For more than twenty years, Hanan Ashrawi, an ethnic Christian and a moderate, has been a prominent Palestinian leader. In 2006 she was elected to the Palestinian parliament as a member of the Third Way, an almost laughably small party which has tried to provide a democratic, centrist alternative to the corruption of Fateh and the violent Islamism of Hamas — the two dominant Palestinian political factions.
She founded a non-governmental organization called MIFTAH; its mandate is human rights but it has carved out a role primarily as a promoter of women in Palestinian life.
Historically, MIFTAH’s largest single source of funding has been the International Republican Institute, an American organization loosely linked to the U.S. Republican party and funded mainly with U.S. government money.
Let me repeat that: the main source of funding for Ashrawi’s organization is a Republican organization. (Disclosure: for a time I was resident director of the West Bank and Gaza program for the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, which is linked to the U.S. Democratic party in a similar way.)
That’s not to say that Ashrawi has never been attacked for her politics. When she won the Sydney Peace Prize in Australia in 2003 some Jewish community leaders there denounced her as an “apologist” for terrorists. But many Israeli moderates rose to her defence, dismissing those attacks as smear on a proponent of peace.
OK, so let’s get to the latest incident.
According to a number of reports — including this one in Embassy magazine, where I first read about it — Canada chopped its piddling contribution to MIFTAH after Ashrawi clashed rhetorically with Canada’s outgoing foreign minister, John Baird.
On his farewell tour of the Middle East a few weeks ago, Baird said Palestinians were crossing a “red line” — a favourite expression in the region when laying down an ultimatum — by accusing Israel of war crimes before the International Criminal Court.
In a press release, Ashrawi fired back that the red line Baird was trying to draw was a form of impunity for Israel, and she called Baird an apologist (that word again) for those complicit in war crimes.
In a strange little episode, Canadian officials abruptly demanded a letter of thanks from Ashrawi for their $27,000 contribution to MIFTAH. When it was not forthcoming, they cancelled the grant.
The Canadian money had been to help train women involved in municipal politics in the Palestinian territories — a major project of MIFTAH over many years. And the plight of women is one of the untold stories of the Palestinian struggle for something better than life in an outdoor prison.
The First Intifada against Israeli occupation, which began in the 1980s, was dominated by acts of civil disobedience such as boycotts and refusals to pay taxes; there was violence by Palestinians but it was mainly low-level, at least in comparison to what was to come. The most memorable image from that era remains teenagers armed with slingshots and handheld catapults ranged against Israeli soldiers shooting rubber bullets, sometimes live ammunition.
During this period, a number of women — including Ashrawi — rose to prominence in the Palestinian movement for civil disobedience. They argued not only for Palestinian rights but for wider human rights, including those of women.
The Second Intifada, which dominated the first five years of this century, was very different. The images from that era are much, much bloodier: suicide bombers unleashing hell on Israeli pizza joints and cafes and running battles between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian militias in refugee camps.
When the guns and bombs came out, Palestinian women got pushed aside. Women became less prominent in leadership roles. When the rule of law broke down under relentless Israeli military pressure, clan and family rule took over. That almost guaranteed that honour killings would become more common and, when they occurred, would go unpunished. That’s to say nothing of the rise in family violence, directed mostly against women and children.
Maybe this is obvious, but the ascendancy of Hamas in the Gaza Strip was not a good thing for Palestinian womankind.
A negotiated peace and an end to Israeli occupation might offer a way out of many tangled problems for Palestinian women and men. But it has not been forthcoming. Neither George W. Bush nor, it must be said, Barack Obama has ever exerted much pressure on Israeli prime ministers such as Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu, who have been hostile to any negotiations with Palestinians.
The current leader of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, was heralded as a man of peace by the international community when he replaced Yasser Arafat in 2004 — but he has never found a negotiating partner in Israel. In desperation, Palestinian moderates have turned to international institutions such as the International Criminal Court and various arms of the United Nations as a non-violent path to pursue their aspirations short of abandoning all hope.
This, of course, outrages official Israel. And because Canada’s role in the Middle East is to play a kind of Mini-Me to Netanyahu, we are outraged too.
In polarizing conflicts of this kind, the place of moderates is so precarious.
In the last parliamentary elections held now almost a decade ago, Ashrawi and her party’s leader, Salam Fayyad (whose radical credentials include stints at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and the IMF) won a derisory 2.4 per cent of the vote.
More recently, Sari Nusseibeh — a tireless advocate for peace who led a movement with a former leader of the Israeli security service Shin Bet to to revive negotiations — resigned as the head of Al Quds university. He was squeezed between Hamas militants in his own student body and the predominantly Jewish American university with which he had partnered.
One by one they are forced out; the women and men of peace are pushed aside.
And now, Canada too has struck its own farcical little blow against moderation.
Original Article
Source: ipolitics.ca/
Author: Paul Adams
No comments:
Post a Comment