RSSSvi unosi označeni: "Izrael"

Islamska politička kultura, Demokracija, i ljudska prava

Daniele. Cijena

Tvrdi se da islam olakšava autoritarizam, proturječi

vrijednostima zapadnih društava, te značajno utječe na važne političke ishode
u muslimanskim narodima. Slijedom toga, učenjaci, komentatori, i vlada
dužnosnici često ističu "islamski fundamentalizam" kao sljedeći
ideološka prijetnja liberalnim demokracijama. Ovaj pogled, međutim, temelji se prvenstveno
o analizi tekstova, Islamska politička teorija, i ad hoc studije
pojedinih zemalja, koji ne uzimaju u obzir druge faktore. To je moja tvrdnja
da tekstovi i tradicija islama, poput onih drugih religija,
može se koristiti za podršku različitim političkim sustavima i politikama. Zemlja
specifične i deskriptivne studije ne pomažu nam pronaći obrasce koji bi pomogli
objašnjavamo različite odnose između islama i politike diljem svijeta
zemalja muslimanskog svijeta. Stoga, novi pristup proučavanju
traži se veza između islama i politike.
predlažem, kroz rigoroznu evaluaciju odnosa između islama,
demokracija, i ljudska prava na međunacionalnoj razini, to previše
naglasak se stavlja na moć islama kao političke snage. ja prvi
koristiti komparativne studije slučaja, koji se usredotočuju na čimbenike koji se odnose na međuigru
između islamskih skupina i režima, ekonomski utjecaji, etnički rascjepi,

i društveni razvoj, to explain the variance in the influence of

Islam on politics across eight nations.

Political Islam in the Middle East

Jesu li Knudsen

This report provides an introduction to selected aspects of the phenomenon commonly

referred to as “political Islam”. The report gives special emphasis to the Middle East, u

particular the Levantine countries, and outlines two aspects of the Islamist movement that may

be considered polar opposites: democracy and political violence. In the third section the report

reviews some of the main theories used to explain the Islamic resurgence in the Middle East

(Figure 1). In brief, the report shows that Islam need not be incompatible with democracy and

da postoji tendencija zanemarivanja činjenice da su mnoge zemlje Bliskog istoka bile

sudjelovao u brutalnom gušenju islamističkih pokreta, uzrokujući ih, neki tvrde, uzeti

oružjem protiv države, a rjeđe, strane zemlje. Korištenje političkog nasilja je

raširena na Bliskom istoku, ali nije ni nelogičan ni iracionalan. U mnogim slučajevima čak

Islamističke skupine poznate po korištenju nasilja pretvorene su u miroljubive političke

stranaka koje su se uspješno natjecale na općinskim i nacionalnim izborima. Usprkos tome, islamista

oživljavanje na Bliskom istoku ostaje djelomično neobjašnjeno unatoč brojnim teorijama koje nastoje

objasniti njegov rast i popularnost. Općenito, većina teorija drži da je islamizam a

reakcija na relativnu deprivaciju, osobito društvene nejednakosti i političkog ugnjetavanja. Alternativa

teorije traže odgovor na islamistički preporod unutar granica same religije i

snažan, evokativni potencijal religijskog simbolizma.

Zaključak govori u prilog nadilaženja pristupa "mraka i propasti" koji

prikazuje islamizam kao nelegitiman politički izraz i potencijalnu prijetnju Zapadu ("Star

islamizam”), i nijansiranijeg razumijevanja trenutne demokratizacije islamističkog

pokreta koji se sada odvija diljem Bliskog istoka (“Novi islamizam”). Ovaj

u prvi plan se stavlja važnost razumijevanja ideoloških korijena “novog islamizma”.

zajedno s potrebom za temeljitim poznavanjem islamističkih pokreta i njihovih iz prve ruke

pristaše. Kao društveni pokreti, Tvrdi se da treba staviti veći naglasak na

understanding the ways in which they have been capable of harnessing the aspirations not only

of the poorer sections of society but also of the middle class.

