Philadelphia Inquirer | 04/20/2006 | An 'un-Sharon' response to attack

Philadelphia Inquirer | 04/20/2006 | An 'un-Sharon' response to attack

The moment a suicide bomber exploded in downtown Tel Aviv on Monday, Israel's government began considering its response. Even as the children of one of the victims, murdered in front of her entire family, were desperately calling out to her dead body, Palestinians began bracing themselves for Israel's retaliation, and world leaders prepared for yet another escalation of the conflict.

Then came Israel's surprising decision: For now, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his cabinet decided, Israel will limit its response and not launch a military attack against Hamas.

Israel has made it clear that it considers the Hamas-led Palestinian government responsible for the attack that killed nine people. Under its international commitments, the Palestinian Authority must do all it can to stop terrorism. Hamas, however, whose stated objective remains the destruction of Israel, declared that the Passover bombing was fully justified. Since Hamas came to power three weeks ago, Israel has stopped scores of would-be terrorists, including 11 caught at the very last minute. Hamas says it will not work to stop Palestinian suicide missions, or "martyrdom operations," as they are known among proponents of that barbaric practice.

Still, an all-out attack by Israel would risk derailing a process that is already in place and could well lead to the collapse of the Hamas government. Perhaps Hamas will manage to hold on to power. But Israel is calculating that the chances of success through different means are worth a try.

If Israel responded as it did in the days of Ariel Sharon, the attention of the Palestinian people and the international community would shift, as it always does, from the terrorist attacks to the suffering brought by Israel's retaliation on the Palestinian population. Governments in Europe and moderate Arab countries would cry out for an end to the "cycle of violence." So, here's the cycle, broken. Olmert is now officially his own man, testing the un-Sharon approach.

Israel is precariously walking a high wire with Hamas. The hope is that the governing party in the Palestinian legislature will collapse without bringing down the Palestinian Authority. The last thing Israel wants is to see the Palestinian Authority disappear and suddenly find itself responsible for all services in the West Bank.

Despite highly publicized announcements that Hamas will receive tens of millions from Iran, Qatar and perhaps Russia, the Palestinian government is in excruciating financial straits. And Israel, for a change, stands with the international community rather firmly lined up behind it.

Already, the European Union has cut $600 million a year in aid. The United States has slashed $400 million, and the list goes on. Japan, Canada, even Norway say they will not give money to the Hamas government, even though all parties, including Israel, say they will continue to provide humanitarian support bypassing Hamas. The Arab world, despite its rhetorical support, has mixed feelings at best about Hamas. Some money has been promised but none delivered.

On the ground, Hamas' grip on the situation is tenuous. More than 140,000 armed men on the Palestinian Authority payroll have not received their March wages. They regularly storm into Palestinian government buildings, shooting their AK-47s. A few leading Palestinians have already called for Hamas to accept defeat, step down, and call for new elections.

Hamas, however, remains defiant. Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh proudly declared: "We will eat cooking oil and olives." The crowds initially cheered, but the truth is that Palestinians don't support Hamas' intransigence. In a recent poll, 78 percent said they want talks between the two sides to resume.

Hamas knows how to fire up the crowds, but its political positions are out of step with the population. More important, its tactics so far have produced discontent and hardship among heavily armed militiamen, and have brought the Palestinian territories to the edge of civil war.

Instead of sending out bulldozers after the bombing, Israel revoked the residency permits of three Hamas members of the Palestinian parliament who live in East Jerusalem. The day after the attack, while mothers, children, husbands and wives of the victims took their loved ones to be buried, one of the Hamas legislators, Ahmed Atoun, reacted angrily to the news that he would have to leave Jerusalem. "This is an unfair, criminal decision," he ranted.

Israel wants the Palestinians, with the help of the international community, to see just how far Hamas stands from the path to peace and a better life for the long-suffering Palestinians. It's worth a try.

Frida Ghitis: Religious text, political agenda

Frida Ghitis: Religious text, political agenda

What a fabulous coincidence. Or maybe not. Just in time for Easter, Passover and the movie version of "The Da Vinci Code," we learn of a fascinating discovery, an ancient text that could begin to accomplish what no image consultant would dare to attempt: transforming the biblical figure of Judas Iscariot from villain to hero. The text may or may not prove historical or religious "fact." It does, however, present a potent reminder that the powerful started using religion for political gain long, long before Evangelical Christians joined the Republican Party.
Not surprisingly, the so-called Gospel of Judas -- claiming that the much-maligned disciple of Jesus was following his master's instructions when he turned him in to authorities -- has sparked a flurry of criticism and denial.

