Post-Gaza scenario

FINALLY, Israel has withdrawn from Gaza after a brutal occupation of 38 years. Seen against the background of the peace efforts made since Madrid, this is the first major development towards Arab-Israeli peace. If progress continues in this spirit, then there is no reason why a sovereign Palestinian state should not come into being comprising Gaza and the still occupied West Bank, including Al Quds. The irony is that the man behind the pull-out is a hardliner who was hardly expected to make such a bold move in sthe face of stiff domestic opposition.

Indicted even by an Israeli court for the Sabra-Chatilla massacre, Mr Ariel Sharon had been no less brutal in his suppression of the second intifada touched off by his ill-advised visit to the Islamic holy sites in September 2000. As prime minister, he ordered the re- occupation of some West Bank areas, destroyed Yasser Arafat’s headquarters and made him a prisoner. It was also the Sharon government that resorted to a series of targeted assassinations, including those of Hamas founder Sheikh Yassin and his successor, Abdel Aziz Rentissi. However, he finally realized the truth, which the Israeli leaders should have done much earlier: that Israel could not afford an indefinite occupation of the territories seized in 1967.

The post-withdrawal scenario is full of opportunities as well as hazards. The pullout is not complete yet, since Tel Aviv will continue to man air, sea and land exit points. Then there is the question of the 19 synagogues which analysts say Israel deliberately did not destroy so as to create problems for the Palestinian Authority. The PA will, of course, not demolish them; Islam does not permit the destruction of non-Muslim places of worship. But some revenge-seeking Palestinians may try to vandalize them. The best course for the PA will be to make use of them, perhaps as libraries or museums and monuments. These are, however, minor problems compared to what the future holds for the West Bank.

Going by Mr Sharon’s policies, Israel has no intention of quitting this territory. Jewish settlements there continue to expand, and the Israeli prime minister made this clear in an interview with the Washington Post on Sunday. Work on “large settlements” would continue, he said, and added that ultimately these blocs would become part of Israel. Such plans go against the two-state concept to which America, Israel’s patron-in-chief, remains committed. Asked whether the US would be unhappy, Mr Sharon said it would be, implying that Israel would go ahead with its settlement expansion irrespective of what the US thought. This is the crux of the problem. Israel has such a strong lobby in Congress and the US media that it could not care less about the State Department’s sensitivities on the issue. If Israel continues to occupy the West Bank, then there is no doubt that it will have another intifada to deal with. As history has shown, Palestinians are quite capable of fighting for their rights, no matter what the odds. If Israel does not quit the West Bank today, it will have to do so perhaps decades later, but by then much blood will have flowed in the holy land. If there is to be a final settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, Mr Sharon should show the same realism in the case of the West Bank as he has in the case of Gaza.

Where were the MNAs?

ON SATURDAY, the National Assembly had to be adjourned once again for lack of quorum. If Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan has his information correct, this was the 330th time this has happened in the last 30 months. On Friday, the opposition’s MNAs were observing a strike against the government and so they had decided to absent themselves from the Assembly. It is a pity that the legislators — belonging to all parties — do not take their responsibilities seriously enough to at least make their appearance in the house. Were they mindful of their role as lawmakers and as watchdogs of their constituents’ interests, they would have been regular and punctual in their attendance. Moreover, they would have come after doing their homework thoroughly, well prepared for an informed and meaningful debate. The apathy of the legislators clearly shows that democratic norms in Pakistan still have to mature before the country will be ready to work a parliamentary system efficiently. Until then we will have to put up with these hiccups.

The fact is that the elected representatives of the people have not yet displayed the commitment necessary to run and sustain a democratic process. The parties which are in the government are in effect providing a civilian facade to military rule, as has been the practice in Pakistan when a military dictator has been at the helm. The opposition parties are so disenchanted that they do not even make an effort to stick to democratic rules and offer resistance to the rulers from within the system. One only hopes that Mr Ahsan is wide of the mark when he claims that this charade in the National Assembly is designed to pave the way for a presidential system that will give the president total control over power. But that will not absolve the legislators of their responsibilities of attending the assembly sessions and addressing the issue of lawmaking. What they must realize is that the membership of the National Assembly carries with it serious responsibilities for them in law-making as well as in protection of the public interest through right policies and actions and for them not to remain busy with the peddling of influence and connections for personal benefits.

