Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, April 1998, Pages 71-77

Human Rights

Bassem Eid Discusses Human Rights Violations in Palestine Before UASR and CPAP Audiences

Bassem Eid, founder of the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group (PHRMG), discussed Israeli and Palestinian Authority (PA) human rights violations after Oslo at the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR) in Springfield,VA and the Center for Policy Analysis on Palestine (CPAP) in Washington, DC on Feb. 8 and 9 respectively.

Since the establishment of the PA in Gaza and the West Bank in May 1994, 19 Palestinians have died in Palestinian custody, Eid said. He charged that there have been no investigations, and the perpetrators were punished in only two cases. Human rights violations under the PA also include the torture of prisoners, arbitrary arrests, absence of freedom of the press, widespread corruption and lawlessness of government officials, Eid said.

“The rights of the Palestinians today are between the Israeli hammer and the Palestinian rock,” Eid said. Palestinians living in Area B suffer the most. They are subject to arrest by both the PA and the Israelis. In both cases, no charges are lodged against the detainees, and they are not brought to trial. Eid added that even as Palestinians continue to suffer from such Israeli abuses as home demolishing, land confiscation, and arbitrary arrests, human rights of Palestinians are further threatened by the conduct of the PA.

Palestinians understand the difficulties facing the PA today, Eid said. They recognize that the PA is under pressure from both the United States and Israel to stamp out terrorism. This, however, does not justify human rights violations. “Nowadays, the PA is more committed to protect Israeli security than Palestinian human rights,” Eid charged.

“If the intellectuals who are supposed to build a civil society are keeping silence today on all of these abuses, I would predict a dark future for the Palestinians,” Eid continued. He described his frustration with the faculties of Palestinian universities to whom the PHRMG sent a petition calling for the release of Dr. Fathi Subuh, who was detained by the Palestinian Security Services after giving an examination to his students in which he asked about corruption in the PA. Of the nine universities contacted only Bir-zeit University responded with signatures of 18 academics for the PHRMG’s petition.

Though the PA claimed that Dr. Subuh was arrested due to security charges against him, Tayyeb al-Rahim, director general of President Arafat’s office, told CBS on Dec. 7, 1997 that Dr. Subuh was arrested because of the questions on the exam. After spending five months in jail, Dr. Subuh was finally released due to his deteriorating health.

Eid said he is more surprised by the silence of the Palestinian community regarding the abuses they face from the PA than by the behavior of the PA itself. “Democracy will never be built by leaders or governments,” he said. “It is the determination of the people themselves,” Eid said. The role of his organization, the PHRMG, is to let people know about the PA human rights abuses and violations. It is, however, the role of the people to start acting against these abuses.

In question-and-answer sessions at both UASR and CPAP, audience members told Eid that he was not giving the PA, a new governmental entity, sufficient time to build its judicial and governmental systems.

“Such abuses committed by the PA will sink strong roots in the land, and after 10 years it will be impossible to cut them away, Eid responded. “The PA has to understand that by committing these abuses against its own people, it is giving legitimacy to the Israeli abuses.”

Eid added that there also are grounds for hope of improvement. During 1997, no human rights activists were arrested, the human rights community became more active, and none of the death sentences were carried out, he said.

Prior to 1997, Eid himself was arrested by the PA for criticizing what he called an un-democratic election campaign for the Palestinian Legislative Council and presidency in 1995 and 1996. Eid is the recipient of the Emil Gruenzweig Memorial Award and the McGill InterAmicus Robert S. Litvak Human Rights Memorial Award for his unwavering commitment to upholding human rights standards.

—Raja Abu-Jabr

MEI HOSTS A PANEL DISCUSSION ON THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN IRAN

A panel discussion on the rights of women and children in Iran was held at the Middle East Institute on March 11, 1998. Panelists discussed developments surrounding the national seminar on child rights held in Tehran last November, adjustments in legislative and social policies, child rights in the Iranian context, and the need for broad national alliances to address problems such as child abuse and juvenile justice.

