Arms Sales To Israel Must Stop

Amnesty International today published an open letter from Irene Khan, Amnesty's Secretary General, to EU Heads of State and governments asking them to immediately halt sales or transfers of arms to all parties in the Israel/Palestine conflict. Israel, naturally, reacted negatively to the proposal. Mark Regev, spokesman for Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said that an arms embargo "would leave every man woman and child in this country to face a multitude of hostile challenges that there are here. It ignores the real threats faced by the Jewish state and gives comfort to those who say Israel should be wiped off the map."
"Israel is a democracy where there is rule of law which puts the issue of human rights at the centre of civic life," Regev added. The reality is that Israel systematically and deliberately abuses the human rights of its perceived enemies. As Irene Khan has put it, "Most civilian deaths have been the result of deliberate and reckless shooting and artillery shelling or air strikes by Israeli forces carried out in densely populated areas in the Gaza Strip". A Human Rights Watch report on the Lebanon war earlier this year, entitled 'Fatal Strikes: Israel's Indiscriminate Attacks Against Against Civilians In Lebanon', describes how Israeli forces,
'consistently launched artillery and air attacks with limited or dubious military gain but excessive civilian cost. In dozens of attacks, Israeli forces struck an area with no apparent military target. In some cases, the timing and intensity of the attack, the absence of a military target, as well as return strikes on rescuers, suggest that Israeli forces deliberately targeted civilians.'
The report concludes that 'a systematic failure by the IDF to distinguish between combatants and civilians' was the primary cause of the massive civilian suffering caused by the war.
An Amnesty International investigation into the same war, entitled 'Deliberate Destruction or "Collateral Damage"? Israeli attacks on civilian infrastructure' reached similar conclusions:
'The evidence strongly suggests that the extensive destruction of public works, power systems, civilian homes and industry was deliberate and an integral part of the military strategy, rather than "collateral damage" - incidental damage to civilians or civilian property resulting from targeting military objectives.'
That report also noted that under international law, it is 'forbidden to use starvation as a method of warfare, or to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population.' Israel has been using starvation as a method of controlling the Palestinian population ever since they elected the wrong people to power in January. After Hamas was elected to government, the Israeli government convened a meeting to decide how it should respond. Present were Dov Weisglass (advisor to the Prime Minister), the chief of staff of the IDF, the head of Shin Bet, a host of senior generals and officials and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livny. All concluded that an economic siege on the Palestinians was the way forward. Or, as Dov Weisglass expressed it, "It's like an appointment with a dietician. The Palestinians will get a lot thinner, but won't die".
Since January 2006, the Palestinian people have been subject to economic sanctions - the first time, as UN Special Rapporteur for human rights in the Occupied Territories John Dugard has noted, that an occupied people has been so treated. Since Hamas' electoral victory, Israel has withheld some $500 million in tax revenues it collects on behalf of the PA. The U.S. and the EU have also restricted aid to the Palestinians in a shocking display of contempt for democracy and human rights. Meanwhile Israel has continued its policy of cutting the West Bank into dozens of mini-cantons by increasing the number of military roadblocks by 40% in a year. David Shearer, head of the UN's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), described the effect these roadblocks have on the residents of the West Bank:
"Since [the height of the intifada] it's become much more systematic, much more sophisticated in terms of monitoring Palestinian movement and closing Palestinian movement...The West Bank, for example, is effectively being chopped up into three big areas... and there are pockets within those areas where people also can't move."
John Dugard, who was also a prominent anti-apartheid lawyer, writes that Israel system of roadblocks resembles, but in severity goes well beyond, apartheid South Africa's "pass system" and that, in general, ' Many aspects of Israel's occupation surpass those of the apartheid regime. Israel's large-scale destruction of Palestinian homes, leveling of agricultural lands, military incursions and targeted assassinations of Palestinians far exceed any similar practices in apartheid South Africa.'
Meanwhile, the Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip have suffered a brutal and relentless siege since June 25, when an Israeli soldier was captured by Palestinian militants. The Israeli government used the capture as an excuse to completely seal the Strip off from the outside world, arbitrarily closing borders vital to Palestinian trade for extended periods of time. The Rafah crossing between Gaza and Egypt - ostensibly under EU control but in reality subject to Israel's wishes - has been closed more than it has been open. In November, the crossing was open for just 36 hours spread out over four days. In July, thousands of Palestinians were left stranded in the Sinai desert after Israel refused to open the border crossing to allow them to return to their homes in the Gaza Strip. Several people were reported to have died from heat exhaustion. The closure of the Rafah crossing truly is devastating to the Palestinians in Gaza. The Palestine Hospital in Cairo is an essential part of Gaza's health infrastructure, and many Palestinians who need to travel there for treatment are either not allowed to leave the Strip or are prevented from returning once they do.