In the name of blasphemy

A POLICE post in Sargodha was torched on Saturday by an angry mob of over 3,000 people who believed that the police officer in-charge desecrated the Holy Quran. The mob, whipped into a frenzy by announcements made on a few local mosques loudspeakers, took the matter into their own hands. In another development, 500 Christian families are reported to have fled Amer Sidhu to safety after a Christian man was charged with blasphemy. Despite some efforts to urge calm, no one was able to control the Sargodha crowd’s anger. The police, usually silent spectators on such occasions, shifted the alleged blasphemer to a prison, unable to offer him protection at the police lock-up. This is the sad state of affairs in the country where no one, including those meant to uphold the law, are safe from mob frenzy whipped on some pretext or the other. Far too many innocent lives have been lost as a consequence of baseless allegations and nothing is being done to stop the menace. Earlier this year, a man was lynched by a mob in Nowshera and months later a temple ransacked in the same place; both times crowd frenzy led to horrific results.

In the Sargodha case, the policeman conducting a raid was charged with pushing a woman holding the Quran which fell on the ground with her; hence the desecration charge. The matter needs to be investigated to determine the veracity of the allegation. If religious leaders incited mobs into taking the law into their own hands — which they did when they set the police post on fire — they should be charged for inciting mob violence. Baseless charges of blasphemy are often made to settle personal scores or to persecute minorities and should be dealt with firmly to discourage such abuses.

Challenge for the Muslim world

IT IS a known fact of history that the Muslim Ummah has remained a champion of justice and fair play and a symbol of balance and tolerance and has never been an instrument of terrorism, extremism and anarchy.

It has been the torch-bearer of justice in the face of tyranny, moderation in the face of extremism, and order in the face of disorder and chaos.

Today, international opinion stands confused over the ugly phenomenon of terrorism. The Zionist lobby and the media under its control are busy maligning Islam and trying to project it as though it was synonymous with extremism and terrorism.

A Muslim’s commitment to his own religion and culture is being labelled as extremism. Madressahs and religious seminaries are now the target of censure and severe criticism in most Islamic countries. They are being blamed for teaching extremism. Efforts are on to sow the seeds of discord among Muslim countries and communities.

From day one, the onus for the September 11, 2001 incident was put entirely on the Muslims without for a moment bothering to get convincing proof. Now the blame for the 7/7 incident in London has also been put on the shoulders of Muslims with no proof whatsoever. Not in Britain alone but throughout the world steps are being taken against the Muslims. The biggest challenge today for the Muslim Ummah is how to counter this civilizational attack. It also has to find the right answers to the following: What is the correct way to redress the situation in the light of Islamic teachings? Who are those responsible for the incidents of 9/11 and 7/7? What is the stand of the Islamic movements on these issues and what it ought to be?

The 9/11 trauma in New York and Washington was a cause of shock, concern and fear throughout the civilized world, transcending religious and ethnic barriers. Islamic movements everywhere enjoined peoples and organizations to unequivocally condemn the incident. The Jamaat-i-Islami’s official standpoint was expressed on Sept 14 when it was said: “We have been greatly shocked over this incident. The innocent people of all nationalities and religions, including Muslims and Pakistanis, have been killed.”

But it was also pointed out that the United States should not get carried away by an emotional response to these incidents. “The US would be better advised to also internally introduce an order based on justice, do away with social evils and review its policies on the external front. So long as action is not taken to eliminate tyranny and oppression wherever these are being perpetrated in the world, no peace can be established. Kashmir, Chechnya and Palestine are the dark spots of tyranny and oppression, which have naturally led to an angry reaction against the oppressors and their patrons.”

The London explosions evoked a similar response from Islamic movements. The head of the Ikhwan Al-Muslimun, Muhammad Mahdi Akif, explaining the Ikhwan’s standpoint, said. “Ikhwan Al-Muslimun is greatly shocked over the incidents of explosions in London, which caused 40 dead and 190 injured. We condemn this criminal act in strong terms and regard it contrary to the Islamic teachings, because Islam has enjoined to safeguard the human lives and strongly forbidden the harassment of civilian population.