The more interest the public shows in the ancient story in the crumbling papyrus, the more we will see the church and its minions declare the document is a forgery, an irrelevancy, or maliciously misleading. For a preview of what's to come, look at the shelves of books refuting "The Da Vinci Code," a work of fiction clearly deemed threatening by those who derive power from religious dogma.

The Judas story, as Jews sitting at their Passover celebrations know painfully well, played a central role in promoting a version of Christianity that spawned catastrophic anti-Semitism. The writers, and especially the editors of the Christian Bible, had an understandable interest in discrediting the Jews. And turning Judas into the archetype of the untrustworthy, despicable Jew played perfectly into that plan.

Christian attitudes toward Jews and Judaism have changed enormously in recent decades. But in the early days of Christianity, the mere existence of Jews who refused to accept Jesus as the messiah of the Bible stood as a challenge to the legitimacy of the new faith, especially because Jesus gave his message to the Jews, and his followers believed him to be the Messiah of the Jews.

The power and persuasiveness of the new faith depended on convincing the doubters that the people who insisted on calling themselves Jews were not only wrong, they were evil. And Judas became the character chosen to play that part when the story was told for mass consumption.

When the Romans executed Jesus, the Jews took the blame. Not just some Jews, all of them, for generations to come. That made sense. The perceived threat to the power of Christianity came not from the Jews of the first century, but from the survival of Judaism. The Romans crucified Jesus, but hating today's Italians for it would be ridiculous. Besides, it would serve no useful political purpose.

Instead, the story of Easter and the Passion plays it inspired became the spark that ignited massacres of Jews through the centuries all over Christian Europe. Even Adolf Hitler reveled in the 1934 performance of a Bavarian Passionsspiel, calling the play a "convincing portrayal of the menace of Jewry."

The orgy of mass murder directed by Hitler found willing followers among the millions who had grown up hearing that Jews were "Christ killers." After the European Holocaust, Christianity awoke to the destructive power of that calumny. Gradually, the church has revised its anti-Semitic dogma, and Christians and Jews have forged strong bonds.

With Christianity firmly established, the church itself feels little threat from the existence of a few million Jews. Anti-Semitism, of course, has not died. And the biblically inspired, Qur'an-fortified caricature now thrives in the Muslim world. Again today, political leaders are using religious texts to bolster their political agendas, and again those texts include anti-Semitic rants.

The discovery of this new portrayal of Judas, the loving and loyal disciple, as the experts tell us, echoes the views of the so-called Gnostics, early Christians who had a different view from that promulgated by the political leaders of the church. The editors of the New Testament decided which gospels, which versions of the story of Jesus, to include in their Holy Book. Dozens of original gospels are said to have been written, but only four were chosen to become the foundation of Christian dogma. They became the basis for political decisions over centuries to come.

With Easter, Passover -- and an election year -- upon us, it's a good time to remember that politics and religion have always created a potentially disastrous combination.

Philadelphia Inquirer | 04/09/2006 | With election, it's Peru's turn to stir concern

Philadelphia Inquirer | 04/09/2006 | With election, it's Peru's turn to stir concern


It's election day in a Latin American country, and once again the leading contender's fiery promises of a new social and economic order electrify the poor and the forgotten, while frightening the business community, the middle class, and American observers.

It's getting to be a familiar pattern in Latin America. This time, it's Peru's turn. And the man at the top of opinion polls is Ollanta Humala, a former lieutenant colonel, who vows to "impose discipline and bring order" to a country only recently emerged from decades of military and authoritarian rule. Humala, like recent winners of many democratic elections throughout the region, is a fierce nationalist and a caustic critic of market policies advocated by Washington. Latin American voters are showing again why Washington's exultations of democracy and free trade fail to inspire this hemisphere. And why speaking up against Washington can win votes.

To anyone wondering just how much change Humala wants, he explains, "The system is the poverty of the people. So, yes, I am the anti-system candidate."

You might think Peru's outgoing president performed poorly. The government of Peru's first indigenous leader, Alejandro Toledo, however, achieved impressive economic growth. Toledo's policies followed free-market rules and scored measurable success. And yet, the shining economic statistics meant nothing to most Peruvians. In the end, there is one problem most Peruvians care about more than any other: poverty.