Catherine O’Neill, who is the founder chair and program chair for the Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children, started the discussion by giving her perceptions of Iran after her first visit there. O’Neill said that though UNICEF is a non-registered NGO in Iran, it had the opportunity to hold a conference about the rights of women and children in Iran. “A number of speakers at the conference spoke out for a harsh change concerning women’s issues in Iran,” she added. A number of Iranian women who had attended the conference told O’Neill that this phenomenon was unusual in Iran.

“More women are elected to the parliament in Iran,” O’Neill said. Male candidates tend to associate their names with female candidates because they raise issues that are becoming more popular in Iran, she added.

Zahra Shojaie, President Khatami’s adviser on women’s affairs and director of the Center for Women’s Participation, was the second speaker. Mrs. Shojaie began by describing the situation of children in Iran. The fact that over 50 percent of Iranians are under 15 years of age is “very challenging,” she said. “To meet this challenge, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has formulated a national plan, covering up to the year 2000,” Shojaie said. The plan aims at implementing the provisions of the convention of the Rights of Child that were ratified by the Iranian government in 1994.

Mrs. Shojaie announced that the overall and long-term policy approach of the new administration under President Khatami recognizes the need to help Iranian women find their proper status and play their due role in society. “Currently, two women serve in the cabinet, which is unprecedented in our history,” she pointed out.

Other improvements that have occurred include the fact that most Iranian ministries have bureaus of women’s affairs, and the parliament has a “Committee for Women, Family and Youth.” “In the first budget presented by the president to the parliament a couple of months ago, proposed allocations for women’s activities showed substantial increases,” Mrs. Shojaie said.

Jane Schaller, head of the American Pediatrics Association, professor of pediatrics at Tufts University, and professor of diplomacy at the Woodrow Wilson Institute at Princeton University, discussed the situation of children in Iran. Child abuse exists everywhere in the world, she said. The difference in Iran, however, is that “there are no official mechanisms for reporting these abuses.”

Taking into consideration that the Islamic Republic of Iran is the host for three million refugees, the largest number of refugees in the world, “the Iranian government has done a good job in meeting the basic needs for children,” Mrs. Schaller said. She closed out her discussion by stating that during her visit to Iran she was happy with the common humanity she found between the American people and the people of Iran. “I hope this will be the end of the estrangements between the United States and Iran,” she added.

Raymond Janssens, head of UNICEF’s Middle East and North Africa Division, said that UNICEF has a good and developing cooperation with the Iranian government. He explained that “improvements in child care and education are clear in Iran.” UNICEF, however, does not seem to be attracting much funding for programs conducted in Iran. “Improvements have been made and we need to encourage and keep these improvements and work on the other areas too,” he concluded.

—Raja M. Abu-Jabr

Panelists Disagree on Value of Development for Muslim Women

The contrast between the academic and the activist approaches to development was highlighted well in a panel discussion on “Muslim Women and the Politics of Participation” held at the Middle East Institute on Feb. 3, 1998.

Although they are co-editors of a new book, Muslim Women and the Politics of Participation; Implementing the Beijing Platform, (Syracuse University Press), panelists Mahnaz Afkhami, executive director of both the Sisterhood Is Global Institute and the Foundation for Iranian Studies, and Dr. Erika Friedl, professor of anthropology at Western Michigan University and author of several books on Iran, presented sharply contrasting views on the consequences of development for Muslim women.

Afkhami is optimistic about the future participation of Muslim women in the political process and felt that the Beijing Conference on Women (1995) was “a ground-breaking event for women and their role in society.” She reminded the audience that the majority of decision-makers in the international conference were women and the agenda of the conference was the empowerment of women. The rapid growth of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the past 20 years and the Beijing conference have combined to create a “critical momentum” for a global women’s empowerment and put pressure on governments to improve women’s education, voting rights and health care in their countries, Afkhami said.

As a result of the Beijing conference, some women’s organizations have concluded that emphasizing women’s political participation is more important than focusing on policy issues, as women’s organizations in the U.S. have done. “We have learned that there are very few countries in the world that have realized women’s political participation,” Afkhami said, with the notable exceptions of the Scandinavian countries that have a substantial number of women in the executive and legislative branches of the government. She added that since 1996 many people have concluded that being a feminist and a Muslim are not contradictory identities and “there is no reason why we can’t be both—especially in a religion where there is no intermediary to God.”