Under the Agreement on Movement and Access (AMA) brokered by the United States a year ago, Israel agreed to leave the Rafah crossing open continuously regardless of threats to security unrelated to the crossing itself. Despite this, after the capture of Cpl. Shalit on June 25 Israel closed the border indefinitely. A recent UN report accuses Israel of violating every single one of its border crossing agreements, explaining that the Rafah crossing has been open for only 21 days since June 24. At the Karni crossing, which has been open only intermittently, an average of 12 lorries are allowed through each day, despite Israel's promise to raise that number to 400 by the end of this year. According to the report,
"The ability of Palestinian residents of the Gaza Strip to access either the West Bank or the outside world remains extremely limited and the flow of commercial trade is negligible"
and, as a result, unemployment in the Strip has risen from 33.1% to 41.8% this year. A military document leaked to Ha'aretz confirmed that the closure of the Rafah crossing is intended to "apply pressure" to the Palestinian people - as journalist Amira Hass puts it, 'The experiment was a success: The Palestinians are killing each other.'
So, in summary, Regev is talking crap. Israel has no respect for Palestinian human rights, and Amnesty International is right to call for a ban on arms sales and transfers to it.
The request comes at a time when the Iraq Study Group report calls on the U.S. and the UK to settle the Israel/Palestine conflict to stabilise the wider region, specifically Iraq. The U.S. is the primary source of Israel's superior arsenal, and U.S. aid counts for 20% of Israel's defence budget. During the Bush administration, from 2001-2005, Israel received $10.5 billion in U.S. military aid and $6.3 billion in U.S. arms deliveries. This military dependency gives the U.S. considerable leverage over Israel, leverage that could be used to force a peace settlement. Sadly, the U.S. has chosen to be a force for violence rather than peace in the region. For example, in the summer the U.S. delivered shipments of 'bunker-busting' bombs to Israel before the Lebanon war was even over. This arming of the aggressor was accompanied by the unanimous Senate adoption of a resolution praising Israel's military campaign, neglecting even to include the obligatory reminders to avoid targeting civilians. Sadly, both the Democrats and the Republicans are on record as supporting Israeli war crimes.
In Britain there is a similar story. Despite Tony Blair's announcement in September that he will devote the last six months of his premiership to resolving the Israel/Palestine conflict, he is unlikely to abide by Amnesty's call to stop providing Israel with the tools it uses to oppress and to kill. The trouble, as I wrote at the time, is that,
'when Tony Blair talks about being "fair", "just", what he really means is conspiring with the US to block a resolution calling for an "immediate" ceasefire early on in the Lebanon conflict. When Blair talks about imparting "values" with an "even hand", what he really means is allowing US planes carrying bombs and missiles to Israel to re-fuel at British airports. That's right; Blair helped arm the aggressor before the war was even over, and he now has the nerve to talk about and bringing "peace" to the Middle East with an "even hand".'
In 2005 British arms sales to Israel doubled to £22.5 million. It is official British government policy that "no licence will be granted for arms exports if there is a clearly identifiable risk that the weapons could be used aggressively against another country or to assert, by force, a territorial claim". Liberal Democrat leader Menzies Campbell was therefore right to call for an immediate cessation of arms sales to Israel in the light of 'disproportionate military action by Israel in Lebanon and Gaza'. After all, there can be no doubt that Israel uses combat helicopters and air-to-surface missiles - components for which are supplied by the UK - to commit war crimes against the Palestinians (and, this year, against the Lebanese). In 2002, Blair's government cleared the way to allow BAE Systems to sell components for F-16 jets supplied to Israel by the United States. Israel uses F-16s to carry out targeted assassinations - a policy declared by the UK Foreign Office to be "illegal under international law". For example, in July 2002 an Israeli F-16 dropped a one-tonne bomb on a crowded Gaza City apartment block with the official aim of assassinating the militant Salah Shehada. As well as Shehada, seven adults and nine children were killed in the attack, and 70 people were injured. There is ample proof that Israel cannot be trusted to use arms lawfully, so why does Britain continue to sell weapons to Israel, in violation of its own arms trade policies? For the answer, we can turn to ex-Foreign Secretary Jack Straw who, in 2002, justified his government's decision to license the export of components used in F-16 jets destined for Israel thus:
"Any interruption to the supply of these components would have serious implications for the UK's defence relations with the United States."
Or, in other words, 'the commercial relationship between BAE Systems and US companies such as Lockheed Martin was judged more important than the lives of Palestinians.' The British government, like its American counterpart, is almost completely subservient to the military-industrial complex. So, despite Mr. Blair's professions of good intent towards the Palestinians, his unblemished record of supporting the occupation and facilitating Israeli war crimes is not going to be broken now. It's a pity, because the idea of giving aid instead of weapons and of facilitating diplomacy and peace as opposed to arms races and war is definitely one whose time has come.