Despite the impressive growth of the Toledo years, the majority of Peruvians remain trapped in poverty. All the democracy and freedom in the world will not move them enough to outweigh their desperate need to escape economic hopelessness. In their eyes, the free trade and fiscal restraint prescribed by Washington amount to little more than a plan to help the rich get richer. Until Washington and its favored politicians can offer a believable plan to bring tangible results, manipulative politicians will make their election-winning speeches.

Not much is known about Humala, who leads by just a few points over his main contender, Lourdes Flores. The Humala family, however, has an ideological track record that should set no one at ease. The family patriarch, Isaac, espouses a racist ideology holding that "copper-skinned" people are a superior race. He and his wife have advocated the execution of homosexuals, Jews, Chilean businessmen, and Toledo and his wife.

The candidate, like his hero and strong supporter President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, led a failed coup. Villagers say he committed atrocities during his time in the military. He has expressed admiration for Gen. Juan Velasco, one of Peru's dismal dictators, who abolished press freedoms and confiscated private property. He has promised to rewrite the constitution, has threatened to dissolve Congress, and vowed to nationalize "strategic" industries.

Flores and Humala will likely face off in a second round, since neither one is expected to win a majority. If he wins, Peru's best hope is that once elected, he will follow a less radical path than the one he espouses to fire up the masses, as have other thundering Latin American leftists after taking office. The glaring exception, of course, is Venezuela's Chávez.

Leftist governments come in many shapes. Some have strengthened prosperity, freedom and confidence in their countries, while others are busy sowing the seeds of future economic disasters. The common denominator - the one Washington fails to observe - is that they acknowledge the depth of poverty afflicting their nations, and show genuine determination to tackle it.

Not long ago, Washington dreamed that a democratic Latin America would move steadily into alignment with the United States. With every new election south of the border, however, the United States appears more isolated in the region. Voters, expressing their views with their votes, are saying America's vision of the hemisphere does not match their idea of what's best for their lives and their countries.

America's ideals may have helped persuade its neighbors that democracy - a government of, by, and for the people - is the best system. But each country, within its particular circumstances, gives democracy its own flavor. The flavor of young democracies in the years to come, will likely continue to be one not to Washington's taste.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now the president prays for Darfur

BY FRIDA GHITIS SPECIAL TO THE DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE

Posted on Friday, April 7, 2006
URL: http://www.nwanews.com/adg/Editorial/
151096/

A president cannot choose what challenges history will throw in his path once he takes office. President George W. Bush did not expect the Sept. 11 attacks when he sought the White House, as he has told us, and he had no idea that large-scale massacres of civilians would start in Darfur a few years into his presidency. And yet, as leader of the world’s most powerful country, these challenges are his to face. The world’s worst humanitarian disaster continues to unfold during his watch. Fortunately, America’s determined and idealistic “Wartime President” cannot be deterred. With another 5, 000 people killed every week in Darfur, the president decided he would do something. On April 1, Mr. Bush picked up his pen, lifted a piece of embossed White House stationery, and wrote, “I send greetings to those observing the Week of Prayer and Action for Darfur.” There. Presidential action.

In fairness, the president himself probably didn’t write the letter. One of his aides no doubt came up with the words, “Our Nation is appalled by the genocide in Darfur, Sudan. We grieve for the men, women and children of Darfur, victims of atrocities....” The Week of Prayer—this week, April 2-9—was not his idea. It originated with a coalition of human rights and religious organizations, who claim to represent 130 million Americans. Their aim goes beyond prayer. And receiving “greetings” from the president is hardly their objective. Much like the people of Darfur, what they want is action. If they wanted words, even beautiful, stirring words, they would have long ago been thoroughly satisfied. The world’s leaders have already told us they are outraged, appalled, alarmed and deeply disturbed.

In the meantime, more than two million people have fled their homes, and hundreds of thousands have already been slaughtered. And the situation, according to the United Nations, is getting worse, not better. Despite all the meetings, all the ideas, and all the words, the killing continues, even as you read this, and even as the president adorns that pretty piece of paper with that signature capable of mobilizing armored divisions.

