November 9, 2002 Opinion Editorials http://www.aljazeerah.info

Al-Ahram Weekly, 11/7/02

The Bush administration, Israel and the Jewish lobby in the US are unknowingly doing Egyptian actor Mohamed Sobhi a huge favour. Their outrage over his TV series, Fares Bela Gawwad (Horseman Without a Horse) -- which began broadcasting in Egypt and several Arab countries on the first day of Ramadan yesterday -- has probably resulted in the best propaganda for any series in the history of Arab TV. In fact, both the TV series and the political-diplomatic saga surrounding it are the perfect sensationalist ingredients needed to upgrade a local TV production to Hollywood-blockbuster-level hype.

Produced by the privately-owned Egyptian satellite channel Dream TV, the series cost LE9 million (approximately $1.8 million) to make. According to official statements, Horseman Without a Horse will be broadcast on 17 Arab channels including the Hizbullah-owned Al-Manar.

For over a year now, Sobhi and the producers of Horseman Without a Horse have been making press statements about how the series "deals with" or "refers to" The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. The Protocols, a work published in Russia in the early 20th century -- claiming to be the minutes of a series of secret meetings held in Switzerland in 1897 with the aim of devising a Jewish strategy to control the world -- had been widely contested and is believed to be a hoax disseminated by the Czar's intelligence to stir anti- Jewish sentiments in Russia.

In a letter to US Secretary of State Colin Powell, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a US-based Jewish advocacy group, branded the Egyptian series as the "latest manifestation of an ongoing pattern of anti-Semitic incitement in the Egyptian media". The New York Times, meanwhile, suggested the series proved that The Protocols appear to be "gaining a new foothold in parts of the Arab world".

The issue became so incendiary that a state of frenzy dominated Egyptian-American-Israeli diplomatic relations -- which consequently resonated in local political circles. Sobhi and his series suddenly topped the agenda of Egyptian and American state officials as furious Jewish groups, along with the Israeli and American press, put pressure on the US State Department to stop Egypt from broadcasting this "anti-Semitic" series.

Egypt's Information Minister Safwat El-Sherif, however, announced that state-owned Egyptian TV will in fact broadcast the series "as it contains no anti-Semitic material", adding that it was state policy to respect all monotheistic religions. Egyptian TV President Hassan Hamed emphasised that "we don't take orders from any one", describing the series as "a turning point in the history of Arab drama".

As the anti-Horseman Without a Horse campaign continued to grow, so did support for Sobhi and the series under attack. On Saturday 2 November, the daily Al-Ahram published an official editorial on the campaign, arguing that Israel and Zionist groups in the US continue to "create an exaggerated debate whenever anyone, not only in Egypt and the Arab world, but across the globe, attempts -- through research and analysis -- to tackle certain political views or pose a vision that might run contrary to the official Israeli and Zionist position". It would be better if these Jewish groups, said the editorial, paid a little attention to the rights of the Palestinians, which are violated on a daily basis by the continuous aggression of the Israeli occupation army "instead of hounding a man of thought and creativity."

Al-Akhbar's editor described the campaign as "a barbaric attack on Egyptian and Arab art". Overnight, Sobhi (who recently returned from Iraq after presenting Iraqi president Saddam Hussein a copy of the series as a gift) seemed to symbolise Arab resistance to Zionist-American pressure. It was inevitable, then, that the entire debate would intersect with the region's contemporary politics vis-à-vis the Arab- Israeli conflict and the Bush administration's planned war on Iraq. Even before it was broadcast, his series took on the aura of an epic-like history of a nation suffering from decades of colonialisation and grand manipulative schemes.

On Monday, some 200 intellectuals, actors and artists held a solidarity conference with Sobhi which denounced "America's insistence on practicing neo-McCarthyism", and demanded an end to the daily aggression against the Palestinian people.

""Are these protocols a monotheistic religion? Are they sacred texts? No they're not and the series is not based on The Protocols. Nor do we address the authenticity of The Protocols, so what's the big deal?" a furious Sobhi told Al- Ahram Weekly. "In fact, The Protocols are silly and insignificant. We're not discussing their history, nor do we care about their history. So I really don't owe anybody anything."

The 41-episode series is based on the memoirs of Hafez Naguib, an Egyptian journalist active in the Arab national struggle between mid-19th century till 1917 when the Balfour Declaration -- which promised a homeland for the Jews in Palestine -- was made. The series, say its makers, covers an important historical chapter in Arab history which includes the Ottoman Empire, the British occupation of Egypt and the Zionist occupation of Palestine, among other events.

Respected historians like Abdel-Wahab El- Messeri, author of the magnum opus Jews, Judaism and Zionism, an eight-part encyclopaedia, believe The Protocols are probably fake. El-Messeri has written that referring to, or using, The Protocols in an attempt to combat the Zionist media "is unethical since it cannot be validated by any historical research, Arab or otherwise".

The series however, is making the Protocols themselves very popular in the local book market, according to a salesman at the downtown Madbouli book shop, who told the Weekly that the store had run out of all its copies in just one week.

Some are wondering if the series will further fuel Arab public opinion, which has expressed its frustration with the US, Israel and the silence of Arab governments over the past two years by staging numerous anti-American and anti-Israeli demonstrations. When asked by the Weekly if he thought Fares would have this sort of effect, Sobhi snapped: "So am I supposed to present a drama that makes the Arab nation absent-minded, and call it 'I love Israel?'"

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Sobhi said, "has already served the Palestinian cause by teaching our children how to hate Israel. This is why today, we see tens of thousands of students demonstrating against Israel after some had forgotten -- ever since the [Egyptian-Israeli] peace treaty [was signed] -- who the enemy is."

Critics, however, believe that the series is doing more harm than good. Salah Eissa, editor of the weekly Al-Qahira newspaper, believes that Horseman Without a Horse "is just a TV series at the end of the day". The fact that it refers to, or partially deals with, The Protocols "is a stupid mistake", Eissa told the Weekly. "This work is yet another commercial attempt to greedily invest in our national issues, a phenomenon we've seen in many superficial movies or series where a scene of the Israeli flag being burnt suddenly appears, imposed [by the producers] in order to provoke the audience into a frenzy of exaggerated applause." This is also clearly manifested, explained Eissa, in the bizarre popularity of Shaaban Abdel-Rehim, who "became a national hero" just because he sang "I hate Israel".

Eissa's criticism of the series expanded into what he referred to as "state manipulation" of the debate. "By allegedly refusing to succumb to American-Israeli pressure, the government looks better and we are left to believe that we have achieved a victory of sorts." In other words, Eissa said, the series "absorbs" a lot of the anger in the Egyptian and Arab street "and serves as a harmless venting channel. Observing Muslims will watch it after iftar and think they are resisting Zionism by doing so."