In her more pessimistic view, Friedl acknowledged that the Beijing conference had had a “trickle-down” effect and cited the implementation of a gender-based quota system for women at Iranian universities. She emphasized, however, that the effects of the quota system are not yet known. Friedl contended that education, particularly in vocational or technical skills, only provides women with a “very, very marginal advantage” that may do more to bolster cottage industries than it does to raise the standard of living or happiness of women in general. Friedl said that the structure of society, politics and the economy are the biggest problems facing Iranian women today and that many of the youths and women who voted for President Khatami said they did so because they thought he would do the most to improve the Iranian economy.

Friedl was critical of the Bejing conference and the desire to establish universal women’s rights. She emphasized that human rights and women’s rights are difficult to define and often are used for demagogic purposes, such as the ongoing debates on the veil and clitordectomy. Friedl emphasized the need for women in different situations to express their own localized needs.

Friedl expressed concern over the approach of many NGOs established by urban, middle-class women to help rural, poor women. She felt that there is a paternalistic tone and class bias in agendas of such groups and in the topics addressed by NGOs in general and at the Beijing conference in particular. Afkhami said that the Beijing conference focused on attaining and prioritizing universal rights because “human aspirations are not determined by race or gender.” In contrast to Friedl, Afkhami wanted to identify and prioritize global concerns of women before defining and demanding rights in a particular society.

Despite their contrasting reactions to the value of NGO work, both Friedl and Afkhami agreed that national crises and violence take the greatest toll on women. The interplay of governments and extremist movements, as in Algeria and Afghanistan, have combined to deprive the women, as well as the public at large in those societies, of political institutions and ways to improve the status quo.

—Randa Kayyali

Adrien Wing on Apartheid

Adrien K. Wing, professor of comparative and U.S. constitutional law at the University of Iowa College of Law, spoke Feb. 20 at the Center for Policy Analysis on Palestine in Washington, DC on “Apartheid Israeli-Style: A Comparative Legal Analysis Between South Africa and Occupied Palestine.”

In his introductory remarks, Center chairman Dr. Hisham Sharabi commended Wing’s “great job and great service” as an adviser on the Basic Law to the Palestinian Legislative Council. He noted also that she previously had advised the African National Congress Constitutional Committee in the years leading up to the adoption of South Africa’s interim constitution.

Wing described the first National Conference of Black Lawyers delegation she led to occupied Palestine in 1985, which resulted in the publication of Bantustans in the Holy Land . Many Americans at that time were unwilling to accept that analogy, she said, but “African-Americans could clearly see the connection.”

Wing defined bantustans as “little pieces of nonviable land separated from each other that will not permit a viable political and economic state.” She noted the irony of Israel’s “pushing” a solution finally discarded by the South African state. (Only one of the two apartheid systems, after all, will celebrate its 50th anniversary this year.)

Wing also challenged State Department official Aaron Miller’s contention that “at least 99 percent of the Palestinian people are under the control of the Palestinian Authority.” As was the case in apartheid South Africa, she pointed out, the vast majority of the land is under the control of the oppressor or occupying government.

The links between apartheid and Zionism go back to at least 1917, Wing explained, and the friendship between Chaim Weizmann and Afrikaaner leader Jan Smuts. Indeed, Hendrik Verwoerd, a South African prime minister during the apartheid era, stated that “Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state.” The two states, both international pariahs, cooperated closely over the years. South Africa provided arms to Israel and Israel, in turn, provided relief from the world’s embargo on South African exports. Just as they purchased rough diamonds from South Africa, cut and polished them and then marketed them around the world, Israeli companies would add one final detail to other almost-finished South African goods and label them “made in Israel,” thus evading the international boycott of South Africa.

Both systems of apartheid were/are based on law: the South African constitution under apartheid had no bill of rights, permitting such regulations as the population restriction act, the internal security act and the notorious pass laws—an idea which Israel has appropriated, as Wing pointed out.

Law in the Israeli-occupied territories is based on the Defense Emergency Regulations of 1945—instituted by the British “after they lost control of Mandate Palestine” so that they could jail Jewish and Arab terrorists—and more than 1,000 military laws. Included among the long list of human rights violations this legal system permits, Wing said, are deportations, separation of families, demolition of homes, and extra-judicial killings.