Escalation in the Middle East: a lasting damage to peace and democracy

Paolo Cotta

The rapid and dangerous escalation of war operations in the Middle East has resulted in a very significant loss of life among Lebanese, Palestinians and Israelis, and serious damage to civilian infrastructures. Major operations began with a low-level conflict around Gaza,that involved the launching of some missiles into Israel, some (more deadly) Israeli retaliation on Gaza, and the attack on an Israeli military post outside Gaza to which Israel reacted swiftly and very strongly. In the chain reaction that followed, admittedly Israel’ sintention was, and is, to inflict on the other side a far heavier punishment than that taken by Israel—which may appear as a militarily sound posture aimed at avoiding incidents andattacks, ali, zapravo, it is the civilian population that has been mainly affected. Kao rezultat,the suffering of the Lebanese and Palestinian civilian populations (in terms of deaths,wounded and destroyed infrastructures) has to date been largely disproportionate to that of Israel. When, in the case of Palestine, this discrimination already follows about 40 years of discrimination in the same direction, hostility and adversarial relations are bound toincrease. So while Israel’s heavy deterrence through punishment may work temporarily and occasionally in preventing or reducing attacks, the general sentiment of hostility in the region is increased, and creates in the long range a bigger obstacle to peace.

Commentary: Hollow ring for democracy

ARNAUD DE BORCHGRAVE

WASHINGTON, June 24 (UPI) — The White House’s crusade for democracy, as President Bush sees it, has produceda critical mass of events taking that (Srednji istok) region in a hopeful new direction.And Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice just toured the area, making clear at every stop whenever the United States has a choice between stability and democracy, the new ideological remedy would sacrifice stability.

Veteran Mideast hands who have dealt with five regional wars and two intifadas over the past half century shuddered. Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger first among them.

For the U.S. to crusade in every part of the world to spread democracy may be beyond our capacity,” he says. Sad. system, he explains, “is the product of unique historical experiences, difficult to duplicate or to transplant into Muslim societies where secular democracy has seldom thrived.If ever.

If stability had been sacrificed for democracy, the former national security adviser and secretary of State to Presidents Nixon and Ford could not have negotiated major Arab-Israeli disengagement agreements: Sinai I, Golan and Sinai II. Without the undemocratic, benign dictatorial figure of Anwar Sadat at the helm in Egypt, or without the late Syrian dictator and master terror-broker Hafez Assad, yet another page of war history would have been written.

With a democratic parliament in Egypt in 1974, presumably dominated by the popular Muslim Brotherhood, Sadat could not have made his spectacular, death-defying trip to Jerusalemand suddenly become the most popular leader in Israel. A peace treaty between Egypt and Israel and between Jordan and Israel were possible only because absolute rulersSadat and the late King Hussein, led both Arab countries.

Sadat knew his courageous act of statesmanship was tantamount to signing his own death warrant. It was carried out in 1981 — by Islamist extremistson worldwide television.

Rice proudly proclaims it is no longer a war against terrorism but a struggle for democracy. She is proud the Bush administration no longer pursues stability at the expense of democracy. But already the democracy crusade is not only encountering speed bumps, but also roadblocks on a road to nowhere.

The much-vaunted Palestinian elections scheduled for July have been postponed indefinitely.

In Lebanon, the ballot box has already been nullified by political machinations. Gen. Michael Aoun, a bright but aging prospect who came back from French exile to take on Syria’s underground machine, has already joined forces with Damascus. While denying any deal with Syria, the general’s henchmen concede he was compensated munificently for his retirement years in Paris from his post as army chief of staff and his time as premier. Aoun collected $22 million, which included compound interest.

U Egiptu, Rice, presumably attempting to confer respectability on President Hosni Mubarak’s challengers, took time out to receive a known political charlatan who has over the years been exposed as someone who forged election results as he climbed the ladder of a number of political parties under a variety of labels.

Even Mubarak’s enemies concede Ayman Nour fabricated and forged the signatures of as many as 1,187 citizens to conform to regulations to legalize his Ghad (Tomorrow) party. His career is dotted with phony academic credentials, plagiarism, a staged assassination attempt on himself, charges of embezzlement by his Saudi media employer, and scads of document forgeries.

Rice had canceled a previous trip to Egypt to protest the indictment and jailing of Nour pending trial. And before Rice’s most recent accolade, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright had also gone out of her way to praise Egypt’s master political con man. Makes you wonder what kind of political reporting is coming out of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.

With this double-headed endorsement by the United States, Nour is losing what little favor he still has in Egypt. He is now seen as a U.S. stooge, to add to a long list of failings.

The Muslim Brotherhood, which is outlawed but tolerated since it renounced terrorism, is more representative of Egyptian opinion than Nour. There is also the Kifaya (Enough) movement that groups Egypt’s leading intellectuals. But they declined to meet with Rice.

The United States is seen throughout the Arab world as synonymous with Israel. This automatically limits the Bush administration’s ability to win friends and influence people. Those making the most out of U.S. pressure to democratize are organizations listed by the United States asterrorist.Both Hamas in the Palestinian territories and Hezbollah in Lebanon are now mining opportunities both above and underground. Islamic legislators in Jordan petitioned King Abdullah to allow Jordanian Hamas leaders, evicted six years ago, to come home. The king listened impassively.

