Svi unosi označeni: "Palestina"

Legislative elections held in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in 2006 brought to power the Islamist movement Hamas, which went on to form the majority of the Palestinian Legislative Council and also the first majority Hamas government. These elections resulted in the appointment of the first female Hamas minister, who became the Minister of Women’s Affairs. Between March 2006 and June 2007, two different female Hamas ministers assumed this post, but both found it difficult to manage the Ministry since most of its employees were not Hamas members but belonged to other political parties, and most were members of Fatah, the dominant movement controlling most Palestinian Authority institutions. A tense period of struggle between the women of Hamas in the Ministry of Women’s Affairs and the female members of Fatah came to an end following Hamas’ takeover of power in the Gaza Strip and the resultant fall of its government in the West Bank – a struggle which sometimes took a violent turn. One reason later cited to explain this struggle was the difference between secular feminist discourse and Islamist discourse on women’s issues. In the Palestinian context this disagreement took on a dangerous nature as it was used to justify perpetuating the bloody political struggle, the removal of Hamas women from their positions or posts, and the political and geographical divides prevailing at the time in both the West Bank and the occupied Gaza Strip.

This struggle raises a number of important questions: should we punish the Islamist movement which has come to power, or should we consider the reasons which led to Fateh’s failure in the political arena? Can feminism offer a comprehensive framework for women, regardless of their social and ideological affiliations? Can a discourse of a shared common ground for women help them to realize and agree upon their common goals? Is paternalism only present in Islamist ideology, and not in nationalism and patriotism? What do we mean by feminism? Is there only one feminism, or several feminisms? What do we mean by Islam – is it the movement known by this name or the religion, the philosophy, or the legal system? We need to go to the bottom of these issues and consider them carefully, and we must agree upon them so that we can later decide, as feminists, if our criticism of paternalism should be directed at religion (vjera), which should be confined to the heart of the believer and not be allowed to take control of the world at large, or the jurisprudence, which relates to different schools of faith which explain the legal system contained in the Quran and the sayings of the Prophet – the Sunnah.

The Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa commissioned this study to test the hypothesis posed by Professor John Dugard in the report he presented to the UN Human Rights Council in January 2007, in his capacity as UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel (naime, the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, i

Gaza, hereafter OPT). Professor Dugard posed the question: Israel is clearly in military occupation of the OPT. U isto vrijeme, elements of the occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid, which are contrary to international law. What are the legal consequences of a regime of prolonged occupation with features of colonialism and apartheid for the occupied people, the Occupying Power and third States?

In order to consider these consequences, this study set out to examine legally the premises of Professor Dugard’s question: is Israel the occupant of the OPT, i, ako je tako, do elements of its occupation of these territories amount to colonialism or apartheid? South Africa has an obvious interest in these questions given its bitter history of apartheid, which entailed the denial of selfdetermination

to its majority population and, during its occupation of Namibia, the extension of apartheid to that territory which South Africa effectively sought to colonise. These unlawful practices must not be replicated elsewhere: other peoples must not suffer in the way the populations of South Africa and Namibia have suffered.

To explore these issues, an international team of scholars was assembled. The aim of this project was to scrutinise the situation from the nonpartisan perspective of international law, rather than engage in political discourse and rhetoric. This study is the outcome of a fifteen-month collaborative process of intensive research, konzultacija, writing and review. It concludes and, it is to be hoped, persuasively argues and clearly demonstrates that Israel, od 1967, has been the belligerent Occupying Power in the OPT, and that its occupation of these territories has become a colonial enterprise which implements a system of apartheid. Belligerent occupation in itself is not an unlawful situation: it is accepted as a possible consequence of armed conflict. U isto vrijeme, under the law of armed conflict (also known as international humanitarian law), occupation is intended to be only a temporary state of affairs. International law prohibits the unilateral annexation or permanent acquisition of territory as a result of the threat or use of force: should this occur, no State may recognise or support the resulting unlawful situation. In contrast to occupation, both colonialism and apartheid are always unlawful and indeed are considered to be particularly serious breaches of international law because they are fundamentally contrary to core values of the international legal order. Colonialism violates the principle of self-determination,

which the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has affirmed as ‘one of the essential principles of contemporary international law’. All States have a duty to respect and promote self-determination. Apartheid is an aggravated case of racial discrimination, which is constituted according to the International Convention for the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1973,

hereafter ‘Apartheid Convention’) by ‘inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them’. The practice of apartheid, moreover, is an international crime.