Both societies are characterized by the mistreatment of the population in general—black South Africans and Palestinians—and by collective punishment, at which the Israelis are better than were white South Africans, according to Wing.

Wing described the South African solution to apartheid as incorporating a negotiated settlement leading to democratic elections, a new constitution abolishing all remaining apartheid laws, and a truth and reconciliation commission through which confession of crimes committed under the apartheid regime results in pardon and absolution, and refusal to confess such crimes can result in prosecution.

Wing expressed her disappointment in Palestinian President Yasser Arafat’s refusal to pass the Basic Law, which establishes a system of checks and balances, thereby limiting the power of the executive branch. The activist and professor maintained, however, that “We in the U.S. need to raise the issue of bantustans and of the apartheid system and make sure that, Palestine does not become a bantustan state.”

Responding to an audience member’s request that she compare the South African and Palestinian liberation movements, Wing said that many Palestinians had complained to her that “Arafat is no Mandela.” While acknowledging this fact, she added that “even Mandela is not Mandela,” the “unique historical icon” whose ultimate triumph has enthralled the world. Moreover, she pointed out, as a prisoner for 27 years, Mandela was not in the position of having to make the day-to-day decisions and face the many crises which characterized those same years for Yasser Arafat.

Despite the desperate situation of the Palestinians and her assessment that “the situation in South Africa is not that great,” Wing concluded with a sad and sobering observation for Americans, saying she was “more optimistic about the future of South Africans, and of Israelis and Palestinians” than she is about the future of her own African-American community.

—Janet McMahon

S. SABA BOKHARI AND YVONNE HADDAD SPEAK AT MEI

A Muslim Pakistani, Dr. S. Saba Bokhari, and a Christian Arab-American, Dr. Yvonne Haddad, discussed the role of the veil or hijab—the scarf that covers the hair of Muslim women—and women’s education in the lives of Muslim women living in a secular environment such as the United States on Feb. 24 at the Middle East Institute.

Dr. Bokhari, who holds a doctorate in education from the University of Maryland and currently consults on international education issues for the World Bank, argued that the issue of covering the hair did not receive enough attention in Muslim countries: “In Pakistan, most of the studies that have been done in the area of women and development in the Islamic world have been related to the relationship between education and fertility and not much has been done in terms of veiling and education,” she said.

One of the cultural shocks Bokhari faced in the United States was encountering members of the Pakistani-American community who thought it was outrageous that she had arrived on her own to continue her education. At the same time, “Some women started coming to me and asking me to talk to their parents because they are not allowed to go to night classes,” Bokhari said.

Bokhari conducted a study of 53 Pakistani mothers, daughters and fathers who live in the United States. After talking to each one separately, Bokhari found that the “loneliness of the first generation that grew up in the United States was something I had not imagined nor anticipated.”

Bokhari was strongly critical of imposed veiling on Muslim women. She stated further that the verse that appears in the Qur’an regarding the veil “was not meant to be valid in the 20th century.”

Bokhari described different schools of thought concerning the veil in the United States. In her study, Bokhari found that orthodox, fundamentalist, literalist thought predominates among members of the younger generation who grew up in the United States. Another trend of conservative, traditionalist thought also is very common among the members of the first generation who are very lonely. “They went to public and private schools but were not allowed to associate with anyone who was not Muslim or even anyone who did not look like a Muslim,” she explained.

She also found a strain of modernist, progressive thought, which predominates among women who internalize the issue of the hijab. They believe in the concepts of Ijtihad and creative reasoning that allow them to decide for themselves how to deal with the issue of the veil. Finally, she discovered what she called the “renegade” school of thought among some women who deny Islam as “they feel that they cannot relate to it in the West,” Bokhari said.

One of the most interesting results of Bokhari’s study was that, with only one exception among all of the mothers and daughters she interviewed, the daughters were encouraged to pursue their education by their fathers and not their mothers. “Fathers wanted their daughters to get an education because they felt that they cannot trust other men concerning their daughters,” Bokhari said. “Fathers wanted their daughters to have economic stability at the least.”