Palestine, Iraq or the fate of the Arab nation are national liberation issues, argued Eissa, that should be dealt with far more seriously. "If consciousness is to be raised, that endeavour must be based on truth. And this isn't something Arab regimes like to do."

A knight without a horse: Riding roughshod does not work
By Awad Khairi

Gulf News | 08-11-2002

A new television series, Knight Without a Horse, produced by the private Egyptian Dream TV company, has come under heavy criticism and been termed anti-Semitic. The series, aired at the onset of Ramadan, has been strongly condemned by the United States, Israeli and Jewish groups. The U.S. has voiced its serious concern over the broadcast over private and other Arab owned TV stations and used all diplomatic channels, in vain, to try and stop the airing of the series. Awad Khairi of Gulf News Research Centre reviews the discussion of this issue by the Arab press.

The series narrates the fictional story of an Egyptian (who is also the main character of the story) who fights British occupation of Egypt in 1882.

Apparently by chance, in 1906, he lays his hands on a book entitled Protocols of the Elders of Zion which turns out to be an eye opener as to whom he should consider his real enemies – the British or the Jews. The book outlines a document which, in fact, is a complete plan drawn up by an international Jewish movement for the domination of the whole world.

The U.S. government requested Egypt and other Arab governments not to broadcast the series on their state-run televisions, apart from the threat issued by U.S.-based Jewish organisations of a protest against the serial outside the Egyptian Embassy in Washington.

The U.S. Ambassador to Cairo has met with senior Egyptian officials, including the minister of information, to raise the U.S. concern over the serial.

However, Egypt's information minister later denied that the series' contents were anti-Semitic.

"The episode which has created a controversy in the media does not contain dialogue that can be considered anti-Semitic," said the information minister in a comment carried by Al-Ahrar, the opposition-owned newspaper in Egypt.

Mohammed Sobhi, who plays the main character in the serial, said that he "does not care about Zionist opposition".

He noted: "We don't interfere in their work or their media and hence they do not have any right to interfere in our creative work and media. We have our own censorship on our creative work".

Dismissing the criticism and terming it as an attempt to muzzle freedom of expression, he pointed out that his work is creative and not the discussion of religion.

"I know there is a great difference between Zionism as an idea and the Jewish religion."

In its editorial, Al Khaleej (UAE) comments that U.S. intervention in the internal affairs of Arab countries, following the September 11 incidents, is not new to the Arab world. What is new is the U.S. administration calling on Arab countries to ban the broadcast of the series by the state owned TV stations. This means that the U.S. administration is poking its nose deeper and deeper into the most private affairs of the Arab countries.

This is a new level of intervention, whereby the U.S. assumes the role of the censor who determines what an Arab must watch or read and what he shouldn't. This is as good as all these countries being under a type of trusteeship, which has never been heard of and was not even imposed on Japan or Germany after they were conquered during World War 11. This new trend by the U.S., however, indicates that it looks upon Arabs as a conquered nation which ought to obey its decisions, notes Al Khaleej.

Again, the U.S. is using its double standards, forgetting or rather pretending to forget, that its movies stereotype Arabs as being indecent and dishonest, adds the editorial.

Who gives the Americans the right to impose their dominance over others? It won't be surprising if one day they interfere in the most private affairs of Arabs such as selecting the names of Arab children, the type of food they should eat and what they should wear, concludes Al Khaleej.

It is strange that the Zionist groups have started their propaganda before the series has even been aired. It is also strange that a superpower like the U.S. has ordered its embassy in Cairo to exercise diplomatic pressure on Egypt to cancel the broadcast of the series. It is a pity that a superpower like America is subject to the will of a small state like Israel. Wouldn't it be better for the U.S. to show that it supports any creative work even though it is not happy with it? The U.S. must seize this opportunity to assuage the feelings of hatred between Arabs and Israelis, comments Akhbar Al Arab (UAE).

The feelings of hatred between Arabs and Israelis have never been calmed down, despite attempts at normalisation between Israel and some Arab countries. This feeling is sometimes expressed through confrontation and sometimes through art. Great artistic work is cathartic and can help shake off the feeling of frustration.

It is not the first time that Zionism is staging a protest against an Arab artistic work. Last Ramadan, Zionists severely criticised a TV series broadcast by the Abu Dhabi TV channel that featured Ariel Sharon, the Israeli Prime Minister, as a vampire thirsting for Arab blood, concludes Akhbar Al Arab.

But this year the campaign is targeting Egypt, with the American threat to stop assistance to Egypt if the series is aired. The U.S. State Department spokesman, Richard Boucher, has gone so far as to announce that the U.S. does not think government TV should broadcast programmes that are considered racist and untrue.

The protest is not limited to just Egypt, but includes other Arab countries as well. The U.S. is trying to persuade these Arab countries to refrain from broadcasting the series by their state owned TV stations, comments Hassan Madan in Al Khaleej.

Of course, Egypt is not paying heed to the objections against the series from the U.S. and Israel. It has, instead, described these objections as an outright intervention in the internal affairs of the country, and against freedom of expression. At the same time, some Egyptian intellectuals have announced their support to Mohammed Sobhi, adds Madan.

Most Arab governments are being tested anew. They must be able to resist any pressure from the U.S. to make them stop broadcasting the series, and they must prove to their citizens that they are able to prevent Israelis and the U.S. Zionist lobby from interfering in the internal affairs of their countries. We hope that Arab citizens will not be let down by their governments, concludes Madan.

This time round, the issue that has created all this fuss is neither related to an attempt by Syria to buy sophisticated missiles from North Korea, nor an intent by Libya to develop biological weapons. Nor does it have anything to do with military exercises by the Egyptian army in the Sinai desert, comments Ma'an Al Bayari in Al Khaleej.

The U.S., or rather the Israeli anger, has been incited by a TV series.

Of course, Israel has long succeeded in making the world believe that it is an oasis of democracy in the region, with hostile and uncivilised people as neighbours. It has also managed to persuade the United Nations Relief and Work Agency (UNRWA) and the European Union to monitor expressions and subjects in the text books of Palestinian students, continues Al Bayari.

It has also gone so far as to persuade the U.S. to talk with Arab governments on religious and historical text books taught in these Arab countries. It is ridiculous that a Congressman has asked Egypt to choose between broadcasting the series or the stopping of U.S. assistance. Also, an Israeli Knesset member asked the Israeli communities in the U.S. to do their best to prevent any economic support to Egypt. It is amazing that an Israeli series will be aired soon, sarcastically featuring Arabs as a nation that seeks to rule the whole world, concludes Al Bayari.

Iraq: Bush crosses Rubicon
By Robert Fisk

Arab News, 11/9/02

When Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon River, he wrote, in his Gallic Wars: “Alea iacta est (The die is cast).” Just after 5 p.m. yesterday, when the United Nations Security Council voted 15-0 to disarm Iraq, the US President George Bush crossed the Rubicon. “The world must insist that judgment must be enforced,” he told us.