Armored divisions, of course, have not been mobilized by anyone, except the government of Sudan, providing crucial military support to the camel-riding militias, the Janjaweed, who are responsible for most of the atrocities. Military forces in neighboring Chad are also on alert as the strife spills across the border and threatens to become a much larger conflict. If systematic murder and ethnic cleansing are not enough to make the world take decisive action, a war in Chad certainly will. Chad, after all, has huge oil reserves.

For now, the international approach is to try to feed the millions who have fled to refugee camps, and to use the rhetorical flourishes of elegant diplomats as the loudest weapon in their pin-striped arsenal. American and European leaders hope to persuade the Sudanese government to let the UN take over a hapless African Union peacekeeping mission. How successful do you think that strategy has proven ?

This week, as the president hinted that he, too, would join in the prayers for Darfur, Sudan crassly refused entry to the UN’s humanitarian chief, Jan Egeland, explaining that it would not be a good idea for a Scandinavian man to visit a Muslim country in the wake of Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. Perhaps we can blame the cartoonists for the troubles in Darfur. Or, maybe we’ll just keep on praying.

Instead of praying—or, if you prefer, in addition to praying—the president should put down his pen and pick up the phone and place calls to London, Berlin, Brussels, and, yes, Paris. Because the UN will not impose an ultimatum—China would block forceful action—Washington should call for an urgent meeting of NATO. What could possibly be more urgent than stopping genocide?

Prayers alone, I’m afraid, will not stop systematic mass murder. That’s the lesson other presidents learned when genocide happened on their watch.

Frida Ghitis writes about world affairs. She is the author of The End of Revolution: a Changing World in the Age of Live Television.

Marching in the Streets

We doth not protest too much, methinks
By Frida Ghitis
Special to The Star
04-05-2006

What would it take to get you marching in the streets? Think about it: What would stir your soul so much that you would feel compelled to break your routine, join a passionate crowd and publicly shout your beliefs, or your outrage, or the end of your patience? The answer depends on where you live, how old you are and, of course, what principles you hold at the very core of your being. In that order.

In recent days, millions have marched in France and in America, in both cases protesting government efforts to tinker with a system that profoundly affect the lives of millions. Hundreds of thousands of French marchers passionately demand the right to hold on to an employment system grounded on wishes and not on reality. They refuse to relinquish the right to essentially never lose their jobs, even if that condemns millions of others (the protesters who burned cars in France last fall) to remain unemployed.

In California, Texas, Georgia and elsewhere in the United States, tens of thousands reached the end of their passivity when they heard politicians threaten to, among other things, deny health care and make felons out of immigrants who enter the U.S. illegally hoping to earn a living through hard work. In a problem without easy answers, the protesters wanted to put a halt to the worst instincts of politicians seeking to score cheap votes at the expense of human dignity.

If you live in France, protesting would have become a way of life dating back to your student days. If you live in a dictatorship, joining a camera-ready crowd on behalf of a cause you may not believe in is just another hated duty, as Iraqis learned under Saddam, and Cubans still endure under Castro.

Each country and each culture has a different threshold of outrage. While the young are generally quicker than the old to ignite into action, fiery Muslim politicians can easily whip up an anti-American crowd of all ages in Pakistan, for example. The Germans, meanwhile, seem more inclined than the French to negotiate before taking to the streets. Consider that the government in Berlin proposes much more radical labor reforms than the ones that brought the water cannons out in Paris, and yet, potential German marchers have stayed home during the debate.

Still, the Germans flooded the streets in an ocean of outrage over the war in Iraq. The matter of war touches Germany with particular intensity for obvious reasons.

But what about America? Marches on Washington are a revered tradition here. Gigantic crowds, bused from around the nation to rally in the shadow of Lincoln’s gaze, have become more a testament to organizational efficiency than to genuine passion. And yet, any group that can assemble a million people will catch the eye of the cameras and the ear of politicians.

That’s another requirement for a protest. If we feel that nobody will listen, that marching will do no good, we’ll probably stay home.

If "American Idol" can make tens of millions pick up their phones to express their views about a performer, what could make you turn off the TV and make a statement about something that actually matters? Is it genocide in Darfur? War in Iraq? A terrorist attack? Illegal immigration — or the measures to stop it? How about 46 million people without health insurance in the richest country on earth?