Professor Dugard in his report to the UN Human Rights Council in 2007 suggested that an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s conduct should be sought from the ICJ. This advisory opinion would undoubtedly complement the opinion that the ICJ delivered in 2004 on the Legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territories (hereafter ‘the Wall advisory opinion’). This course of legal action does not exhaust the options open to the international community, nor indeed the duties of third States and international organisations when they are appraised that another State is engaged in the practices of colonialism or apartheid.

Unatoč tome što je to i višegodišnja i složena rasprava, Tromjesečnik Arches preispituje iz teoloških i praktičnih razloga, važna rasprava o odnosu i kompatibilnosti između islama i demokracije, kao što je odjeknulo u programu nade i promjene Baracka Obame. Dok mnogi slave Obamin uspon u Ovalnom uredu kao nacionalnu katarzu za SAD, drugi ostaju manje optimistični glede promjene ideologije i pristupa u međunarodnoj areni. Iako se velik dio napetosti i nepovjerenja između muslimanskog svijeta i SAD-a može pripisati pristupu promicanja demokracije, tipično favoriziranje diktatura i marionetskih režima koji na riječima govore o demokratskim vrijednostima i ljudskim pravima, naknadni potres od 9/11 je uistinu dodatno zacementirao nedoumice kroz američki stav o političkom islamu. Stvorio je zid negativnosti kako je utvrdio worldpublicopinion.org, prema kojoj 67% Egipćana vjeruje da Amerika globalno igra "uglavnom negativnu" ulogu.

Stoga je odgovor Amerike bio prikladan. Izborom Obame, mnogi diljem svijeta polažu nade u razvoj manje ratoborne, ali pravedniju vanjsku politiku prema muslimanskom svijetu. Test za Obamu, dok raspravljamo, tako Amerika i njezini saveznici promoviraju demokraciju. Hoće li biti olakšavajuće ili impozantno?

Štoviše, može li biti pošten posrednik u dugotrajnim zonama sukoba? Uključivanje stručnosti i uvida tvrtke Prolifi

c učenjaci, akademici, iskusni novinari i političari, Arches Quarterly donosi na vidjelo odnos između islama i demokracije i uloge Amerike – kao i promjene koje je donio Obama, u traženju zajedničkog jezika. Anas Altikriti, glavni izvršni direktor Th e Cordoba Foundation daje uvodni gambit ovoj raspravi, gdje se osvrće na nade i izazove koji počivaju na Obaminom putu. Slijedeći Altikriti, bivši savjetnik predsjednika Nixona, Dr Robert Crane nudi temeljitu analizu islamskog principa prava na slobodu. Anwar Ibrahim, bivši zamjenik premijera Malezije, obogaćuje raspravu praktičnom realnošću provedbe demokracije u muslimanskim dominantnim društvima, naime, u Indoneziji i Maleziji.

Imamo i dr. Shireen Hunter, Sveučilišta Georgetown, SAD, koji istražuje muslimanske zemlje koje zaostaju u demokratizaciji i modernizaciji. To je dopunjeno piscem o terorizmu, Objašnjenje krize postmoderne i dr. Nafeeza Ahmeda

propast demokracije. dr. Daud Abdullah (Direktor Middle East Media Monitora), Alan Hart (bivši dopisnik ITN-a i BBC-ja Panorama; autor cionizma: Pravi neprijatelj Židova) i Asem Sondos (Urednik egipatskog tjednika Sawt Al Omma) usredotočite se na Obamu i njegovu ulogu vis-à-vis promicanja demokracije u muslimanskom svijetu, kao i odnosi SAD-a s Izraelom i Muslimanskim bratstvom.

javlja se ministar vanjskih poslova, Maldivi, Ahmed Shaheed spekulira o budućnosti islama i demokracije; Cllr. Gerry Maclochlainn

– član Sinn Féina koji je izdržao četiri godine zatvora zbog irskih republikanskih aktivnosti i borac za Guildford 4 i Birmingham 6, osvrće se na svoje nedavno putovanje u Gazu gdje je svjedočio utjecaju brutalnosti i nepravde nad Palestincima; Dr Marie Breen-Smyth, Ravnateljica Centra za proučavanje radikalizacije i suvremenog političkog nasilja o izazovima kritičkog istraživanja političkog terora; Dr Khalid al-Mubarak, književnik i dramatičar, raspravlja o izgledima za mir u Darfuru; i konačno, novinar i aktivist za ljudska prava Ashur Shamis kritički gleda na demokratizaciju i politizaciju muslimana danas.