The Rubicon is a wide river. It was deep for Caesar’s legions. The Tigris River will be more shallow — my guess is that the first American tanks will be across it within one week of war — but what lies beyond? For Rome, civil war followed. And, be assured, civil war will follow any American invasion of Iraq. “Cheat and retreat will no longer be tolerated,” Bush told us yesterday — forgetting, of course, UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 which call for Israel to withdraw from the Arab territories occupied during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

And after eight weeks of debate in the Security Council, no one mentioned the crimes against humanity of Sept. 11, 2001, because — of course — Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with Sept. 11. If the United States invades Iraq, we should remember that.

And what do we get from Bush? Absolutely no gesture toward the Arab world. The joy of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon can be imagined. “Should we have to use troops,” Bush tells us, “the US, with friends, will move swiftly — with force — to do the job.” In other words, he will invade Iraq, the “friends”, presumably, being British. The United Nations can debate any Iraqi non-compliance with weapons inspectors, but the United States will decide whether Iraq has breached UN resolutions. In other words, America can declare war without UN permission.

So how many of the American tanks entering Baghdad will be flying UN pennants? None, I suspect. The BBC, with CNN and all the other television networks, was last night billing Resolution 1441 as “the last chance” for Saddam Hussein. In fact, it is the “last chance” for the United Nations. As UN Secretary- General Kofi Annan said, the road ahead will be “difficult and dangerous”. He can say that again.

It’s easy to see the traps. America’s UN Ambassador John Negroponte insisted that the Security Council resolution “contains no hidden triggers”. But of course it does. It allows the United States to decide if Iraq has opposed the resolution. It allows the Security Council to discuss non-compliance without restraining the United States from attacking Baghdad.

“One way or another,” Negroponte said, “Iraq will be disarmed”. It’s the “another” way that the UN should be worried about.

Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain’s nightmare headmaster at the UN, performed appropriately. “Crystal clear”, “unequivocal choice”, “serious consequences”, “ambiguous modalities”. You could almost feel the cane. No mention, of course, of the CIA’s manipulation of the last team of UN weapons inspectors in Iraq.

Iraqis want peace and an end to sanctions — let’s forget President Saddam for a moment — and President Bush seems to want war. So Bush must be praying that the Iraqi president does something to obstruct the UN arms inspectors. In which case — I quote Bush — “we will act in the interest of the world”. Thanks George. And thanks Saddam if this feckless, vicious dictator chooses to defy the UN.

Washington wants a UN fig leaf for a war on Iraq and is willing to go through an inspection process in the hope that Iraq obstructs it. Annan was talking yesterday about the “unique legitimacy of the UN”. But the cruel dictator of Baghdad cares as much about that as President Bush. (The Independent)

Powell won a battle but not the war
By Patrick Seale , Arab News, 08-11-2002

Washington is used to violent clashes between senior government officials but rarely has the American capital witnessed a battle as ferocious as the one now raging in the higher reaches of the Bush Administration. The outcome will be of enormous importance for the whole world.

Lined up on one side of the battlefield is the large but lonely figure of Secretary of State Colin Powell, enormously popular in the country but outgunned inside the Administration. Ranged against him are Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice-President Dick Cheney, strongly backed by a phalanx of neo-conservative and Zionist hawks.

Four men in this camp have leaped to international prominence in recent months - Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Assistant Secretary for Defence Policy Douglas Feith, Chairman of the Defence Police Board Richard Perle, and John Hannah, Cheney's chief of staff. These are the men who are clamouring for war against Iraq but whose scheming has temporarily been held in check by Powell's skilful, persistent and successful diplomatic efforts at the United Nations - and in the White House.

To the great frustration of the hawks, Powell appears to have convinced President George W. Bush that the United States must seek an international consensus for its actions, and thereby international legality and legitimacy. He has acquired influence over the president just at the moment when Bush will derive great comfort from the results of the mid-term elections.

Hate is too mild a word to describe the feelings of the hawks towards Secretary Powell. They would destroy him if they could.

Dangerous build-up

Two rival processes are now at work, one military, the other diplomatic. On the one hand, a formidable build-up of American military force against Iraq is gaining pace, with troops, ships, aircraft and heavy weapons converging on the Gulf and the Red Sea. There will be close to 100,000 American troops in the theatre by the end of the year, with more on the way. Leaks from Washington suggest that up to 250,000 reservists are being called up, ready for military operations in January.

General Tommy Franks, the Centcom commander, is moving his forward headquarters from Tampa (Florida) to Qatar, where the air base at al-Udaid has been greatly expanded to accommodate the largest American planes. Special hangars, protected against chemical and biological attack, have been built for some 120 aircraft. This month two squadrons of Apache attack helicopters will join an expeditionary force of some 11,000 U.S. Marines in Kuwait.

By the end of the year, at least four American aircraft carriers will be within range of Iraq, with some 300 aircraft and 2,000 cruise missiles on board, while B-2 stealth bombers are being moved from the U.S. to air bases in Britain and on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

On the other hand, however, Colin Powell has crafted a Security Council resolution which has won the support of France and Russia and which, he claims, "is not a resolution to wage war" but simply to remove Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction.

In interviews this week to leading international newspapers, a confident Powell declared: "The United States has not decided to go to war... We hope to settle this crisis peacefully." America, he said, was seeking to build a coalition for peace, but a coalition which understood that peace in the area could only take root if Iraq were disarmed.

In remarks intended to placate many of America's critics, Powell declared: "We have the greatest respect for the opinion of others, even when there is disagreement." Powell has conceded that, if Iraq obstructs the work of the UN weapons inspectors, the question will be referred back to the Security Council which, after a debate in which the U.S. would take part, might then decide to vote on a second resolution. In other words, there would be no "automatic" recourse to force. Iraq is being given a last chance to comply.

This is very much what France, in particular, has been fighting for over the past several weeks. But, in a concession to the hawks, Powell added that the United States would not be 'shackled' by the UN if it decided that action was necessary.

It is not yet clear which of these two approaches, the military or the diplomatic, will triumph. The determination of the hawks to overthrow Saddam Hussain by force must not be underestimated but, for the moment, Powell appears to have seized the initiative and to have won the president's ear, as well as the support of America's allies.

Key questions

Although the immediate question is whether the U.S. should wage war against Iraq, there are even greater issues at stake to do with America's place in the world. Should the U.S. nurture its allies as Powell believes or dismiss them as irrelevant as the hawks would prefer? Should it be conciliatory or arrogant? Should it seek to promote an international system based on multilateral institutions or should it practice unilateralism, relying on its overwhelming power? It a word, should it defend its interests by persuasion or by military force.