Bokhari also asserted that a problem in common between the older and younger generations of Muslims in America is a lack of communication. “The problem is not so much whether the West does or does not understand Muslims, it is that Muslims do not accept one another,” she concluded.

The discussant, Dr. Yvonne Haddad, who is professor of the history of Islam and of Christian-Muslim relations at Georgetown University, agreed with the findings of Bokhari’s study, and particularly with the argument that Muslim women tend to internalize and decide for themselves how to deal with the issue of the veil. She also agreed that the loneliness of young Muslims on campuses is very evident. “Students find that they cannot participate in main campus activities such as partying,” she said.

“There is a growing movement of creating Islam as an ethnicity,” Haddad added. “In Washington, there are three Afghan mosques and each one has a different language because they cannot communicate with each other,” Haddad explained. Nevertheless, on university campuses, ideological mosques are the norm. “It is one that says regardless of your background, you are a Muslim,” Haddad said.

Haddad also discussed the phenomenon of intermarriage among Muslims, Christians and Jews. The United States has no statistics regarding this issue, but Canada does. According to the latest census, 50 percent of Muslim women in Canada marry non-Muslim men, but 50 percent of those men will convert to Islam.

To Haddad, the veil is a struggle between the Muslim community and Western society itself. “On that level, it challenges Western thinkers, perceptions, and values,” she added. European, Western European, and North American societies have a perception of themselves as being liberal, open, and secular, Haddad said, but at the same time” they are terrorized by a woman wearing a scarf.”

To Haddad, “the veil has become the center of the war between feminists and society.” She described a case in which a student who wore the hijab was expelled from her school in Canada. As a result, more Muslim women attending the same school began wearing this Islamic scarf, Haddad said.

—Raja M. Abu-Jabr

MEI Examines Jerusalem Problem

The Middle East Institute hosted a half-day conference entitled “Jerusalem: Images and Realities” at The National Press Club on Jan. 16. After opening remarks by MEI President Ambassador Roscoe Suddarth, the first panel, moderated by Stephen Rosenfeld of The Washington Post, considered “Developments in Jerusalem.”

The first speaker, attorney Douglas Feith, said that Israelis do not trust Palestinian intentions. He charged that while Arabs discuss land-for-peace with the Israelis, among themselves they focus on armed struggle against Israel, even in schools. He charged that Palestinian school books still do not show Israel, which he said is evidence of anti-Jewish hostility. He further charged that Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat at times invokes the 1974 decision of the Palestine National Council that diplomacy would not be a renunciation of the original goals of the destruction of Israel, but instead a tactical maneuver. Next, he said that the nature of the conflict is the same now as it has been for 80 years, which is not so much over Zion as over Zionism.

Feith attributed the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act to the belief of many members of the U.S. Congress that the legitimacy of Israel is still an issue. A move of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem would demonstrate U.S. support of this legitimacy and Israel’s right to exist, Feith said. He added that the U.S. should not dispute Israel’s claim to Jerusalem.

Summing up, he said that Arabs must change their attitudes toward Israelis before real peace can be achieved and that the Palestinians must no longer terrorize the Israeli people. He closed by charging that there are fatal flaws in the Oslo process and that trying to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by creating a Palestinian state will not work.

Panelist Rashid Khalidi of the University of Chicago said the U.S. image of Jerusalem does not correspond to realities on the ground. The first popular misperception is the notion of Jerusalem as a united, whole, completely normal Israeli city, according to Dr. Khalidi. The next three misconceptions are that there is a consensus among Israelis that all of Jerusalem will be forever under Israeli control; that Jerusalem is somehow not as important to Arabs and Muslims as it is to Jews; and that peace is attainable only if Arabs concede control of Jerusalem to Israel forever.

The reality, Khalidi said, is that Jerusalem is one of the most deeply divided cities in the world, with segregation of Arabs and Jews the norm in both residential and commercial districts. He described large-scale discrimination against Palestinians living within the city, including home demolitions. The Israeli government refuses to grant any building permits to Palestinians for additions or alterations to their homes to accommodate their expanding families, he said. When the Palestinians proceed without permits the Israelis demolish the entire home.