Nadamo se da će sve ovo biti sveobuhvatno štivo i izvor za razmišljanje o problemima koji nas sve pogađaju u novoj zori nade.

Hvala vam

The Society of Muslim Brothers’ success in the November-December 2005 elections for the People’s Assembly sent shockwaves through Egypt’s political system. Odgovarajući na, the regime cracked down on the movement, harassed other potential rivals and reversed its fledging reform process. This is dangerously short-sighted. There is reason to be concerned about the Muslim Brothers’ political program, and they owe the people genuine clarifications about several of its aspects. But the ruling National Democratic

Party’s (NDP) odbijanje popuštanja stiska riskira pogoršanje napetosti u vrijeme političke neizvjesnosti oko nasljeđivanja predsjednika i ozbiljnih socioekonomskih nemira. Iako će to vjerojatno biti produljeno, postupan proces, režim bi trebao poduzeti preliminarne korake za normalizaciju sudjelovanja Muslimanske braće u političkom životu. Muslimanska braća, čije su se društvene aktivnosti dugo tolerirale, ali čija je uloga u formalnoj politici strogo ograničena, osvojio neviđenu 20 posto zastupničkih mjesta u 2005 izbori. Učinili su to unatoč tome što su se natjecali za samo trećinu raspoloživih mjesta i unatoč značajnim preprekama, uključujući policijsku represiju i izbornu prijevaru. Ovim uspjehom potvrdili su svoju poziciju izuzetno dobro organizirane i duboko ukorijenjene političke snage. U isto vrijeme, ona je naglasila slabosti i legalne oporbe i vladajuće stranke. Režim se mogao kladiti da bi se skromno povećanje zastupljenosti Muslimanske braće u parlamentu moglo iskoristiti za raspirivanje straha od islamističkog preuzimanja vlasti i time poslužiti kao razlog za odugovlačenje reforme. Ako je tako, strategija je pod velikim rizikom od povratnog učinka.

If one reads the press or listens to commentators on international affairs, it is often said – and even more often implied but not said – that Islam is not compatible with democracy. In the nineties, Samuel Huntington set off an intellectual firestorm when he published The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, in which he presents his forecasts for the world – writ large. In the political realm, he notes that while Turkey and Pakistan might have some small claim to “democratic legitimacy” all other “… Muslim countries were overwhelmingly non-democratic: monarchies, one-party systems, military regimes, personal dictatorships or some combination of these, usually resting on a limited family, clan, or tribal base”. The premise on which his argument is founded is that they are not only ‘not like us’, they are actually opposed to our essential democratic values. He believes, as do others, that while the idea of Western democratization is being resisted in other parts of the world, the confrontation is most notable in those regions where Islam is the dominant faith.

The argument has also been made from the other side as well. An Iranian religious scholar, reflecting on an early twentieth-century constitutional crisis in his country, declared that Islam and democracy are not compatible because people are not equal and a legislative body is unnecessary because of the inclusive nature of Islamic religious law. A similar position was taken more recently by Ali Belhadj, an Algerian high school teacher, preacher and (in this context) leader of the FIS, when he declared “democracy was not an Islamic concept”. Perhaps the most dramatic statement to this effect was that of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of the Sunni insurgents in Iraq who, when faced with the prospect of an election, denounced democracy as “an evil principle”.