As a former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and as the main architect of the 1991 Gulf War, Powell has great experience of inter-service rivalries and coalition building. His key objective has been to deal with the threat from Iraq but within the context of an international consensus. He knows the risks to the United States if it breaks with its European and Arab allies and goes to war on its own.

Powell appears to have convinced President Bush that an international consensus is critical for the U.S., not only to deal with Iraq but also with America's two other major foreign policy preoccupations - the "war on terror" and the Arab-Israel conflict. Powell has worked hard to discredit the hawks, just as they have worked hard to destroy him.

Looked at from a wider perspective, Powell is heir to the great 'Atlanticist' tradition which ensured American leadership after the Second World War, whereas his opponents are, as former president Jimmy Carter put it in a recent article, "a core group of conservatives" who are bringing about fundamental changes in the historical policies of the United States with regard to America's role in the community of nations and the Middle East peace process.

Powell's moderating influence will be all the more vital in the coming weeks in view of Israel's lunge to the right under the hard-line triumvirate of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Foreign Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz - and the terrifying expectation that some such far-right coalition will be victorious at the elections next January 28.

Strong criticism of the hawks, and support for Powell, has come from a leading soldier, the former Centcom commander retired Marine General Anthony Zinni. In a speech to the Middle East Institute in Washington, Zinni has said that he was not convinced war was necessary. Saddam Hussain "can be deterred and is containable at this moment." There were, he said, far more urgent priorities - getting the Middle East peace process back on track, trying to help the reformers in Iran, investing sufficient resources in Afghanistan to make change happen, and patching up strained relationships (he implied with Saudi Arabia, by mentioning "alliances we created over half a century" beginning with President Roosevelt).

Against the unilateralists, Zinni declared that "we cannot go it alone... We definitely have to approach this with global partners and international legitimacy, or whatever we do on the ground is going to be tainted from the beginning."

Against those who advocate "regime change" in Iraq followed by a prolonged occupation to "install democracy", Zinni declared, "We are not a colonial power, we are not there to occupy... If we think there is a fast solution to changing the governance of Iraq, then we don't understand history, the nature of the country, the divisions, or the underneath suppressed passions that could rise up. God help us if we think this transition will occur easily."

Powell's diplomacy is causing the Washington hawks profound frustration. They fear that their prey is escaping them, and with it their vision of a Middle East where the United States and Israel are all-powerful. They had pinned their hopes on war. Now that war appears to be receding, they are at their most dangerous. The battle is far from over.

UN and Iraq

Arab News
9 November 2002

If there is one thing that the UN vote on Iraq confirms, it is that the UN is no quick-fix shop. It has taken two months of intensive negotiations to come up with a resolution that is fundamentally what was suggested back in early September, when US President Bush opted to go along the UN route in dealing with Iraq falling into line with what the French, Russians and Chinese had pushed for: A new resolution threatening dire consequences against Iraq if arms inspectors were not allowed into the country by a specified date. The resolution unanimously agreed yesterday is basically that.

It does not take much intelligence, however, to realize that this is hardly the end of the road. It is only the first hurdle. Now the inspectors have to do their work — or try to. There is no point in heaving a sigh of relief, then, that all is going to be well and that the threat of war has been averted. That will only happen if Iraq complies in full with the resolution — and there is precious little guarantee of that, given the terms of the resoluton and the demands it makes of Iraq.

It is noteworthy that shortly after the Security Council gave unanimous approval to the resolution, US President Bush used threatening language against Iraq during an appearance at the White House. It was he, not UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan or the Security Council, who warned that Iraq would face “the severest consequences” if it refused to adhere to the terms of the UN resolution.

The only consolation for Iraq and those who oppose a war is the fact that the UN has taken so long to fine-tune a policy on which there was grudging consensus at the start. This means that when the deadlines are not met or the inspectors report that they have been given the run-around, there will be interminable arguments back in the Security Council on whether Iraq has or has not actually violated the resolution, with some cuuntreis like Russia and France demanding to give it another chance. Come this likely scenario, it will be strange if Paris and Moscow do not want to seek every means of avoiding the follow-up resolution of attack implicit in yesterday’s, and not just for pecuniary motives; both genuinely fear the consequences of a new war in the Gulf. But Washington in its bellocose mood is unlikely to tolerate further delays. Although US Secretary of State Colin Powell is on record as saying that yesterday’s resolution is purely about disarming Iraq, not a mandate to attack if it does not comply, the fact remains that the US and the UK have said, time and again, that they will attack if necessary, and that existing UN resolutions permit them to do so.

In reality, though, it will be difficult for the Russians and the French to stand in Bush’s way for too long. After the Moscow theater siege, President Putin, in foul and militant mood against the Chechens, wants the US to turn a blind eye to his plans for revenge. He simply cannot afford to make difficulties for Bush on Iraq: His sights are on Chechnya — indeed it is Chechnya that explains Russia’s patently unhappy acceptance of yesterday’s resolution, though they have misgivings about certain clauses.

Chirac, like Bush, is now in an unassailable position at home thanks to the summer elections. But he has his credibility to think about. It was he who demanded the two-stage process at the UN which the US reluctantly accepted. If he were to backtrack, it could make him look untrustworthy. Certainly, Washington would respond in fury. Just four days ago, it claimed that France, along with Russia, Iraq and North Korea, has been illegally stockpiling supplies of smallpox virus. it was a deliberate shot across France’s bow, timed as accurately as a Cruise missile — and it seem to have worked, even though the French have denied the story: Like the Russians, they reluctantly accepted the resolution. More importantly, from Washington’s perspective, it sent a thinly veiled message about how nasty things could get if France were to continue to thwart the US.

In short, a US-led war against Iraq is still a distinct possibility. It is the timing that remains a mystery.

You get what you deserve
Juhair Al-Masaad/Al-Riyadh

Arab News, 9 November 2002

Many have expressed satisfaction at the Kingdom’s decision to fingerprint visiting Americans. The decision was in response to an American decision to fingerprint most Saudis visiting the United States.

The effect such a measure would have on Saudis could be profound, following the embarrassing searches and unjustified humiliations they endure at many American airports. I don’t know what effect such a measure will have on the Americans.

Many questions could be raised here: How many Americans come to the Kingdom to study in our schools and universities? How many come here seeing medical treatment? How many visit our country as tourists to see its different regions? How many come here to conclude profitable business transactions?

In return, how many Saudis have said they want to pursue their education in the US? How many are already registered there? How many Saudis seek medical treatment in the US and how many go as tourists and businessmen?

The truth is that most Americans who come here do so either by invitation or because they have been offered jobs. Their employment contracts guarantee them material and moral rights, thus rendering airport formalities insignificant.

The damage and harm inflicted on Saudi citizens whose dignity and morality have been injured and who stand accused without evidence of a crime has not been confined to the treatment they receive at airports. It has even been extended to include the sick applying for visas to seek medical treatment in the US.