It took Europe 500 years to reach the degree of political maturity witnessed by the recent collapse of the European Union’s plans for a common constitution. Winston Churchill said democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. But Churchill also said, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.This still applies in the souks of the Arab world, from Marrakech to Muscat.

Goldstone Report On Israel’s War On Gaza

Goldstone in Gaza

1. On 3 travanj 2009, the President of the Human Rights Council established the United Nations
Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict with the mandate “to investigate all violations of
international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been
committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza
during the period from 27 prosinac 2008 i 18 siječnja 2009, whether before, during or
after.”
2. The President appointed Justice Richard Goldstone, former judge of the Constitutional Court
of South Africa and former Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former
Yugoslavia and Rwanda, to head the Mission. The other three appointed members were:
Professor Christine Chinkin, Professor of International Law at the London School of Economics
and Political Science, who was a member of the high-level fact-finding mission to Beit Hanoun
(2008); Ms. Hina Jilani, Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and former Special
Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders, who was a
member of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur (2004); and Colonel Desmond
Travers, a former Officer in Ireland’s Defence Forces and member of the Board of Directors of
the Institute for International Criminal Investigations.
3. As is usual practice, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
(OHCHR) established a secretariat to support the Mission.
4. The Mission interpreted the mandate as requiring it to place the civilian population of the
region at the centre of its concerns regarding the violations of international law.
5. The Mission convened for the first time in Geneva between 4 i 8 May 2009. Additionally,
the Mission met in Geneva on 20 May, na 4 i 5 srpanj, and between 1 i 4 kolovoz 2009. The
Mission conducted three field visits: two to the Gaza Strip between 30 May and 6 June, i
between 25 June and 1 srpanj 2009; and one visit to Amman on 2 i 3 srpanj 2009. Several staff of

1. On 3 travanj 2009, the President of the Human Rights Council established the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict with the mandate “to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 prosinac 2008 i 18 siječnja 2009, whether before, during or after.”

2. The President appointed Justice Richard Goldstone, former judge of the Constitutional Court of South Africa and former Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, to head the Mission. The other three appointed members were Professor Christine Chinkin, Professor of International Law at the London School of Economics and Political Science, who was a member of the high-level fact-finding mission to Beit Hanoun (2008); Ms. Hina Jilani, Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and former Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders, who was a member of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur (2004); and Colonel Desmond Travers, a former Officer in Ireland’s Defence Forces and member of the Board of Directors of the Institute for International Criminal Investigations.

3. As is usual practice, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) established a secretariat to support the Mission.

4. The Mission interpreted the mandate as requiring it to place the civilian population of the region at the centre of its concerns regarding the violations of international law.

5. The Mission convened for the first time in Geneva between 4 i 8 May 2009. Additionally, the Mission met in Geneva on 20 May, na 4 i 5 srpanj, and between 1 i 4 kolovoz 2009. The Mission conducted three field visits: two to the Gaza Strip between 30 May and 6 June, and between 25 June and 1 srpanj 2009; and one visit to Amman on 2 i 3 srpanj 2009. Several staff ofthe Mission’s secretariat were deployed in Gaza from 22 May to 4 srpanj 2009 to conduct field investigations.

6. Notes verbales were sent to all Member States of the United Nations and United Nations organs and bodies on 7 May 2009. On 8 June 2009 the Mission issued a call for submissions inviting all interested persons and organizations to submit relevant information and documentation to assist in the implementation of its mandate.

7. Public hearings were held in Gaza on 28 i 29 June and in Geneva on 6 i 7 srpanj 2009.

8. The Mission repeatedly sought to obtain the cooperation of the Government of Israel. After numerous attempts had failed, the Mission sought and obtained the assistance of the Government of Egypt to enable it to enter the Gaza Strip through the Rafah crossing.

9. The Mission has enjoyed the support and cooperation of the Palestinian Authority and of the Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations. Due to the lack of cooperation from the Israeli Government, the Mission was unable to meet members of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. The Mission did, međutim, meet officials of the Palestinian Authority, including a cabinet minister, in Amman. During its visits to the Gaza Strip, the Mission held meetings with senior members of the Gaza authorities and they extended their full cooperation and support to the Mission.

10. Subsequent to the public hearings in Geneva, the Mission was informed that a Palestinian participant, Mr. Muhammad Srour, had been detained by Israeli security forces when returning to the West Bank and became concerned that his detention may have been a consequence of his appearance before the Mission. The Mission is in contact with him and continues to monitor developments.