Khalidi also cited the arbitrary nature of the city limits of Jerusalem since the Israeli government expanded them after the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Fewer than half of all Israelis see these Arab areas outside of the Old City as important to the state of Israel.

In order for peace to have a chance, Dr. Khalidi stated, all parties must realize that East Jerusalem is occupied territory, with international law, United Nations resolutions and stark reality attesting to this fact. He concluded by stating that all myths regarding Jerusalem must be destroyed for peace to have a realistic chance to succeed.

The final speaker on the first panel, former U.S. Consul General in Jerusalem Philip Wilcox, said that Israelis and Palestinians must realize that the city will have to be shared. While the physical unity of the city must of course be maintained, according to Wilcox, two governments on two sides of Jerusalem should be pursued. Wilcox stressed that a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem should not cause fear among Israelis, pointing to the current coexistence of the Muslim-administered Haram Al Sharif and the Jewish-administered Western Wall in the Old City of Jerusalem. Although some argue that compromise would redivide the city, Wilcox stated his belief that this will not happen. He cited the signatures of 700 Israelis and Palestinians in a recent joint statement entitled ‘Our Jerusalem,’ advocating that the city be the unified capital of two states.

The second panel, entitled “The Media and Jerusalem” was moderated by Deborah Amos of ABC News. The first speaker, Ori Nir of the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, began with the anecdote that many people compare Jerusalem to a cemetery plot: you’re glad you have a place reserved but really don’t want to live there. He described Jerusalem as a place where you go to connect with your past. He cited the fact that in the last five years 30,000 mostly secular Jews have left Jerusalem for other cities in Israel, having grown tired of harassment by Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox Haridi Jews in the city. He commented that even as recently as the early 1980s, Jerusalem had a vibrant night life, with many romantic spots, but that now the best parts of Jerusalem are the exits to Tel Aviv.

This demographic shift has benefited the Arabs in the short term. The population has changed from 74 percent Jewish and 26 percent Arab to 70 percent Jewish and 30 percent Arab in Jerusalem as a whole. Nir said the foreign media in Israel have missed the real Jerusalem story, which is the conflict between secular and Orthodox Jews in the city, as opposed to the Arab-Israeli conflict. He said even most Israelis do not see how divided Jerusalem is because they do not go to East Jerusalem. Another reason for this public ignorance in Israel, Nir posits, is the fact that the Israeli press is largely following the lead of secular Jews in Jerusalem. The press is pulling out, thus leaving a significant gap in coverage of the city’s various problems.

Nir said that while the current ultra-Orthodox population in Jerusalem is 20 percent of the total population, within 12 years it will reach 40 percent. Since at present 51 percent of first-graders in Jewish elementary schools in Jerusalem are haridi, it is easy to see what the demographic balance in the city will be like within a decade and a half, Nir said.

Citing the growing poverty in Jerusalem, Nir said 37 percent of children are below the poverty line, while the national average is 23 percent. He said this poverty is largely by choice, since most ultra-Orthodox men opt to study the Torah in yeshivas instead of working, with 70 percent of them unemployed. Nir told the audience that the ultra-Orthodox do not have to pay taxes, giving the tax-paying citizens of Jerusalem the honor of paying the highest municipal taxes in the country. Nir closed by saying this “holy crust” in Jerusalem gives the city a less pragmatic view of the world than is evident in Tel Aviv. These two cities, Nir said, are coming to symbolize the battle for the zeitgeist (world view) of the nation of Israel.

The second speaker on the panel was Daoud Kuttab of the Institute of Modern Media in Jerusalem. He said the Jerusalem problem is extremely over-politicized, with Arab rhetoric over Jerusalem not translating into political and financial benefits. It would be nice, he said, if both sides would pick other sites for their respective capitals so that Jerusalem could thrive as a cultural and religious center for Jews and Arabs alike.

Kuttab’s assessment of the situation on the ground in Jerusalem today was bleak. He said there has been an apartheid situation in Jerusalem for 30 years, with Palestinians who grew up in the city routinely denied residency rights and Jews from anywhere in the world able to go into East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza and make their homes. Kuttab closed by stating that the radio station his organization operates out of Ramallah is trying to increase its signal so that it can reach Palestinians in East Jerusalem.