Stop Labeling People

By Altaf Husain, MSW**

Warning: Reading this essay could be dangerous and corrupting to your mind if you have no previous knowledge of labels used to "brand" Muslims as following a certain type of Islam. If you have no previous knowledge of labels, it is recommended that you close this Web page and resume your browsing at the main homepage: www.islamonline.net. If you do have knowledge of such labels, then please do not leave this Web page before reading the entire article so that in sha' Allah you can refrain from branding and labeling other Muslims in the wrong manner. Proceed with caution.

I arrived at the car rental counter in the airport, Washington D.C. The customer service representative acknowledged my presence with a smile, and I noticed that he was of South Asian descent. He asked me where I was from and I said I am of Indian origin, And you? He said he was from Pakistan and had only been in the United States a few years. He asked how long I had been in the United States and I said since I was 10-years-old. He was surprised and said, "looking at you, I thought you just arrived." We had more small talk. He shared with me that he was studying and working. A busy life no doubt I said. How do you keep up with everything, like daily prayers? I try to pray as much as I can he said. Then, along the same lines as "I thought you just arrived," he said in a quite matter-of-fact tone, "with your beard, you look like a panch wakth namazi (person who prays five times a day)."

What just happened? It happens all the time these days. No longer are Muslims, and especially people of other faith, comfortable with referring to a Muslim person as just a Muslim. It seems almost a commonplace these days to add a descriptor, a qualifier, a label, to precede the word Muslim. What are some of the labels that you use?

In the true story above, in a brief, less than three minute encounter, this young man had measured me against his own preconceived notions on two points: First, that having stayed in America, an immigrant has to look American, and this young man believed clearly that with my Nehru style shirt and "one-fist length" beard, I must have just arrived to the United States. Second, that having a beard meant that I observed all five daily obligatory prayers-to the Urdu speaking readers, "a panch wakth namazi"-as compared, I suppose, to the "part-time" Muslim or the "once-in-a-while" Muslim, who prays only sometimes or whenever he or she "feels like it". Do you ever stop to think about what it means to be a Muslim?

In fact, what it means to be a Muslim is quite simple: One who submits voluntarily to Allah, accepts the last and final Messenger of Allah, Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), and lives his or her life according to the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). Sounds very straightforward right? It is straightforward until we introduce our own biases and begin to classify one another. And this process of classification becomes sinister when motivated by a desire to marginalize, denigrate, or pejorate. What's worse, both Muslims and people of other faiths are using labels nowadays to "brand" Muslims, to make fun of them and laugh at them. The Qur'an instructs us about such behavior:

[O ye who believe! Let not a folk deride a folk who may be better than they (are), not let women (deride) women who may be better than they are; neither defame one another, nor insult one another by nicknames. Bad is the name of lewdness after faith. And whoso turneth not in repentance, such are evil-doers] (Al-Hujuraat 49:11).

Let us take for example the common notion of referring to Muslims by the particular madhab (school of thought) that they follow: Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki, or Shafi`i. While it is critical for a person to have a thorough and practical understanding of the particular schools of thought he or she chooses to study, neither the founders of these schools of thought nor their best students ever taught others to refer to themselves by the name of the particular school of thought they follow. What does it mean to be a Hanafi? Or a Shafi`i? For all intents and purposes, referring to someone as a "Hanafi," for example, implies that the person is a Muslim, and follows the school of thought known for its founder, Imam Abu Hanifa. But in reality, one would be hard-pressed to find any reputable Islamic scholar ever refer to a contemporary by the school of thought he or she follows simply to denigrate that scholar. It is just not a known practice, and in reality such a label serves no immediate purpose in everyday life. However, in scholarly discussions it seems almost imperative to know the madhab of the respective scholars so that one can appreciate better the basis of his or her reasoning on a particular issue of fiqh. When you and I engage in labeling people by madhab we ought to be careful that we are not doing so to put them down, to make fun of them, or to consider ourselves better than them.

