming they could follow the Arabic.

Today everyone can watch. After much hype, slick publicity and a long delay, al-Jazeera’s English-language world service was lauched from its headquarters in Qatar. It began with a bang, focusing, naturally, on what had made its name: hard-hitting news from the world’s trouble spots.

First came the inevitable preview, with flashy images of earlier scoops during the broadcaster’s 10 year existence. Then there was a news summary – usual format of two presenters, man and woman, sharp, smart and standing up in the studio – and a preview of the features, interviews and exclusives for the next hour.

Luckily, al-Jazeera had a ready-made moving story, literally. A tsunami had been generated by a Pacific earthquake, and was expected to hit Japan – in five minutes. Talk about breaking news! More on that later.

Then it was back to the main report. It was the misery in Gaza. Well, al-Jazeera is an Arab station, and Gaza is, as Tony Blair and many have said, the core grievance in the Middle East. And the report was as grim as the pictures: the reality of “life under sanctions, siege and shellings”. We saw pathetic scenes of children in hospitals, mothers weepers, smashed houses and the latest disaster – malnutrition caused by the international sanctions on Hamas.

There was little to quarrel with politically – though David Chater, the commentator did talk about “so-called terror organisations” which might raise an eyebrow in Jerusalem or Washington.

For balance we then went straight to Jerusalem, and Jackie Rowland – yet another ex-BBC frontline reporter wooed over to the new channel – to hear how Israeli public opinion reacted to shelling from Gaza. She was, like the mood there, blunt and uncompromising: Israeli military doctrine was to attack whenever people felt threatened.

Then back to Gaza for an exclusive interview with Khaled Meshaal, a Hamas political leader, who said he had offered Israel a ceasefire which it had scorned. Then on to another Middle Eastern tragedy, Darfur. There was no siding with Sudan on this one: the reporter, Andrew Simmons, was as hard-hitting as the pictures of the refugees and the squalor, which seems far more telling than those seen on Western channels. He also had a good scoop – an interview with the rebel leader of the refugees.

At last, a break with an update on the tsunami. I’d been wondering what had happened. The answer, according to the quick switch to the Kuala Lumpur studio, was nothing. No waves yet.

And now came one of the stars – Rageh Omaar, the “scud stud” of the Iraq war, lured at reportedly great expense from the BBC. He was in Tehran to look at the impact of Tony Blair’s recent speech. There didn’t seem to be any. No one cared. But he found an excited professor to excoriate the West’s impudence for demanding Iranian help while maintaining sanctions and pressure.

So far it had been a rather depressing diet. All were hard-hitting stories. All were the stuff that generates anger and turmoil in the world. And in a masterstroke, al-Jazeera also had its own man in Zimbabwe, where the BBC is banned, and broadcast a damning indictment of “policies that are destroying Zimbabwe”. It may find its correspondent doesn’t last there long.

I had no political quarrel with the coverage. Yes, it gave plenty of time to issues from and about the Middle East. That’s natural. It was pretty careful not to distort or to use loaded language. It was slick, fast-paced and thoroughly professional.

Earlier, in a puff for its own coverage in the first 10 years, it showed Donald Rumsfeld’s denunciation of the station as “vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable”. Well, he’s gone now. Al-Jazeera is still there. And I think, judging by its launch, it will find a loyal market in the wider world.