The third and final speaker was Loren Jenkins of National Public Radio. He opened by remarking that Rashid Khalidi’s comments on images and realities of Jerusalem were right on. He added that perceptions have themselves become realities on issues concerning Jerusalem.

He asserted that there has been a slow but steady evolution in media reportage from the Middle East away from a complete toeing of the Israeli line. Citing the fact that the media in a democracy has a responsibility to educate its public, Jenkins described the current cut-back in U.S. media coverage of foreign news as a real problem.

With the focus now on breaking news, and no time for adequate background coverage on any particular region of the world, Jenkins said the Israelis have been able to get their message to the foreign media more efficiently than the Arabs have. On top of all this, Netanyahu is usually just a phone call away, while it is next to impossible for anyone to reach Arafat, according to Jenkins. He closed his remarks by noting that incremental steps in the policy of colonization on the part of Zionists have been occurring since the first part of this century.

Elaborating upon Jenkins’ remarks during the question-and-answer period, Kuttab stated that in terms of the whole issue of the Israeli revocation of Palestinian residency permits in Jerusalem, it would be preferable if the international media put the policy into a larger context instead of focusing on the occurrence of these permit revocations on an individual day-to-day basis. He added that Israelis often point to the refusal of East Jerusalem Palestinians to vote in Jerusalem municipal elections whenever these Palestinians complain about specific Israeli policies. Kuttab said that although this policy has been pursued by the Palestinians so as not to confer legitimacy upon Israeli control of East Jerusalem, after 30 years this policy may no longer be effective. A better course of action might be either to hold protest elections on their own or participate directly in municipal elections. As an example, he cited the success of the ultra-Orthodox Jews, who boycotted Israeli elections until 1996. Now they are voting and their votes aided Netanyahu’s victory, according to Kuttab. The ultra-Orthodox may be able to field a mayoral candidate of their own in Jerusalem, he said.

Uri Nir, in giving an example of the pro-Israeli inclinations of the U.S. media, noted that while the Arabic name Jabal Abu-Ghneim is a name with a much longer history, it was the Hebrew Har Homa, which has only been a place name for 10 years or so, which the U.S. media used when discussing Israeli plans for the construction of a Jewish neighborhood there on the outer border of East Jerusalem.

—Michael S. Lee

The Many Sides of the Algerian Crisis

Differing theories surrounding the current Algerian crisis were presented during a comprehensive discussion at Georgetown University on Jan. 30, 1998.

Eric Goldstein of Human Rights Watch advocated an international investigation of the current violence. Without increased understanding of the crisis, little can be done to influence it, Goldstein said. He emphasized how little is known by listing current theories devised to explain actual events such as the recent massacres that have occurred in strategic areas close to the capital. Goldstein said there is plenty of information coming out of Algeria, but its accuracy cannot be confirmed because of the difficulty of direct media access to Algeria.

Citing the government’s reluctance to allow unfettered access, Goldstein said it may result from Algeria’s history, the government’s fear that it will be blamed for a journalist’s death, or it may be that government officials simply don’t know who are the perpetrators of the recurring massacres. However, without an international investigation, these questions will remain unanswered.

“The government needs to be pressed for greater transparency,” Goldstein concluded.

The French and European responsibility to influence the situation were next addressed by Dr. John Entelis of Fordham University. Although no party has greater potential to influence Algeria’s situation than France, he said, it is inhibited by history.

“Nothing is more complex than the French/Algerian relationship,” Entelis said, emphasizing that France will not send military force or apply political pressure in any way that could undermine the Algerian government. He feels that the French government needs to go beyond working with the Algerian government and also work with Algerian civil society.

Dr. Azzedine Layachi of St. John’s University next addressed the culture of Algeria and its relationship with neighboring Tunisia and Morocco. By examining the differences among the three societies, Algerian dynamics can be better understood, Layachi said.

The next speaker, Mona Yacoubian, an independent consultant, discussed the American role in Algeria’s problems. Since the U.S. doesn’t have much leverage in Algeria, Yacoubian said, the U.S. can only influence events by behind-the-scenes efforts in concert with European countries. Since “only the Algerians can solve their problems,” Yacoubian said, it would be both arrogant and misleading to think the U.S. can come in with a “quick fix.”