Another kind of labeling involves referring to Muslims by the particular movement that they follow: Ikhwani (The Muslim Brotherhood or Ikhwan ul Muslimoon), Jamati (Jamat-e-Islami or The Islamic Group), Tablighi (Tabligh Jamat or The Group Conveying he Message), Salafi (follower of our predecessors, or the Salaf as-salih), and a Wahhabi (Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab) among others. The assumption with the use of all these movement labels is that the person is Muslim and happens to be a member of a particular movement. What does it mean then to refer to someone by the movement they follow? Why make the distinction in daily conversation? One reason could be, within the context of a scholarly discussion, to distinguish the strategy or outlook that a movement espouses on a particular issue facing the Muslims. A person could, for example, rightly desire to examine the views of the Muslim Brotherhood on political participation and in doing so, ask a member of that movement: "You are an Ikhwani, help us understand your movement's views on political participation." However, the labeling or the self-labeling should never be used to marginalize people of a particular movement or to deride them or ridicule them for their stance on any aspect of daily life.

Another kind of labeling by Muslims, and also people of other faiths, is by the level of adherence to Islamic beliefs and practices that a particular Muslim is perceived to have. You might have heard for example, references to an fundamentalist Muslim, a conservative Muslim, a liberal Muslim, or a progressive Muslim. What each of these labels means is really defined by the person using them. To date, there is no agreed upon definition of these particular labels precisely, because the breadth and depth of the definition are constricted by the personal insecurities, biases, and prejudices of the person using the labels. After all, who determines what makes a person a fundamentalist, a conservative, a liberal or a progressive? For the people of other faiths, each of these labels has a meaning and is applied to connote a level of practice and a particular personal perspective on various issues in life. Muslims should never be tempted to characterize individuals based on their personal perspectives but rather on their adherence to the teachings of the Qur'an and sunnah. It is possible that individual scholars might vary in their interpretation of Islamic teachings but we should resist the temptation to characterize this variance as 'conservative' or 'liberal.' It is more preferable for us to gauge the variance among the scholars with reference to our pious predecessors such as ibn 'Umar and ibn Abbas radhi allahu anhuma. Both of these beloved companions of the Prophet Muhammad sal allahu alayhi wasallam are known as established scholars, with unparalleled contributions in the fields of tafsir, for example. It is known however, that the stance of these two scholars differed on various issues and most often, the result was that people felt ibn 'Umar's interpreted along the letter of the law and ibn Abbas interpreted along the spirit of the same law. Both feared Allah and exercised great restraint in proffering their interpretations so we should not trivialize their efforts by using commonplace terms to say that ibn 'Umar was conservative and ibn Abbas was liberal. Similarly we should not use those same labels for contemporary scholars whose interpretations are aligned with either ibn 'Umar or ibn Abbas radhi allahu anhuma. And as for those who call themselves or others 'progressive,' let them also remember that Islam is a complete and comprehensive religion for all people for all times. There is no need for the religion to be made more 'progressive,' but rather all efforts should be dedicated at restoring and reviving the practice of Islam based on the most authentic sources. In addition, more energy needs to be exerted on the resolution of contemporary issues while keeping in line with established centuries-old methodology to analyze and interpret Islamic teachings. Notwithstanding the self-imposed stagnation of the past few centuries for Muslims all over the world, no one would deny nor will deny that no religion desires progress more than Islam, and no adherents of a religion are more progressive than the Muslims.

Finally, think twice before resorting to the use of a label to refer to family members, friends, community leaders, scholars, etc. What does it mean to be a Muslim? As we noted at the outset, that question is simple and straightforward to answer. It is you and I who complicate our religion and trivialize and marginalize legitimate differences within the rich and deep-rooted Islamic tradition. When we use labels such as some of those mentioned in this essay, we risk hurting people and displeasing Allah. Stop using labels and fight the temptation to make fun of others, to put down others, to humiliate others, to marginalize others and worst of all to think of oneself as better than others. Remember that scholars use certain labels but also remember that a true scholar fears Allah and thus would never use a label in the same manner as a person who is not a scholar. Stop branding and labeling people, since we know that a Muslim is a Muslim and that's that.

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

** Altaf Husain is a licensed social worker in the United States and has been a contributing writer to IslamOnline since its inception. He can be contacted at youth_campaign@iolteam.com.