If France had 10 million without health coverage, it would have 20 million protesting about it. That’s not because Americans don’t care about the problem. A recent Gallup poll showed Americans worry about health care more than about anything else, with 68 percent of Americans expressing concern about their health-care prospects. There’s something to march about, and plenty of people to do it. What’s missing is someone to inspire the crowd into action, another indispensable element to move the masses onto the streets.

The matters that touch our hearts reveal much about who we are as human beings. The controversies that spark mass demonstrations reveal much about the soul and the character of a nation, and about the way that character may change in the years to come.

Frida Ghitis is author of "The End of Revolution: A Changing World in the Age of Live Television."

SF Chronicle: Did Iraq doom Darfur by dulling our ability to do right?

Did Iraq doom Darfur by dulling our ability to do right?: "

Little more than three years after a defiant United States led an invasion of Iraq over the objections of many in the international community, another anniversary has come and gone. In early 2003, few outside the African nation of Sudan had heard of a region called Darfur. Three years on, with a campaign of genocide continuing with full knowledge of the entire world, Darfur has become synonymous not only with genocide, but with the world's astounding ability to do nothing, even while it righteously declares the situation there utterly and categorically unacceptable.

Going to war in Iraq involved many risks not only for the United States but also for the weak and powerless everywhere. If the Iraq campaign turned to failure, would Washington become more reluctant to risk American lives and money to help people brutalized by despots and thugs, as it did in Bosnia and Kosovo? Or would it turn its back on genocidal massacres, as it did in Rwanda? Would disappointment in Iraq turn the American people inward, as Vietnam did, making the public force politicians to refrain from even suggesting the use of force except under the most extreme circumstances?

With Iraq in disarray, the American people have turned against that war, with a majority saying it was not worth fighting.

Does that mean Americans now want to close their eyes to Darfur? Amazingly, the American people have always been willing to see the United States do more to stop the killing in Darfur. In 2004, pollsters learned that more than 60 percent of Americans surveyed backed the use of force to stop the killings. That, believe it or not, has not changed.

Sudan's government bears responsibility for Darfur, where so-called Janjaweed militias, Arab nomads on camelback, armed by the government, have attacked black non-Arab farmers and their families, killing at least 200,000 civilians and displacing more than 2 million. This Muslim-on-Muslim conflict, started after a rebel group in Darfur took up arms against the Arab-dominated government in Khartoum, complaining that the government was shortchanging their people. In response, the government launched this effort to rid the region of all its black population, by murder, fire and terror. Now, millions of Sudanese have walked away to escape the Janjaweed's campaign of mass rapes, poisoned water wells and human bonfires. Every month, another 5,000 people die in Darfur. The survivors live in dismal refugee camps along the border with Chad, and even Chad now looks set to fall into the carnage.

How hard is it to stop marauding gangs of killers riding camels from perpetrating genocide? A decisive effort from world leaders would easily get the job done. Would it be politically risky? Hardly. Consider the situation in Washington. The president's approval ratings are scraping the floor, and Democrats are eager to exploit any weaknesses on an election year. And yet, Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, who recently visited Darfur, joined the ranks of politicians polishing their humanitarian rhetoric. Darfur, she intoned, "is a challenge to the conscience of the world."

"This is the only thing I and the president agree on 100 percent."

The European public and political leaders also agree the killing has to stop. Why, then, does it continue?

The answer is a mind-boggling desire to reach consensus -- with the killers.

Yes, the United States, NATO, and the United Nations agree that a large international peacekeeping force must be deployed to Darfur to stop the massacres. They will send that force, however, only when the government of Sudan requests it. That's like asking Hitler for permission to liberate concentration camps.

A small and mostly useless force from the African Union was supposed to ask for U.N. peacekeeping status, but Sudan kept that from happening. NATO says it will to lend its full support to the U.N. force, as soon as one exists. How inspiring!

Iraq, after all, did not erode Americans' sense of justice. It did, however, appear to have dulled Washington's willingness to do the right thing, even in the face of international paralysis. Without the diplomatic battle scars from Iraq, a more determined United States could easily rally NATO into action, as it did rather easily when it decided to stop the killing in Bosnia -- without U.N. approval.

The genocide in Darfur will end when the killers finish the job or when a courageous world leader makes a decision to lead the world in a cause that is not just urgent, but indisputably just.

Frida Ghitis, a frequent Insight contributor, is the author of "The End of Revolution: a Changing World in the Age of Live Television." Contact us at insight@sfchronicle.com.