“It is our considered opinion that this wave of widespread violence, destabilization and terrorism on the global scale is the direct consequence of those policies of the US and the British governments which have torn to shreds the norms of justice and fair play. To them the use of brute force in total disregard of the international laws is the law itself, and that has pushed the whole world towards the law of the jungle.”

Earlier in November 2002 the Islamic movements of the world came out with what is known as the ‘London Declaration’, in which they presented to the West and the Muslims residing there their principled stand in a most comprehensive manner.

The declaration’s main points were: the life, honour and property of the non-Muslims are sacrosanct under the same law which has guaranteed them their right of residence; the laws of the land must be respected, work has to be done for society’s welfare and all attempts to harm it must be avoided; concerted efforts should be made to groom a new generation of true Muslims and useful citizens by setting up academic institutions and educational and cultural centres; action should be taken for strengthening the bonds of brotherhood and solidarity; there must be cooperation in all acts of virtue and piety; the path of dialogue and good counsel ought to be followed in all controversial issues, everything that may cause hatred among different nationalities must be avoided; and the viewpoints and actions responsible to distort the image of Islam and the Muslims in the world must be eschewed.

It was also urged that while remaining within the parameters of Islamic teachings and the laws of the land, a relationship of cooperation should be established with the liberal forces in matters concerning human rights and values, irrespective of any distinction of community or creed.

Humanity’s greatest tragedy today is that the foreign policy of the powerful nations is based, instead of justice and fair play, on their narrow interests. Explaining US policy in the Gulf States, the former US ambassador Martin Indick in his book International Interest in the Gulf Region, said: “The basic objective of the US security strategy in the Gulf is to ensure an uninterrupted supply of oil from the Gulf States’ oilfields according to the US needs and on reasonable prices.”

The US has come out with a plan of an extended Middle East, the boundary-lines of which encompass the World of Islam as a whole. It claims to, having plans to hand over power to the people after doing away with the autocratic regimes of the region. It is presenting itself as the champion of basic human rights and in its view democracy alone offers a stable political system of which an independent judiciary is the main pillar.

Surprisingly, however, it has lent its unstinted military and financial support to autocracies wherever its interests need civil and military dictators to continue their oppressive stranglehold on their peoples. It has gone to the extent of permitting in the name of political stability the induction of foreign military support to help these dictators perpetuate their rule.

In short, if the West launches any kind of military, economic or media war to establish and prolong its military, economic and civilizational hegemony, that would be in line with the dictates of justice, but even a single move in opposition to such hegemonistic acts would be synonymous with terrorism and extremism. They would like to change not only our civilization and culture, but also our faith and belief.

They would like our course of studies to be changed and all the teachings of the Holy Quran and the Traditions of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) removed from there and replaced by liberal material. To them ‘jihad’ is akin to terrorism and they would therefore, like even its mention to be excised from textbooks not only of the religious seminaries but also of colleges and schools.

In response to these irresponsible demands, the Muslim Ummah should forcefully present to the world its just position with one voice. Ulema, intellectuals and Muslim scholars should also try to influence and inspire the right-thinking people of the West to elicit their support for their just cause. The world is in need of such a group of people who may rise above narrow geographical, ethnic and religious biases and have the good of the entire humanity close to their heart. There are those in the West too who stand for justice and human rights.

Millions of people have demonstrated there against the war. The mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, British parliamentarian, George Galloway, and US intellectuals, Paul Findlay and Graham Wooller, have raised their voice calling for a review of US policy, which they think, is a reflection and follow-up of Jewish mindset and intrigues. These voices of truth and justice are in the interest of the West itself.

There is thus urgent need to organize a high level international conference in order to provide a forum for dialogue among the peace-loving people of the world. The conference should be attended by the leading Muslim personalities and members of the Islamic Movements and representatives of the Muslim rulers as well. Observers should also be invited from the western countries and a free debate be arranged to help evolve a well-argued and unanimous approach in the light of the global scenario.

The stand thus evolved should be projected throughout the world regardless of its being contrary to vested interests. It should be a principled stand, reflecting no bias in favour or against anybody, for the whole world to see that the nation of Islam is the torch-bearer of justice and fair play and is free from regional, ethnic or linguistic biases.

The writer is head of the Jamaat-i-Islami and leads the Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal.