What is a Jewish state?

From Khalid Amayreh in Occupied West Jerusalem

Seeking to perpetuate institutionalized racism and systematic discrimination against its non-Jewish citizens, the apartheid Israeli state has been incessantly trying to blackmail the weak and vulnerable Palestinian Authority (PA) into recognizing the Zionist state as “an exclusively Jewish state.” Some Israeli officials have used terms such as “a state of the Jews, for the Jews, and by the Jews.” Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has been quoted as saying that Israel wouldn’t recognize a prospective Palestinian state on the West Bank unless the PA recognized Israel as “a state of the Jews.” Israeli leaders are reluctant to tell the world what they exactly mean by “a state of the Jews,” ostensibly to save themselves the embarrassment of the implied racism inherent in the concept. However, the implications in such a recognition are abundantly clear for those who have even rudimentary knowledge of the Israeli mentality. To make a long story short, “Jewish state” means that Israel has an inherent right to discriminate against its non-Jewish citizens, especially the sizeable Palestinian minority, and, if need be, expel them from the country in order to preserve the “Jewishness” of Israel. In other words, Israel simply wants to obtain from the Palestinian leadership a recognition that it has a legal and moral right to carry out ethnic cleansing of its Christian and Muslim citizens on the ground that Israel is and must always remain a Jewish state. Of course, Israel is deliberately evasive and vague about its manifestly fascistic designs regarding its non-Jewish citizens. Israeli leaders and apologists claim ad nauseam that Israel is a Jewish and democratic state. But this is a defensive reflex at best and is as mendacious as claiming that apartheid is compatible with democracy. The truth, however, is that Israel can’t be Talmudic and democratic at the same time. Hence “Jewish” and “democratic” are an eternal oxymoron that should never be used in the presence of an honest audience. The reason for that is amply clear. Ask any Jew in Israel or abroad which comes first “Jewish” or “democratic” and he or she wouldn’t to tell you that “Jewish” always overrides “democratic.” Which really shows that “democratic” is no more than a cosmetic façade that is meant to blur or conceal the brutal ugliness of the fascist nature of the “Jewish state.” Another important, even paramount, aspect of this issue is the Israeli insistence on obtaining recognition as Jewish state in order to permanently bar millions of Palestinian refugees deported from their homeland from time immemorial from repatriation. In other words, Israel wants to legalize and legitimize ethnic cleansing by getting the victims, or at least their supposed representatives, to bless the greatest act of theft in the history of mankind. Thus, recognition of Israel as a Jewish state would be tantamount to a double national suicide of immense catastrophic proportions for the Palestinian people. First, it implies that Israel has the right to expel all or most of its Arab citizens or at least check their demographic growth by all means necessary to maintain Israel as a Jewish state. And, second, it implies that Israel has the right to prevent Palestinian refugees uprooted from their ancestral homeland from returning to their homes and villages in what is now Israel. In other words, Israel wants to make sure that ethnic cleansing will win at last. In light, one is prompted to ask: Can there be a greater national suicide for the Palestinian people? In addition, there are a number of other practical implications which a recognition of Israel as a Jewish state would entail. These include the following: 1- That only “Jews” can be considered complete citizens of Israel, and that if an incomplete citizen, e.g. a non-Jew, wanted to be “complete” he or she would have to convert to Judaism. This is very much like the situation many Jews in mediaeval Europe faced, forcing them to convert to Christianity in order to enjoy equality and find acceptance in their contemporary societies. 2- That the Israeli citizenship per se is ultimately inconsequential and doesn’t guarantee holders all rights and privileges, since Israel is defined as “state of the Jews.” Hence, in order to enjoy full and complete and permanent citizenship, one has to be Jewish. 3- That whenever there is the slightest disharmony between the Jewish and democratic aspects of Israel, the Jewish aspect will override and take priority over the democratic aspect. 4- That Jews all over the world, including potential converts to Judaism, are citizens of Israel and may well be allowed the right to vote in national elections, especially if non-Jewish citizens, gain political influence in Israeli politics. More to the point, recognizing Israel as a Jewish state also implies a recognition of the moral legitimacy of Israel’s criminal history, particularly the genocidal ethnic cleansing of the bulk of the indigenous Palestinian people from their ancestral homeland. In other words, a recognition as such by the PA would also imply that the Palestinians would effectively though compulsively embrace and accept the Zionist narrative in its entirety. This would mean that the victims of Zionist supremacy and racism would have to transform themselves into a sort of Arab Zionists, very much like Christian Zionists. It is for these reasons that no dignified Palestinian under the sun will be able to recognize Israel as a Jewish state since such a recognition would be incompatible with basic morality and fundamental human decency. Indeed, even if such a recognition were to be arrogated through blackmail and coercion, it would be utterly rejected by the vast bulk of Palestinians, and treated like a marriage under duress, which is no less than an act of rape.

WE WILL NOT GO DOWN

WE WILL NOT GO DOWN
Song for Gaza
(Composed by Michael Heart)
Copyright 2009


A blinding flash of white light
Lit up the sky over Gaza tonight
People running for cover
Not knowing whether they're dead or alive

They came with their tanks and their planes
With ravaging fiery flames
And nothing remains
Just a voice rising up in the smoky haze

We will not go down
In the night, without a fight
You can burn up our mosques and our homes and our schools
But our spirit will never die
We will not go down
In Gaza tonight

Women and children alike
Murdered and massacred night after night
While the so-called leaders of countries afar
Debated on who's wrong or right

But their powerless words were in vain
And the bombs fell down like acid rain
But through the tears and the blood and the pain
You can still hear that voice through the smoky haze

We will not go down
In the night, without a fight
You can burn up our mosques and our homes and our schools
But our spirit will never die
We will not go down
In Gaza tonight

Mumbai suspect said to be police officer

Arrest stirs up tension in Indian Kashmir
Aijaz Hussain ASSOCIATED PRESSSunday, December 7, 2008
washington_ti859:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/07/mumbai-suspect-said-to-be-undercover-officer/associated press
A man identified as Mukhtar Ahmed appears at a court in Calcutta, India, accused of illegally buying mobile-phone cards used by gunmen in the Mumbai attacks. But police in Indian Kashmir say Mr. Ahmed is one of their undercover officers.

SRINAGAR, India One of the two Indian men arrested for illegally buying mobile-phone cards used by the gunmen in the Mumbai attacks was a counterinsurgency police officer who may have been on an undercover mission, security officials said Saturday, demanding his release.
The arrests, announced in the eastern city of Calcutta, were the first since the bloody siege ended. But what was touted as a rare success for India's beleaguered law enforcement agencies quickly turned sour as police in two Indian regions squared off against each another.
Senior police officers in Indian Kashmir, which has been at the heart of tensions between India and Pakistan, demanded the release of the officer, Mukhtar Ahmed, saying he was one of their own and had been involved in infiltrating Kashmiri militant groups.
Indian authorities said they believe that the banned Pakistani-based militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba, which has links to Kashmir, trained the gunmen and plotted the attacks that left 171 people dead after a three-day rampage through Mumbai that began Nov. 26.
The implications of Mr. Ahmed's involvement - that Indian agents may have been in touch with the militants and perhaps supplied the Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) cards used in the attacks - added to the growing list of questions over India's ill-trained security forces, which have been widely criticized for failing to thwart the attacks.
Earlier Saturday, Calcutta police announced the arrests of Mr. Ahmed and Tauseef Rahman, who is said to have bought SIM cards by using fake documents, including identification cards of dead people. The cards allow users to switch their cellular service to phones other than their own.
Mr. Rahman, of West Bengal state, later sold them to Mr. Ahmed, said Rajeev Kumar, a senior Calcutta police officer.
Both men were arrested Friday and charged with fraud and criminal conspiracy, Mr. Kumar said, adding that police were still investigating how the 10 gunmen obtained the SIM cards.
But the announcement had police in Srinagar, the main city in Indian-controlled Kashmir, fuming.
We have told Calcutta police that Mr. Ahmed is "our man and it's now up to them how to facilitate his release," said one senior officer speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information. Other police officials in Kashmir supported his account.
The officer said Mr. Ahmed was a special police officer (SPO), part of a semiofficial counterinsurgency network whose members are usually drawn from former militants. The SPO is run on special funding from the federal Ministry of Home Affairs.
"Sometimes we use our men engaged in counterinsurgency ops to provide SIM cards to the [militant] outfits so that we track their plans down," the officer said.
Police said Mr. Ahmed was recruited to the force after his brother was killed five years ago, reportedly by Lashkar-e-Taiba militants for being a police informer.
About a dozen Islamic militant groups have been fighting in Kashmir since 1989, seeking independence from mainly Hindu India or a union with Muslim-majority Pakistan.
India and Pakistan have fought two of their three wars over the Himalayan region, which is divided between them and claimed by both in its entirety.
Calcutta police denied the claims from Srinagar. "This is not true," Mr. Kumar said.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/07/mumbai-suspect-said-to-be-undercover-officer/

Nellie: India's forgotten massacre

HARSH MANDER
A weak and partisan State leaves each of its citizens weak and vulnerable, as the Mumbai attacks and the gruesome Nellie massacres demonstrate…
And so the stories flowed, like a deluge of muddied waters of grief — long unaddressed and denied — gushing from a breached dam.

((The burden of memories: From left, Noon Nahar Begum, Alekjaan Biwi and Hazara Khatun.
A lifetime is much too short to forget. ))

It was November 26, 2008, the day that was to become etched in India's history for the audacious and traumatic terrorist commando attack on the country's commercial capital Mumbai. I happened to be on that day at a location as distant as possible from Mumbai — psychologically, politically and socially — at Nellie in Assam, the site of one of free India's most brutal forgotten massacres in 1983. I had been invited by the survivors to sit with them as they recalled and commemorated the events that had unfolded in this distant impoverished corner of the country 25 years earlier.Journey into the past
We gathered in the soft sunshine of early winter in an open courtyard. A crowd quickly gathered: the older men with checked lungis and beards could easily be distinguished as people of East Bengali Muslim origin. The women and younger men dressed like anyone from an Assamese village. There were the initial courtesies of traditional welcome, as they offered us customary white Assamese scarves with exquisite red embroidery.
Senior officials of the State government who accompanied me had gently dissuaded me from the visit, questioning the wisdom of re-opening wounds of painful events of such a distant past. People have moved on long ago, they assured me. What purpose then would our visit serve? It would only revive memories that have long been buried. The same advice came from many non-official friends who worked in development organisations in the State. They added that the visit would stir issues that were too bitterly contested in the region. But the survivors persisted in their resolve that they wanted to be heard. It was impossible for me to refuse them.Enormous suffering
On February 18, 1983, in the genocidal massacre organised in Nellie, just 40 km from Guwahati , 2,191 Muslim settlers originally from Bangladesh were slaughtered, leaving 370 children orphaned and their homes in 16 villages destroyed. As the survivors spoke one by one before our gathering a quarter century later, all of us who heard them — including officials, academics, social workers — were completely stunned, and shamed, by the enormity and immediacy of their suffering today, which retained an urgency as though they had only very recently suffered the unspeakable cruelties that they gave words to, not 25 years earlier. The bodies of many were twisted and deformed by inadequately treated injuries from the assaults by machetes and daggers; others pulled back their clothes to expose frightening scars of the attacks of a generation earlier.
Hazara Khatun, with scars of a dagger attack on her face that she survived in 1983, sat on the ground before us and pointed to her empty lap. "I was cradling my child here", she said in a low voice. "They chopped him into two, down the middle". Another widow Alekjaan Biwi, was far less calm. Her body was twisted, and we could all see that she had lost her psychological equilibrium. Eleven members of her family were slaughtered in the massacre, and she acted out for us how the mob had attacked them, how she had cowered and hidden herself, how she was discovered and wounded, and how she survived even though scarred and deformed for life. "I have no one in the world," she concluded quietly.Deluge of grief
In his early thirties, Mohammed Monoruddin began to cry inconsolably as soon as he sat before us. "My brothers, sisters were all killed, hacked into pieces," he recalled. "I was seven years old then. I saw my parents slaughtered in front of me. I saw another woman being killed and her child snatched from her hands and thrown in fire. I wept in terror all day. The CRPF came in the evening and rescued me. Later we came to know that our house was torched. Nothing was left. All our belongings and stores of rice were gone in the fire. My elder brother, who was in Nagaon, brought me up. But I feel so lonely."
Many others spoke of their loneliness. Noon Nahar Begum was 10 years old, and when the killings started, she tried to run away but was attacked and badly wounded. She was hospitalised for two months, and her mother and four siblings were murdered. "They were butchered here in the place where we are standing today," she said, adding: "I have found no peace of mind for the last 25 years. I need justice for my peace. Justice is important because it was such a terrible crime. I feel lonely and miss my family…" Babool Ahmad, a tailor, was two years old when he lost his parents. He was brought up by his grandparents, whereas his sisters were raised in an SOS village.
And so the stories flowed, like a deluge of muddied waters of grief — long unaddressed and denied — gushing from a breached dam. The forgotten massacre in Nellie in 1983 established a bloody trail of open State complicity in repeated traumatic bouts of ethnic cleansing and massacres both in Assam and in India. It was followed by similar State-enabled carnages, in Delhi in 1984, Bhagalpur in 1989, Mumbai in 1993 and climaxed in Gujarat in 2002.Series of incidents
Assam in turn has seen a series of violent ethnic clashes between various oppressed communities, each bitterly and ferociously ranged against other ethnic groups which may be as dispossessed, if not more so. The accord brokered by government with militant Bodos in 1993 assured them autonomous control over regions where their population was in a majority. The government therefore itself laid the foundations for ethnic cleansing. Bengali Muslims were driven out of their settlements by murderous attacks and the torching of their homes in 1993, and this scenario was repeated for Santhal and Munda tribals (called Adivasis) — many of whom are descendants of tea garden labour imported by the British two centuries ago — in 1996. Thousands of them continue to languish today in camps, some for 15 years, as they are still terrified to return home. Assam remains a tinder box of ethnic hatred, with recent attacks on Bihari migrant labour, Jharkhand agitators in Guwahati, bomb explosions and recent clashes between Bodos and Bengali Muslims this year, which left many dead and thousands in camps seething with hate.
The worth of lives
The government gave the survivors of Nellie compensation for each death of as little as 5,000 rupees, contrasted for instance with Rs. 7 lakhs that have been paid to survivors of the Sikh carnage of a year later in 1984. Six hundred and eighty eight criminal cases were filed in connection with Nellie organised massacre and of these 310 cases were charge-sheeted. The remaining 378 cases were closed due to the police claim of "lack of evidence". But all the 310 charge-sheeted cases were dropped by the AGP government as a part of Assam Accord; therefore not a single person has even had to face trial for the gruesome massacre. Some lives are clearly deemed by the State of being of little worth compared to others.
The Mumbai terrorist attack of 2008 has witnessed an upsurge of understandable public anger, because a partisan and weak State leaves each of us unsafe. But States have long failed abjectly and shamefully to protect ordinary citizens and uphold justice. The lives lost in Mumbai's Taj Hotel are precious. But the lives extinguished in distant hamlets of Nellie — and indeed the streets of Delhi, Bhagalpur, Gujarat and Malegoan — are no less valuable. A day must come when our rage and our compassion responds equally to each of these tragedies. We can be safe only by standing — and caring — together.

web page: http://www.sccommissioners.org.

Is Kashmir key to Afghan peace?

Barack Obama says resolving the Indian-Pakistani dispute over Kashmir will be a goal of his presidency, ending eight years of silence on the issue.
By Mark Sappenfield Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor and
Shahan Mufti Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

NEW DELHI; and ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN - As part of his push to find new solutions to the war in Afghanistan, President-elect Barack Obama is considering a new diplomatic push on Kashmir, reversing eight years of American silence on the issue.
Mr. Obama has argued that Pakistan will not fully commit to fighting the insurgency it shares with Afghanistan until it sheds historic insecurities toward India. Talks about Kashmir, the central point of contention between the two nuclear rivals, are among the "critical tasks for the next administration," Obama said in an interview last month with Time magazine.
It is a strategy that worries Indians, who suggest the Pakistani Army is blackmailing Obama to support its claims. Yet security analysts say the Afghan insurgency has roots in the power struggle between India and Pakistan and cannot be solved without a regional approach.
"It will be very hard to put Afghanistan on a long-term positive path without alleviating some of the Indo-Pakistan tensions," says Xenia Dormandy of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass.
Such ideas would appear to fit well with the doctrines of Gen. David Petraeus, who oversaw a significant improvement in law and order in Iraq. He is now the commander of American forces in the entire region, which includes Afghanistan.
General Petraeus has been an open advocate of regional diplomacy as a key counterinsurgency tactic. On Oct. 15, he told a round table of Washington Post reporters that in seeking solutions to Afghanistan, "there may be opportunities with respect to India."
The goal would be to build a level of trust between India and Pakistan, freeing Pakistan from its historic fear of India, with which it has fought three wars. The surest way to do this, Obama has said, is to find a solution to Kashmir – the state split between each but claimed in full by both.
"We should try to resolve the Kashmir crisis so that [Pakistan] can stay focused – not on India, but on the situation with those militants," he told MSNBC on Oct. 31.
Obama went further in the Time interview, mentioning he has spoken with former President Bill Clinton about becoming a special envoy to the region – a comment that has been front-page news in India and Pakistan.
Nothing could be more damaging to American interests in the region, says Raja Mohan, a member of India's National Security Advisory Board. He claims Indo-Pakistan relations are better than they have ever been, citing the recent opening of trade between Pakistan - and-Indian-controlled Kashmir as something that would have been unthinkable in the past.
Moreover, he suggests India and Pakistan have behind the scenes made significant progress on the issue of Kashmir, to the point that the two nations have a tentative road map for how to resolve the crisis. It was scuppered only by the collapse of former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's regime in August.
Bush steered clear of Kashmir
The progress was partly the result of the Bush administration's decision to steer clear of Kashmir, says Mr. Mohan. Entering the fray now would only disrupt the delicate balance, making it appear as if the US was merely trying to placate Pakistan in return for its support in the war against terror.
In such a case, Mohan says, India might have a hard time winning concessions for a fair deal: "So long as the Pakistani Army thinks that the Americans are on their side, they're not going to deal with India."
Both Obama and his top South Asia adviser, Bruce Riedel, have spoken of the need to be discreet. In a 2007 teleconference for the journal Foreign Affairs, Mr. Riedel said: "I would urge the administration to seize the opportunity to quietly, but forcefully, push for a resolution there."
In the interview he called Kashmir "the itch that has driven Pakistan towards supporting terrorism for the last 20 years." Indeed, many experts say the enmity – for which Kashmir is the most potent symbol – has shaped security in the region, including Afghanistan.
Rivalry plays out in Afghanistan
For years, the mutual mistrust has led India and Pakistan to play their own version of the Great Game in Afghanistan. India has consistently been Afghanistan's main ally in the region. But Pakistan sees Afghanistan as its strategic backyard, which under no circumstances can be yielded to Indian influence.
Fears are stoked by the memories of 1971, when the Indian Army helped Bengalis secede from Pakistan to form Bangladesh. With Afghanistan historically claiming a significant chunk of Pakistan as its own, Pakistanis worry that an Indian-backed Afghanistan could dismember Pakistan further.
"Pakistan is the only country in South Asia that stands between India's complete hegemony in this region," says Fahmida Ashraf, an analyst at the Institute for Strategic Studies in Islamabad, a thinktank funded by the Pakistan government.
Repeatedly, Pakistan's Army has acted to prevent this from happening. It has done this by cultivating networks of militants as a proxy army. In Afghanistan, the Pakistan-backed mujahideen chased out the Soviet Union, India's ally. Then the Pakistan-backed Taliban took control of the country, preventing it from falling into the hands of pro-India Northern Alliance warlords.
This proxy war continues. India has invested $750 million and pledged $450 million more to the government of President Hamid Karzai, who is strongly pro-India. India is Afghanistan's largest trade partner. And it has taken the provocative step of opening consulates in two cities sitting on the border with Pakistan – Jalalabad and Kandahar.
Pakistan claims Indian intelligence agencies are using these consulates as bases, though it has never made this evidence public. Generally speaking, the allegations are that India is funding separatist militants in the Pakistani province of Balochistan.
"India wants to destabilize [Pakistan's tribal areas] and Balochistan," said Rahman Malik, a Pakistani government security adviser during a trip to Washington.
Analysts say this might be true, but only to a small degree. Militants "might be getting some support from India, but it's not anywhere near what the Pakistanis like to suggest," says Marvin Weinbaum, an analyst at the Middle East Institute in Washington.
Privately, a Pakistani diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity agrees. India's involvement in the unrest along Pakistan's western front "might be no more than 5 percent of all the trouble out there."
But publicly, Pakistan "is basing its Afghan and Indian policy on its perception," says Mr. Weinbaum.
In July, militants struck the Indian Embassy in Kabul with a bomb blast that killed 41 people. American intelligence agencies have said they have evidence that Pakistan's intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) directorate, was involved.
"Even today, the Pakistani military sees India as the threat," says Ms. Dormandy, of Harvard. "Until that attitude changes, you're not going to see Pakistan step back from its historically strong use of militant assets to affect foreign policy."
There are signs that this attitude is beginning to change. Pakistan is now fighting many of the militants it once sheltered in Bajaur and Swat in northern Pakistan. Obama's intent would be to accelerate this process and send a clear message to Pakistan.
"Why do you want to keep on being bogged down with [India and Kashmir], particularly at a time where the biggest threat now is coming from the Afghan border?" he told Time. "I think there is a moment where potentially we could get their attention."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1121/p01s01-wosc.html