The American authorities stall and delay instead of rejecting the applications right away which would be preferable.

Some patients have died while waiting for a visa — which surely makes it right for their families to seek compensation? Doesn’t America claim to be the land of the law?

These and other woes suffered by Saudis will not just disappear because an American citizen is searched at a Saudi airport. Here too in their own country, Saudis are also subjected to airport searches.

Cycle of civilisation poised to return to east says scholar
By Gulf News, Staff Reporter | 09-11-2002

The cycle of civilisations throughout history is now swinging back to the east, said an Egyptian scholar last Thursday.

"From the earliest civilisations in Mesopotamia, Egypt and East Asia, the cycle swung towards Greece and Rome, then swung back to the Arabic Empire. And finally swung to the West.

"Now, the cycle is poised to return to the east," according to Dr Omar Abdul Kafi who was delivering a lecture at the Dubai Chamber of Commerce and Industry, as part of the activities of the Dubai International Holy Quran Award.

The Award is being held under the patronage of General Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Crown Prince of Dubai and UAE Minister of Defence.

"So Muslims should be optimistic that it is their turn to regain civilisation." He quoted from the Holy Quran:
"These days (of varying fortunes)
We give to people and people
By turn: that Allah may know
Those that believe,
And that He may take
To Himself from your ranks
Martyr-witnesses (to truth)
And Allah loveth not
Those that do wrong."

Dr Abdul Kafi added: "But Muslims will not be so deserving unless they recover from their ailments, mainly holding others responsible for their mistakes, procrastination and focusing on defects of others.

"Most Muslims hold others responsible for the bad situation of the Islamic nation. Some hold scholars responsible, others hold rulers responsible and another party holds the nation responsible. No one believes that he is partly responsible for this situation.

"Most Muslims usually do not care for the stature of Islam and Muslims. We should think of our duties before seeking our rights.

"Most Muslims put off what they should do swiftly. A Muslim may say 'I will repent later, I will do this or that tomorrow. I still have time'.

"To those I say 'No'. One should repent immediately, for Allah loves the repentant.
Most Muslims condemn others but do not see that only one finger points at others and three other fingers point at themselves."

Speaking about cures for these ailments, Dr Abdul Kafi said that every Muslim should strive to recover from these diseases.

"And he/she should believe that Islam is his/her parents and children. We Muslims should believe that without Islam we are nothing. With Islam we are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong and believing in Almighty Allah.

"Muslims should be optimistic since a Muslim should never feel frustrated," Dr Abdul Kafi stated.

He quoted the fourth Khaliph, Ali bin Abi Talib (May Allah be pleased with him), as saying that he lives with and for hope. 'If it is realised, thanks to Allah, otherwise I would have lived a long time dreaming of it'.

"Muslims should also be patient as patience is 50 per cent believing." The Dubai International Holy Quran Award has a total prize money of over Dh2.5 million and features 65 contestants from Arab and Islamic countries and communities.

Caught between two worlds
By Huda Fawzi

Gulf News, 08-11-2002

In the recent parliamentary elections in Turkey, the Islamic Justice and Development Party won a nearly two-thirds majority. Having ousted the ruling coalition parties, the party will form the first single-party government in more than a decade. The party's leader, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who described his party as centre right and not religiously oriented, promised to proceed with talks about Turkey's accession to the European Union and to maintain the country's pro-Western stance.

The election result has sparked great debate in the Arab Press. Commenting on this result in its editorial, Al-Khaleej (UAE), said that the military officials will not deal with the Justice and Development Party in the same way as they dealt with the former leader, Najmuddin Erbakan, whom they forced to resign.

This is because of Erdogan's reconciliatory announcements. In fact, through these statements, Erdogan sought to allay his opponents' domestic concerns as well as the fears of the Europeans and the International Monetary Fund. Also, with this approach, he has indirectly tried to reassure the U.S. that in spite of the party's victory, the country which is pro-Western and collaborates with Israel will remain its ally. This reassurance is to let the U.S. know that it is not going to be a party that will earn the hatred of the people. But what is the Arabs stance, asks Al-Khaleej.

Although Erdogan said that his party is conservative and not Islamic, some Arabs are happy because an Islamic party in a neighbouring country has won the elections. Yet this relationship between the two has not been a pleasant one as the Arabs have had many differences with Turkey, says Al-Khaleej.

In fact, Turkey is not the only one to blame for these differences. The Arabs are equally responsible since they lack a strategic and unified view in most of the issues. For this reason, the Arab-Turkish relations should be rectified, adds Al-Khaleej.

Moreover, no one should expect Ankara to forgo its interests with the Western countries and Israel for nothing even if an Islamic party has come to power. This is because Turkey has a strategy and a foreign policy that contradicts the Arab world's interests, says Al-Khaleej.

To change Turkey's stand, Arabs should be proactive rather than merely accusing Turkey of following the West and Israel. Arabs should work hard to prevent Turkey from becoming an enemy since this is what Washington and Israel want. Without this effort, the status quo will remain, as having an Islamic party in power will not automatically change the situation for the benefit of Arabs and Muslims, concludes Al-Khaleej.

Yet Akhbar Al-Arab (UAE) views the Justice and Development Party victory differently. In its editorial comment, it stressed that the party's success at this special time has boosted both the domestic situation inside Turkey and the regional Arab and Islamic status. In Turkey, the success of this party that adopts a moderate Islamic ideology, rejects terrorism, and calls for democracy means that most Turkish people want to return to their historical heritage and civilisation, says Akhbar Al-Arab.

The victory means that Turkey will choose a path that differs from its past stances through which it established ties with Israel. It could be inferred that it will revise its ties with Tel Aviv. Also, Erdogan had mentioned that Turkey will not participate in the intended strike against Iraq, adds Akhbar Al-Arab.

With Turkey's stance regarding the war against Iraq, the U.S. will not have any support for its intended strike, especially since the neighbouring states of Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria oppose this war. This raises the question of whether the U.S. will accept the new leadership which the Turkish people have chosen through democratic elections or will it pressurise Turkey to prevent the victorious party from coming to power, says Akhbar Al-Arab.

There are many lessons to be learnt from the Turkish election such as the successful participation of Islamic parties in a democratic system. In fact, democracy has transformed the natural tension between the different parties to healthy competition for the elections, which is a good example, concludes Akhbar Al-Arab.

Although the ruling generals have placed many obstacles in the path of the Islamic parties, they managed to communicate with the people successfully which ensured their victory. In spite of secularism, Islam has been growing in a more moderate and progressive form in Turkey as compared with many other countries, says Al-Riyadh (Saudi Arabia) in its editorial comment.

Turkey has historical ties with the Arab and the Islamic world that cannot be destroyed. But the fluid international political situation has continuously forced Turkey to stand against the Arabs. It is because of this misunderstanding between the Arabs and Turkey that Ankara has been seeking to join any ally that opposes the Arabs, starting with the Baghdad Pact, to form strong ties with Israel, says Al-Riyadh.