But according to some Muslim scholars, democracy remains an important ideal in Islam, with the caveat that it is always subject to the religious law. The emphasis on the paramount place of the shari’a is an element of almost every Islamic comment on governance, moderate or extremist. Only if the ruler, who receives his authority from God, limits his actions to the “supervision of the administration of the shari’a” is he to be obeyed. If he does other than this, he is a non-believer and committed Muslims are to rebel against him. Herein lies the justification for much of the violence that has plagued the Muslim world in such struggles as that prevailing in Algeria during the 90s

Demokracija je zaokupljala arapske političke mislioce od zore moderne arapske renesanse prije otprilike dva stoljeća. Od tad, koncept demokracije se promijenio i razvio pod utjecajem raznih društvenih i političkih razvoja. Rasprava o demokraciji u arapskoj islamskoj literaturi može se pratiti unatrag do Rifa'a Tahtawija, otac egipatske demokracije prema Lewisu Awadu,[3] koji je nedugo nakon povratka u Kairo iz Pariza objavio svoju prvu knjigu, Takhlis Al-Ibriz Ila Talkhis Bariz, u 1834. Knjiga je sažela njegova zapažanja o manirama i običajima modernih Francuza,[4] i hvalio koncept demokracije kako ju je vidio u Francuskoj i kako je svjedočio njezinoj obrani i ponovnom utvrđivanju kroz 1830 Revolucija protiv kralja Charlesa X.[5] Tahtawi je pokušao pokazati da je demokratski koncept koji je objašnjavao svojim čitateljima kompatibilan s islamskim zakonom. Usporedio je politički pluralizam s oblicima ideološkog i jurisprudencijalnog pluralizma koji je postojao u islamskom iskustvu:

Vjerska sloboda je sloboda vjerovanja, mišljenja i sekte, pod uvjetom da nije u suprotnosti s osnovama vjere . . . Isto bi se odnosilo na slobodu političke prakse i mišljenja vodećih administratora, koji nastoje tumačiti i primjenjivati ​​pravila i odredbe u skladu sa zakonima svojih zemalja. Kraljevi i ministri imaju dopuštenje u području politike da slijede različite rute koje na kraju služe jednoj svrsi: dobra uprava i pravosuđe.[6] Jedan važan orijentir u ovom pogledu bio je doprinos Khairuddina At-Tunisija (1810- 99), vođa reformnog pokreta 19. stoljeća u Tunisu, WHO, u 1867, formulirao opći plan reforme u knjizi pod naslovom Aqwam Al-Masalik Fi Taqwim Al- povratak (Ravni put do reformskih vlada). Glavna preokupacija knjige bila je bavljenje pitanjem političke reforme u arapskom svijetu. Apelirajući na političare i znanstvenike svoga vremena da traže sva moguća sredstva kako bi se poboljšao položaj

zajednicu i razvijati njenu uljuđenost, upozorio je opću muslimansku javnost da se kloni iskustava drugih naroda na temelju zablude da su svi spisi, izumi, iskustva ili stavove nemuslimana treba odbaciti ili zanemariti.

Khairuddin je nadalje pozvao na kraj apsolutističke vladavine, koje je optuživao za ugnjetavanje nacija i uništenje civilizacija.

Between 1991 i 2001, the world of political Islam became significantly more diverse. Danas, the term “Islamist”—used to describe a political perspective centrally informed by a set of religious interpretations and commitments—can be applied to such a wide array of groups as to be almost meaningless. It encompasses everyone from the terrorists who flew planes into the World Trade Center to peacefully elected legislators in Kuwait who have voted in favor of women’s suffrage.

Usprkos tome, the prominence of Islamist movements—legal and illegal, violent and peaceful—in the ranks of political oppositions across the Arab world makes the necessity of drawing relevant distinctions obvious. The religious discourse of the Islamists is now unavoidably central to Arab politics. Conventional policy discussions label Islamists either “moderate” or “radical,” generally categorizing them according to two rather loose and unhelpful criteria. The first is violence: Radicals use it and moderates do not. This begs the question of how to classify groups that do not themselves engage in violence but who condone, justify, or even actively support the violence of others. A second, only somewhat more restrictive criterion is whether the groups or individuals in question

accept the rules of the democratic electoral game. Popular sovereignty is no small concession for traditional Islamists, many of whom reject democratically elected governments as usurpers of God’s sovereignty.

Yet commitment to the procedural rules of democratic elections is not the same as commitment to democratic politics or governance.