Obama’s Kashmir statement finds takers in Valley

ARIF SHAFI WANI
Srinagar, Nov 3: Cutting across their ideologies, various mainstream and pro-freedom organizations have widely hailed the statement of front-runner US presidential candidate, Barrack Obama’s statement that America should try to help resolve the Kashmir dispute. Ahead of presidential election on November 4, Obama in an interview said, “We should probably try to facilitate a better understanding between Pakistan and India and try to resolve the Kashmir crisis so that they (Pakistan) can stay focused not on India, but on the situation with those militants (fighting the US). US should foster a better understanding between the two nuclear armed South Asian neighbours, that have fought wars over the decades-old Kashmir question in the past but are now engaged in a peace process.”
PRO-FREEDOM CAMP ELATED Chairman of Hurriyat Conference (G), Syed Ali Shah Geelani welcomed Obama’s statement but with a rider. “Obama should look at the Kashmir dispute in its historical perspective. I want to remind Obama that Kashmir is not a territorial or border dispute between India and Pakistan. It concerns 13 million people,” Geelani said. Geelani said if US is serious to resolve the dispute, it should implement the UN resolutions. “India and Pakistan are signatories to many conventions, including UN resolution to give right of self-determination to Kashmiris. Other than this right nothing will be acceptable to Kashmiris,” Geelani said. Chairman of Peoples Conference, Sajad Lone, welcomed Obama’s statement saying if United States will use its clout on India and Pakistan, the Kashmir dispute can be resolved amicably. “Kashmiris have been seeking help of the international community to resolve the dispute. Obama’s statement is good news for Kashmiris. It seems he has a broader understanding on issues confronting South Asia. United States enjoys good rapport with India and Pakistan and it is high time for it to facilitate resolution of Kashmir,” Sajad said. Hailing the statement, Chairman of Hurriyat Conference (M), Mirwaiz Umar Farooq said, “I appreciate the growing interest of Barrack Obama in resolving the Kashmir dispute. The US and internationally community is gradually recognizing that resolution of Kashmir dispute was imperative for peace in south Asia,” Mirwaiz said. Hurriyat leader Javid Ahmad Mir said for past 61 years the US presidents have only been advocating resolution of Kashmir. “Lip service cannot resolve the Kashmir dispute. US has to rise above the statements and impress upon India and Pakistan to resolve the dispute permanently,” Mir said. The acting chairman of Jammu Kashmir Peoples League, Mukhtar Ahmad Waza, while hailing Obama’s statement, said, “At last the sacrifices of Kashmiris are getting internationally recognized.” The president of Mahaz-e-Azadi, Mir Muhammad Iqbal also welcomed Obama’s statement.
MAINSTREAM PARTIES SEE HOPE President of Peoples Democratic Party, Mehbooba Mufti, welcomed Obama’s statement saying it would help to carry forward the ongoing peace process between India and Pakistan. “Situation between India and Pakistan has improved with the revival of cross-LoC trade and bus service. The peace process between India and Pakistan needs impetus and if US or any other country can extend help, they are welcome.” The Chairman of Peoples Democratic Front, Hakeen Muhammad Yaseen, sees hope in Obama’s statement. “This shows Kashmir issue is alive in the international arena and emerging leaders, like Obama are showing interest to resolve the long-standing issue. It is really a ray of hope for Kashmiris,” Yaseen said. However, the CPI (M) state secretary, M Y Tarigami said US has been propagating suppressive policies to show its power. “We can only judge Obama’s seriousness to resolve the Kashmir issue only when he takes over as US president. We have seen that instead of resolving issues, the US has been creating conflicting situations as evident in Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq. The question is can Obama break the traditional policies of US,” Tarigami said. Senior leader of National Conference, Ali Muhammad Sagar, said if US wants it can resolve the Kashmir issue. “Let us hope that Obama becomes president and helps to resolve Kashmir. India and Pakistan have been taking many confidence building measures and it is high time for bloodshed to end in the state and pave way for Kashmir resolution. US intervention will be helpful in the endeavour,” Sagar said.

