Demonising religion

THE United Nations Human Rights Council has taken timely action by passing a resolution condemning the use of popular media to “incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination towards Islam”, even though it was adopted by only 21 of the Council’s 47 member states, with 14 abstaining and 10 objecting. Notably, Slovenia’s rejection on behalf of the European Union was offset by its harsh criticism of the controversial Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilder’s much talked about film against Islam as serving “no other purpose than inflaming hatred”. The Dutch government, too, has wisely distanced itself from the erratic lawmaker’s antics, advocating an environment where “freedom and respect go hand in hand”. The Dutch establishment no doubt remembers the aftermath of the blasphemous cartoon-drama well, where those supporting the action as freedom of expression eventually found themselves at cross-purposes with their own ideals as they struggled to refute the accusation of abetting provocation in the name of expression. Judging by initial news reports, the European Muslim community has so far emerged the wiser of all players concerned, choosing not to vent anger by taking to the streets like last time. However, reaction outside Europe is likely to be much different. Iran and Pakistan have led fierce government responses, whereas areas in all parts of the Muslim world where the traditional clergy dominates are bracing for a show of anger, with good reason.
It is hoped that now that Wilder’s short film has been made public, his supporters will be able to judge better why nothing good can come out of such an initiative. The only feeling it has predictably furthered is hatred at a time when the Muslim-West schism is responding meekly at best to efforts aimed at bridging it. Things will not move in favourable directions, though, till more of the freedom loving West awakens to the reality that attempts like Wilder’s are politically motivated, carefully thought through to keep animosity high so it becomes easier to draw mileage for their own hard line ambitions. Facing extremism with similar tendencies will only amount for more of the unpleasant phenomenon that threatens in no small manner to change the world as we know it if allowed a free run. Hence the hectic efforts on part of genuinely concerned quarters to tame it before it develops a momentum impossible to contain. Europe will, without a doubt, have a big part to play, but not as long as it allows no good elements like Wilder who want nothing more than leveraging appreciable ideals to achieve their own distorted ends.



Washington invite

US PRESIDENT George Bush’s end-April invitation to his Palestinian Authority counterpart to visit Washington in an effort to revitalise the Arab-Israeli peace process is the former’s last chance at making a meaningful contribution to the issue. Already, America’s turning the other way to Israel’s farcical follow-up of the Annapolis initiative has robed the Bush administration of the sincerity-card, confirming doubts about its willingness to deliver on promises. Abbas is sure to adopt a firmer posture than November as Israel’s high handedness between then and now has dramatically added to the numerous complexities of the equation. Should the meeting materialise, the White House must be informed of the necessity of meeting added prerequisites, failing which indulging in further negotiations would waste everybody’s time. The first requires pressuring Israel into shedding the indifferent position that attaches zero commitment to pledges. The immediate aftermath of the Annapolis meeting is a good case in point, when no sooner than all parties had journeyed home did Israel renege on its promises, begin settlement expansion and resumed the bomb-and-choke treatment responsible for unprecedented humanitarian miseries that have seemingly become the Gazans’ permanent lot.
The second pre-condition would require flexibility on everybody’s part, including Abbas’ Fatah. It is now abundantly clear that varied attempts to subdue Hamas have only ended up hurting ordinary Palestinians inside Gaza. Their plight has been adequately documented by the international media and continuation of policies that drive them further against the wall reflect poorly on a supposedly free world attempting to broker peace in a long troubled conflict. It is imperative to engage with Gaza by way of sitting across the table with Hamas, an added feature that will test Washington’s flexibility as well as genuineness to the most divisive issue between the Muslim world and the West. As repeatedly pointed out in this space, George Bush is by no means the first statesman attempting to leverage the Palestinian tragedy to add colour to his legacy. Many have tried and failed before. Though political wisdom is not the most defining quality of the outgoing American president, whether he succeeds where others have failed will depend on his ability to reach beyond the conventional mindset that has limited progress all these decades. From the looks of things such expectations seem misplaced, to say the least. Yet respond Abbas must to every initiative that presents itself, for the sake of the suffering people he claims to represent. However great the differences between all those preparing for yet another round of negotiations, there is one thing in common — all must display flexibility on points they have simply ruled out in the past.

—Khaleej Times