“We have to recognize the tremendous complexity of this issue,” she noted.

Yacoubian offered four recommendations for U.S. action. The first is to keep pushing for greater transparency and media freedom and for an independent investigation. Second, the U.S. needs to accelerate its information sharing and contact with the European Union. She also suggested that U.S. policymakers look for opportunities to open the country up to the media. Finally, Yacoubian expressed the hope that the State Department’s report on human rights in Algeria would come down hard on both sides.

Yacoubian also said it is important to develop outlets for moderate groups to “express their concerns.”

—Rebecca Wangsgard

ADC, American Committee on Jerusalem Co-Sponsor National Cathedral Exhibit Provided by Palestinian Heritage Foundation

The Washington National Cathedral in Washington, DC is displaying for a two-month period ending April 30 an exhibit of Palestinian arts and crafts provided by the Palestinian Heritage Foundation. Co-sponsors with the National Cathedral and the Palestinian Heritage Foundation are the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and the American Committee on Jerusalem, both headquartered in Washington, DC.

“The Palestinian crafts exhibited are rooted in ancient traditions,” according to Farah Munayyer who, with his wife, Hanan, assembled and administers the very large collection from which the objects at the National Cathedral have been selected.

“The costumes are bridal dresses.” Farah Munayyer explained. “Each cluster of villages had its own style of traditional costume. Specific colors, stitches and patterns in a dress easily distinguish it from those of a different region. Some elements of these costumes have remained unchanged for centuries. The style of the Bethlehem headdress dates back to the 12th century bc, while that of Ramallah to the second century ad.”

Munayyer said that “the embroidered patterns on the dresses are symbols of hope, prosperity, good health and protection from evil. Their symbolic meaning served in perpetuating them as amulets, passed on from mother to daughter for generations. These old patterns are being used nowadays in modern articles of clothing or home decoration like pillows and tablecloths.

“Similarly, the ceramic tiles on display are decorated with patterns popular in the Roman and Byzantine era, and can be seen on mosaic floors in churches of that time,” Munayyer explained. “Ceramic tiles decorated the whole exterior of the Dome of the Rock mosque, a task undertaken in the 16th century ad by Suleiman the Great. This sacred majestic building has had a strong influence on local arts, and has caused the art of tile painting to flourish in Jerusalem.”

The Munayyers and the Palestinian Heritage Foundation can be reached at P.O. Box 1018, West Caldwell, NJ 07006, tel. (973) 575-8648 and fax (973) 882-1545

—Richard H. Curtiss

Central Pennsylvania ADC Invites Press, Civic Leaders to Eid al-Fitr Dinner

Arab Americans from a broad swath of Pennsylvania towns invited local journalists and civic leaders to participate with them in a gala dinner marking the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. The dinner, sponsored by the Central Pennsylvania chapter of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), was held at the student union building of Penn State University at Harrisburg.

After a series of remarks explaining for non-Arab guests the significance of Ramadan and the festive holiday marking its successful conclusion, a number of distinguished guests were introduced. Keynote speaker at the observance was executive editor Richard Curtiss of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

Speaking on “Morality and American Middle East Policy,” he described how at the time he first arrived in the Middle East, “Americans, with a long tradition of building schools, universities, and hospitals there, were the most respected and, I can truthfully say, most beloved foreigners. Now, because of our Israel-centered policies, driven solely by domestic political interests rather than by American strategic or national interests, Americans are no longer physically safe in the Middle East.”

Curtiss invited Muslim Americans and Christian Arab Americans, through coordinated political action, to help “the American people take back the control of American Middle East policy from the special interests which are so distorting it today.” He concluded that “in the Middle East the United States, in its own national interest, must return to traditional American support for human rights, self-determination and fair play.”

Following the talks and a question period, the floor was turned over to local musicians for lively Arabic music that drew celebrants—tots, teenagers and their parents—to the dance floor to show that members of Pennsylvania diverse Arab American community have not forgotten their rich heritage.

—Donna Bourne