India jittery over Obama’s Kashmir proposal

SHEIKH AHMED

New Delhi, Nov 6: India appears jittery and uncomfortable over US President-elect Barrack Hussain Obama’s proposal to appoint former President Bill Clinton as special envoy on Kashmir to help resolve this contentious issue peacefully.“India is against third party intervention on Kashmir and had conveyed on umpteen occasions to the international community that it is a bilateral matter between the two neighbours. So America’s special envoy on Kashmir is not welcome,” a diplomat said.The Indian government feels that the issue will be again highlighted by the appointment of the envoy. India has always rejected proposal of the Organization of Islamic Conference to appoint special envoy on Kashmir, stating that the Muslim organisation has no locus standi to get involved in this issue. Similar remarks were made when South African leader Nelson Mandela made reference to Kashmiri at the Non-Aligned summit at Durban in 1999.Recently UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon said he was ready to mediate between India and Pakistan on this issue provided both parties agree to it. “I am willing to do that. As you know good offices of the Secretary General are available when and whenever there is some agreed request from both parties.” However, the Indian government is opposed to UN or any third country role.Obama during his luncheon meeting with Clinton in New York recently proposed to him to take up the responsibility of the special envoy so that the issue is solved without any delay. The President-elect said, “We should probably try to facilitate a better understanding between India and Pakistan and try to resolve the Kashmir crisis so that Pakistan can stay focused not on India, but on the situation with those militants (on Pak-Afghan border).”He further stated, “I will encourage India and Pakistan to work towards resolving their differences. If Pakistan can look towards the East with confidence, it will be less likely to believe its interests are best advanced through cooperation with the Taliban.”When India and Pakistan were at the verge of war in 1999 on the Kargil conflict, Clinton along with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair played important role to defuse the crisis. Even at that time, Clinton as well as the European Union had expressed willingness to appoint an envoy for South Asia to enable India and Pakistan to stabilize their relations.Former President Jimmy Carter’s name figured prominently for this job. But then nothing materialised as the Indian government conveyed its opposition to such an idea.It is interesting to watch what will be the policy of Obama when he takes over as the President on January 20, 2009. His deputy, Jeo Biden is considered close to India and he is likely to play an important role in the foreign policy of the Obama administration.The diplomats in New Delhi feel that linking Kashmir with Afghanistan was not justified and it would help Pakistan to internationalise the issue.