The Justice and Development Party might not make significant changes in the state's political stances, yet it is more moderate than the other parties. For this reason, Israel is worried at this victory since the new government might get closer to the Arabs, adds Al-Riyadh.

In fact, Israel remains the first beneficiary of its ties with Turkey since it has significant water and weapons deals with Ankara and because there are increasing differences between Ankara and the Arab world. However, Turkey can alter its course if it overcomes past differences and views its role in the Arab and Islamic worlds as being a viable one. Indeed, the Islamic parties are most suitable for this role, adds Al-Riyadh.

Moreover, the U.S., which has always considered Turkey of geographical importance, might change its position in the future. Also, the European Union (EU) prefers to have Turkey with its 70 million Muslims as a friend and neighbour rather than a member state, concludes Al-Riyadh.

In fact, the election results have supported the EU's stance on Turkey. Many European countries are worried about Turkey's shift from being a secular country to an Islamic one, writes Randa Taqey El Din in Al Hayat (UK-based).

The French papers consider the victory of the Islamic parties a historical occasion for reconciling Islam and democracy and an event that can help establish a bridge between two civilisations. The papers also noted that this victory is a success for Europe, adds Randa.

But this does not mean an end to European fears about Turkey joining the union, bearing in mind that those fears not only relate to Ankara having a ruling Islamic majority but also because of its poor human rights record, says Randa.

Moreover, The French president, Jacques Chirac, has notified Ankara that it is still does not meet the democratic standards required for joining the union. Also, the former French minister of foreign affairs, Huber Vedrine, said that Turkey is a large country that has a strong influence in the Middle East and Central Asia and as such it does not need to be European, adds Randa.

In spite of the limited negative reactions, Europe has dealt positively with the Islamists' victory. The U.S. has also encouraged the EU to have Turkey as a member. It is clear that the strategic alliance between Turkey and Israel and its alliance with the U.S. have made the American administration encourage the EU to accept Turkey as a member, says Randa.

But will the new Islamic government maintain Turkey's strategic alliance with Israel? A Western diplomat who worked in Turkey believes that Israel has a strong influence over the Turkish army and the overall political arena. Also, there are still questions about the future of the U.S.-Turkey alliance and whether it will remain unchanged after the party's announcement of its opposition to the war against Iraq, notes Randa.

American and Saudi intellectuals to meet: Learning through letters

By Rasha Saad

Al-Ahram Weekly, 11/7/02

After months of media debate over the morality of America's war on terrorism, US and Saudi intellectuals are planning to meet face to face. Rasha Saad reports

The New-York-based Institute for American Values is working on a face-to-face meeting involving Saudi and other leading Arab and Muslim intellectuals early next year.

The meeting is the culmination of an ongoing debate between US and Saudi intellectuals, initiated by the Institute in February, on the notion of having a just war and the means to coexist.

A few months after United States troops entered Afghanistan, an open letter entitled "What we are fighting for", drafted by the Institute for American Values and signed by a group of 60 US intellectuals, defended US President George Bush's war on terrorism as a just war.

The letter states that "reason and careful moral reflection also teach us that there are times when the first and most important reply to evil is to stop it. There are times when waging war is not only morally permitted, but morally necessary, as a response to calamitous acts of violence, hatred, and injustice. This is one of those times."

The signatories also argued that the notion of a "just war" has its roots in all religions. "Jewish, Christian, and Muslim teachings, for example, all contain serious reflections on the definition of a just war," they wrote.

Among the US signatories are Samuel Huntington, author of The Clash of Civilisations and Francis Fukuyama author of The End of History.

In May, 153 Saudi intellectuals responded with a letter entitled "How we can coexist", which said that the 11 September attacks were unwelcome to many people in the Muslim world because they violated the values and moral teachings of Islam. The Saudis suggested, however, that injustices in US foreign policy, with particular regard to the Palestinian issue and Iraq, were the root cause of the 11 September attacks.

" The United States, in spite of its efforts in establishing the United Nations with its universal declaration of Human Rights and other similar institutions, is among the most antagonistic nations to the objectives of these institutions and to the values of justice and truth. This is clearly visible in America's stance on the Palestinian issue and its unwavering support for the Zionist occupation of Palestinian land and its justification of all the Zionist practices that run contrary to the resolutions passed by the United Nations. It is clearly visible in how America provides Israel with the most advanced weapons that they turn against women, children, and old men, and with which they destroy people's homes. At the same time, we see the Bush administration mobilising its military strength and preparing for war against other countries like Iraq, justifying its actions with the claim that these countries are perpetrating human rights abuses and behaving aggressively towards their neighbours."

Late in October, 67 US intellectuals responded to the Saudi letter. In their correspondence entitled "Can we coexist?" the US thinkers highlighted points on which they agreed with their Saudi counterparts, points which were misunderstood and finally, points on which they disagreed.

According to them, the most important point of disagreement with the Saudis "is that nowhere in your letter do you discuss or even acknowledge the role of your society in creating, protecting, and spreading the jihadist violence that today threatens the world, including the Muslim world".

They concluded that the problem is the Saudis' "tendency. ...to blame everyone but your own society for the problems that your society faces".

While the exchange of letters seem to have highlighted more differences than understanding, the dialogue was generally welcomed as a positive step towards better understanding between the Arabs and the US.

While acknowledging such differences, David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values and one of the signatories of the US letters, remains optimistic. "So far, the differences stand out more than the agreements, but this is only the start of dialogue. Ultimately I believe that what unites us as human beings is bigger and more important than what divides us," he told Al-Ahram Weekly.

Abdullah Schleifer, director of the Adham Center for Television Journalism at the American University in Cairo, believes that the general idea of exchanging letters is both valuable and thought-provoking. "It is certainly better than what I call the knee-jerk reactions which characterise both sides of the debate, be it Saudi-American, American-Arab or American- Arab-Islamic. The Americans exhibit knee-jerk reactions by blaming everything on Arabs and Islam, and the Muslims exhibit knee-jerk reactions by blaming everything on the Americans."

The Saudi intellectuals also came under fire from Schleifer who believes that the correspondence is subject to certain limitations, one of these being that the dialogue is conducted specifically with Saudi intellectuals. "It is a pity, because in the entire realm of Islam -- Arab Islam, Central Asian Islam, Indonesian Islam -- the intellectual premises of Islam in Saudi Arabia are probably the narrowest and shallowest to be found anywhere," he said.

Schleifer also believes that both sides missed the real problem which, he maintains, is the point at which religion becomes an ideology. "I believe the problem is that in a world in which the spiritual dimension of religion is minimised and [Islam] is increasingly politicised, people can turn their religion into an ideology like fascism or communism. And neither [side] seems to have recognised that," he said. He also maintains that the Americans are not familiar with the notion of political Islam and the Saudi intellectuals do not even entertain it.