The voluminous literature on reform and democratization in the Middle East region reveals a number of facts: a main obstacle to reform is the incumbent regimes that have been trying to resist and circumvent genuine democratic transformations; political reform cannot be credible without integrating moderate Islamists in the process; and external actors (mainly the US and the EU) have not yet formulated a coherent approach to reform that could simultaneously achieve stability and democracy in the region. This paper explores the possibilities and implications of a European engagement with moderate Islamists on democracy promotion in the region. It argues that the EU approach to political reform in the Middle East region needs to be enhanced and linked to realities on the ground. Political reform cannot be effective without the integration of non-violent Islamic groups in a gradual, multifaceted process. It should be highlighted that the process of engagement is a risky one for both the EU and the Islamists, yet both stand to gain from a systematic dialogue on democracy. To reduce the risks, the engagement with political Islam should come within a broader EU strategy for democracy promotion in the region. Zapravo, what the Islamists would expect from Europe is to maintain a

consistent and assertive stand on political reforms that would allow for a genuine representation of the popular will through peaceful means.

In this regard, a number of questions seem pertinent. Does the EU really need to engage political Islam in democratic reforms? Is political Islam ready for engagement and will it be willing to engage? How can an engagement policy be formulated on the basis of plausible implementation with minimal risks to the interests of the parties involved?

Perhaps no development of the last decade of the twentieth century has caused as much confusion in the West as the emergence of political Islam. Just what does it portend? Is it against modernity, or is it an effect of modernity? Is it against nationalism, or is it a

form of nationalism? Is it a striving for freedom, or a revolt against freedom?

One would think that these are difficult questions to answer, and that they would inspire deep debates. Yet over the past few years, a surprisingly broad consensus has emerged within academe about the way political Islam should be measured. This consensus has

begun to spread into parts of government as well, especially in the U.S. and Europe. A paradigm has been built, and its builders claim that its reliability and validity are beyond question.

This now-dominant paradigm runs as follows. The Arab Middle East and North Africa are stirring. The peoples in these lands are still under varieties of authoritarian or despotic rule. But they are moved by the same universal yearning for democracy that transformed Eastern Europe and Latin America. True, there are no movements we would easily recognize as democracy movements. But for historical and cultural reasons, this universal yearning has taken the form of Islamist protest movements. If these do not look

like democracy movements, it is only a consequence of our own age-old bias against Islam. When the veil of prejudice is lifted, one will see Islamist movements for what they are: the functional equivalents of democratic reform movements. True, on the edges of these movements are groups that are atavistic and authoritarian. Some of their members are prone to violence. These are the “extremists.” But the mainstream movements are essentially open, pluralistic, and nonviolent, led by “moderates” ili “reformists.” These “moderates” can be strengthened if they are made partners in the political process, and an initial step must be dialogue. But ultimately, the most effective way to domesticate the Islamists is to permit them to share or possess power. There is no threat here unless the West creates it, by supporting acts of state repression that would deny Islamists access to participation or power.

Driven by a sense that “the Islamists are coming,” journalists and policy makers have been engaged of late in fevered speculation over whether Islamist parties such as Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood (MB) or Palestine’s Hamas really believe in democracy. While I attempt to outline the boundaries of the Islamist democratic commitment, I think that peering into the Islamist soul is a misuse of energies. The Islamists are not coming. Štoviše, as Adam Przeworski and others have argued, commitments to democracy are more often born of environmental constraints than of true belief. Instead of worrying whether Islamists are real democrats,

our goal should be to help fortify democratic and liberal institutions and actors so that no group—Islamist or otherwise—can subvert them.

But what is this movement over whose democratic bona fides we worry? Islamism is a slippery concept. Na primjer, if we label as Islamist those parties that call for the application of shari‘a, we must exclude Turkey’s Justice and Development Party (which is widely considered Islamist) and include Egypt’s ruling National Democratic Party (which actively represses Islamists). Instead of becoming mired in definitional issues, we would do better to focus on a set of political parties that have grown from the same historical roots, derive many of their goals and positions from the same body of ideas, and maintain organizational ties to one another—that is, those parties that spring from the international MB. These include the Egyptian mother organization (founded in 1928), but also Hamas, Jordanski front islamske akcije, Algeria’s Movement for a Peaceful Society, the Iraqi Islamic Party, Lebanon’s Islamic Group, and others.