He believes that the American document is extremely rich and universal, and that the Saudi document tends to be shallow. "I mean, it says very nice things and it correctly quotes passages from Qur'an and Hadith. But beyond that the document tends to be very shallow and defensive."

Jamal Khashoggi, deputy editor-in-chief of the Jeddah-based Arab News newspaper, maintains that the Saudi letter was not defensive but rather reflected an attempt to reach a level of mutual understanding and coexistence. He believes that the Saudis are sincere in their dialogue, going so far as to welcome meetings with the Americans despite expecting criticism.

Schleifer also points out that the US letter "constantly makes note of self criticism which basically tends to be missing on the Arab side of the debate".

But self criticism is not a concept which is ignored by Saudi columnist Daoud Al-Shorian. In his daily column in Al-Hayat, Al-Shorian more than once adopted a critical tone and highlighted a lot of problems within Saudi society. Referring to the fact that 15 of the 19 perpetuators of the 11 September attacks were from Saudi Arabia, Al-Shorian told the Weekly that "we [the Saudis] should blame ourselves in the same way we blame the US because in our Arab and Islamic rhetoric we avoid admitting what happened or at least acknowledging the gravity of what happened."

Al-Shorian also maintains that not a single activist in any Saudi Islamic group has ever criticised Osama Bin Laden or has spoken out against acts of terrorism which use religion as a pretext for its actions. "If we do not admit that we have a problem, the problem will escalate." He also said that Islamic rhetoric at this stage must make clear statements on the crucial issues.

Al-Shorian attributes this dilemma to the domination of certain groups within the Saudi kingdom which adopt political Islam and "refuse to admit its faults". He also added that the failure of the Arab and Islamic regimes to make decisions on crucial issues was helping these groups to remain dominant within the political arena.

But is there a real lack of understanding between the Arabs and the Americans or is there simply a conflict of interests which takes the issue beyond the cultural and ethical issues discussed in the letters?

According to Blankenhorn, part of the disagreement does indeed stem from different interests and political priorities, particularly with regard to the Israel/Palestine issue. But he also believes that the disagreements stem from divergent ideas and the way each side interprets and acts upon those ideas. "As intellectuals, we can only make limited changes to the former, but we can do a lot about the latter," he argued.

Khashoggi acknowledges that misconceptions exist and that some forces work towards deepening them. He also believes that there is generally no conflict of interest between the Arabs and the US, adding that the only bone of contention is the Palestinian issue. "If the Palestinian-Israeli struggle was resolved, there would be no conflict of interest."

The Saudi response to the Americans did not go unnoticed in the conservative kingdom. The letter was heavily debated and criticised by some of the Saudis as taking a mild stance on the Americans. "The right-wing powers in Saudi Arabia criticised this dialogue initially and demanded that we take a hard-line stance with the Americans. These powers adopt and seek to maintain the old hard-line notion of relationship between us and the Americans, one which is based on Islam versus infidelity and peace versus war. We should fight against this type of pressure," said Khashoggi.

This is easier said than done, it seems. Sources have reported that some intellectuals who were involved in the letter have yielded to pressure and withdrawn their support.

The Ministry of Information in Saudi Arabia also banned the edition of Al-Hayat newspaper which published the latest response of the US intellectuals. The reason for this remains unknown. But Blankenhorn pointed out the positive side.

"I regret the censorship, but on the other hand, censoring the letter has probably meant that more people will read it and learn about it. Most of the letter was read live on Al-Jazeera, for example. In an age of satellite TV and widespread access to the Internet, keeping people from reading a letter or a book is no longer really possible."

While the letters were heavily debated in the Arab media, observers were surprised that the letter elicited little attention in the US. Blankenhorn explained that, because the US is a large country and a superpower "we [Americans] often tend to be a bit insular, and not as interested as we should be in the views of others. Part of the reason for writing the letters is to show that Americans can also listen to others and communicate respectfully and honestly in the intellectual arena which, unlike military or economic affairs, is a level- playing field where all that matters is the integrity of the ideas."

But to what extent can letters change political realities?

According to Al-Shorian political realities are complicated and it will take more than dialogue between intellectuals to affect change. He believes that Arab intellectuals have neither political nor social weight. "Only the [Arab] political regimes can change political realities."

Of fences and crossings

Israel intends to sow a trail of destruction through Falamia's best farmland. Jonathan Cook reports on the plight of olive farmers in the West Bank village

Small red ribbons fluttered in the early evening breeze among the olive groves of the West Bank village of Falamia, leading like a child's paper trail from the greenhouses and fields of vegetables up a gentle rocky slope towards the brow of a wide hill.

There the trail ended and the devastation began. Olive trees lay upended or their trunks had been cut close to the ground, the leaves on the branches already shrivelling in the late sun.

"The ribbons mark the path of the fence Israel wants to build through our lands," said 29-year-old Sami Dahir, a civil engineer whose family owns 250 dunums (60 acres) of farmland. "Each day they inch closer. If we don't do something soon, they will reach the wadi and we will lose everything."

The farmers have much to lose. Falamia, a village of 650 people close to Qalqilya that claims a heritage dating back 1,300 years, has 7,000 dunums (1,750 acres) of land nestling in the foothills that rise from the Israeli coastal plain. The climate is mild and a series of wells provide plentiful water. Before the Intifada Falamia supplied fruit and vegetables to much of the West Bank.

But since Israel's military invasion of the territory in April, the villagers have found it almost impossible to distribute their produce and have returned to subsistence farming. Despite one of the best harvests in years, olives are left unpicked on trees and a small brown van drives around the village, its loudspeaker declaring a bargain five kilos of potatoes for $1.

Now, says Rasheed Abu Mohamed, the mayor, the farmers face losing their fields as well as their markets.

According to the ribbons and painted red crosses on rocks and greenhouses marking out the route of the fence, Israel intends to demolish hundreds of greenhouses and taking control of seven of its eight wells.

Although the physical barrier of the barbed wire fence will cover only a few metres, the "sterile zone" of trenches and military roads either side will take up 50 metres in a snaking path through the main wadi.

There is a further problem. "The military zone of the wall will stretch almost up to our houses," said Dahir. "Only a few hundred dunums will be accessible from the village's side of the wall. There will be a much larger area of land untouched on the other side but how are we supposed to reach it? We have asked the army many times but we get no answers."

He adds bitterly: "If we lose our farmland, I tell you now Israel will create a village of 500 Osama Bin Ladens."

Despite the anger, quite how the villagers can hold back the tide is unclear. The contractors have been working non-stop on the fence around the northern West Bank since it was approved by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in June.

Progress on the first 110km section of the fence, from Salem close to Jenin in the north to Kfar Qassem close to Qalqilya, has been slower than expected. The completion date has been put back from January to July next year. It is still unclear whether there is a commitment to seal off the south of the West Bank around Hebron.

But completion of sections close to Jenin, Tulkarm and Qalqilya has been a priority because the cities lie close to the Green Line, the 1948 armistice line that separates Israel from the West Bank. The government claims most Palestinian militants enter Israel through these areas. On Monday a suicide bomber killed three in the Israeli town of Kfar Saba, just a few kilometres from Falamia.

In the village that day attention was concentrated on hampering the contractors' work. Two dozen international and Israeli activists hugged trees as armed guards overseeing the construction set upon them. Five activists were injured.

Next day the protest briefly gained a higher profile when the French consul arrived in the village on a fact-finding mission. The French government has sponsored an irrigation project on 1,500 dunums (400 acres) in the area since 1993 and is lodging objections to the crop destruction with Israel.

One of the questions the French consul has raised is why the route of the fence is running through Falamia at all: the village is more than a kilometre inside the West Bank.

There has been plenty of speculation about why the Israeli government has refused to follow the Green Line, using it instead as a rough outline for the fence and arranging significant detours in places, often without any obvious gain in security.

In a recent report, Israeli human rights group Btselem suggested that Sharon agreed to divert its course in several locations to reinforce his message that the fence is a security barrier rather than the demarcation of the political borders of a future Palestinian state.

At a few sites, the group says, the choice of the fence's course is entirely illogical from a security point of view, with the barrier being built on low-lying land overlooked by Palestinian hilltop villages.

Another explanation provided by Btselem is that the government caved in to pressure from several powerful settlements in the West Bank that are close to the Green Line.

When Sharon made a field trip to an area near Qalqilya in late June he changed the route of the fence on the spot, announcing that it would pass four kilometres east of the Green Line so that the large settlement of Alfei Menashe would be included on the Israeli side. It may not have been unconnected that the settlement houses 1,300 families of army officers.

Falamia also has influential Israeli neighbours. Moving the fence to the village has diverted it away from the Kokhav Yair settlement, which lies on the Green Line and is home both to former Prime Minister Ehud Barak and to the former Chief of Staff and the new Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz.

But the most disturbing explanation to emerge from the Btselem report is that the route will allow Israel to annex huge swaths of some of the most fertile Palestinian land. Villages around Tulkarm like Qaffin, a-Ras and Kafr Sur and villages like Falamia and Jayuss near Qalqilya will be in the West Bank but between half and 90 per cent of their lands will be on the other side of the fence.

The villages have been promised that the confiscation is temporary and that in the meantime they will be issued permits to reach their land. None of the farmers believes the army's assurances.

Eight villages, home to 27,000 Palestinians, will suffer a different fate: they will be trapped entirely on the Israeli side of the fence, but have no rights to cross the Green Line and enter Israel proper. They will also be cut off from neighbouring Palestinian areas. Israel has so far failed to explain how these villagers will be able to reach offices, schools or hospitals in the larger Palestinian villages and cities, or how farmers will trade their produce.

But it is not just the villagers whose lives will be devastated by the fence. In the case of Qalqilya, the barrier will be a wall of thick concrete some 30ft high that instead of following the Green Line will seal off a city of 40,000 on three sides. There will be one army checkpoint on the eastern side controlling movement in and out of the city.

Most of the wall on the western side of the city has been erected, smothering Qalqilya from view for Israelis driving along the newly opened section of the Trans-Israel Highway. The mayor, Marouf Zahran, says he has been told the rest of the wall will be completed in another four months.

While the city betrays signs of its former wealth, from the days when it was a dormitory town for Palestinian workers employed in Israel, as well as a convenient commercial hub used by Palestinians and Israelis and a thriving farming community, its fate is essentially no different from the villages.

Since the Intifada, Palestinian workers have deserted the city, as have Israeli visitors. All that is left is agriculture. "Before the Intifada only about a quarter of the city's income was derived from farming. Now it is nearly half," said Zahran.

But the wall will change that. Even the mayor is still unclear about the exact path of the wall, but from the latest Israeli plans it appears Qalqilya's land holding will shrink from 10,000 dunums (2,500 acres) to 3,500 dunums (800 acres), barely more than the space on which the city is built. There will be almost no farmland left. A huge concrete barrier will separate the farmers from their fields.

Zahran said: "Unemployment is already at 70 per cent but in a few months it will be higher than 70 per cent. With no work, no hope, no money, the Israelis will turn us into a city filled with hatred and desire for revenge. Israel will not get security, it will get more terror."

Israel has taken the land of the villages and Qalqilya under military confiscation notices until 2005. The orders are renewable and, given the expense of erecting the fence -- $1m for each kilometre -- almost certain to be extended indefinitely. Btselem warns: "Israel's intention is not to seize the land for a temporary period but to expropriate it permanently."

Gone with Qalqilya's confiscated land will be 14 wells, some 30 per cent of the city's water supply and a major source of irrigation for the city's farmers as well as those in the villages. Qalqilya sits on the biggest of four acquifers in the West Bank and there is more than a suspicion that Israel, desperately short of water, intends to take a larger share of the supply once it controls more of the land above the acquifer.

Qalqilya is hemmed in by two large illegal Israeli settlements, Tzofim in the north and Alfei Menashe in the south. Zahran fears Qalqilya's land and wells will be annexed to them after the wall is finished.

The city's only hope rests on Israeli assurances that there will be a series of checkpoints to allow the farmers to access their land. The signs are not encouraging.

Five main crossing points between the West Bank and Israel are due to be administered by Israel's Airport Authority. The nearest one to Qalqilya will be several kilometres north, at the town of Taibeh. The five crossings will be used for trading merchandise and allowing tourists entry, and two of them -- at Jalameh near Jenin and Tarqumiya near Hebron -- will be used for transporting a limited number of Palestinian workers into Israel.

What other access routes will be available is far from clear. The Palestinian human rights group LAW says Israel has promised some 30 local checkpoints but no money has been allocated for them.

Israeli political commentator Akiva Eldar revealed last week in the Ha'aretz newspaper that even the initial $12m allocated for the five crossing points had been transferred to the fund for the fence's construction and that no more money for the crossings' operation was included in the forthcoming budget.

A source in the Defence Ministry also doubted that the army had enough soldiers to staff the fence's crossings, watchtowers and patrols, let alone man small local checkpoints.

Even if Israel does provide checkpoints and commits to the expense of staffing them permanently, Zahran is sure that there will be regular curfews when farmers will not be able to tend their fields.

"This is not about security but about confiscating our lands and destroying our livelihoods. Ultimately it's about driving us out of our towns and villages, and out of the West Bank."

Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent http://www.aljazeerah.info

Protocols, politics and Palestine

American and Saudi intellectuals to meet: Learning through letters

Of fences and crossings