EDITORIAL : THE DAWN, PAKISTAN

Netanyahu`s `no`

IN a significant shift from previous American policy on the Middle East, President Barack Obama, in a speech on Thursday, called for a non-militarised Palestinian state on the basis of the 1967 borders “with mutually agreed swaps”. Meanwhile, even before his arrival in Washington for talks with the US leadership, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected Mr Obama`s stance, saying that a return to the pre-1967 borders would render Israel “indefensible”. It is pertinent to note that, as reported, Mr Netanyahu`s objections did not lead to alterations in the substance of what the US leader had to say. However, will a solution be found?

Since the 1978-79 Camp David accord, successive US administrations have stood for a two-state solution, the prime condition for which is Israel`s withdrawal from the Palestinian territories it occupied in the 1967 war. The 1993 declaration of principles, signed by Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin, with Bill Clinton among the co-signatories, called for an Israeli withdrawal from the territories, with a final settlement being in place in April 1999. The last two peace formulae — the 2003 road map and the 2007 Annapolis declaration —were floated by the Bush administration, and, like all previous peace accords, were in line with two UN resolutions that had reaffirmed the principle of an Israeli pullout from Palestinian territories. Israel sought to sabotage these after accepting them.

In Thursday`s speech, Mr Obama said the future Palestinian state should have borders with Israel, Egypt and Jordan. This is not acceptable to Mr Netanyahu, because this implies an Israeli withdrawal from the fertile Jordan valley. The truth is that quitting even an inch of Palestinian land is not on the Israeli agenda. Israel`s behaviour over the decades testifies to its constant greed for more land. Over the decades, Israel has nibbled at Palestinian lands and has settled half a million Jews on Arab soil. At the same time, the wall which Israel has built has been so aligned that it has gobbled up more Palestinian territory.

To be fair to Israel, its leaders have made no secret of their desire to stay on in Palestinian lands indefinitely, and have frustrated all American attempts at a just peace in the holy land. The Obama speech contained no road map. But even if it had, it is entirely possible that Israel would have no problem shredding it, because it continues to enjoy the patronage of Congress, the Pentagon and the State Department. The peace process is intended to give Israel time to `create facts` and plant as many settlements on Palestinian territories as possible.

Need for justice

MUKHTAR Mai`s pursuit of justice is exemplary. Gang-raped in 2002 as a result of a `sentence` by a jirga, she has fought courageously for her right — even though few hopes were held out — to see her attackers brought to justice. Last month, a three-member bench of the Supreme Court handed down a verdict that many considered a travesty of justice: that the earlier Lahore High Court verdict acquitting all but one accused would be upheld. Subsequently, Mukhtar Mai was subjected to near-ritual humiliation, notably by certain sections of the media. Despite this, she has refused to be silenced. On Thursday, she filed a review petition in the SC seeking the constitution of a larger bench and citing six instances where such procedure has been followed.

We hope that Mukhtar Mai`s appeal is seriously considered. The SC`s earlier decision not only disappointed on account of hope for justice for her as well as for uncounted other rape victims, it was also criticised in legal circles for having opened the door on dangerous procedural precedents. The verdict established a threshold of proof that would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for rape victims to provide within Pakistan`s unequal, gender-discriminatory and patriarchal social context. The majority judgment (there was one dissenting opinion) was said to have overturned settled law in rape jurisprudence and negated the few victories won for earlier rape victims by refusing to recognise the central importance of the rape victim`s own evidence. The justice that Mukhtar Mai seeks needs to be dispensed. We cannot argue that those charged should be sentenced without sufficient evidence; however, the Pakistani police force`s poor investigation capacity, particularly in such cases, is also well known, as is the fact that rape cases often suffer from delayed reporting and lack of witnesses. Particularly in view of our societal context, the victim`s testimony is of crucial importance. The importance of Mukhtar Mai`s case should not be underestimated, having become symbolic of the struggle for women`s rights in Pakistan. If even she cannot get justice from the legal system, what hope is there for any of Pakistan`s other victims of violence?

Afridi`s sacking

SHAHID Afridi may have been cruising for a bruising with his muted criticism of the team coach and also the performance of individual players. Under the code of conduct that international Pakistani cricketers sign with the board, they are not authorised to make controversial statements to the media. This is something that Afridi has allegedly done for quite some time now, the most recent being his comments about team coach Waqar Younis whose past, incidentally, is hardly untarnished going by the Justice Qayyum report on match-fixing. Afridi, a hugely popular cricketer, has now been sacked as the Pakistan limited-overs captain. This is yet another incident that has rocked Pakistan cricket just as it seemed that it was on its way up.

Afridi, for all his minor faults, was an inspirational captain. He led the team from the front. He may have faltered with the bat but has bowled beautifully in recent months, taking the side all the way to the semi-finals of the cricket World Cup. True, his performance in the West Indies left a lot to be desired but most commentators agree that one poor series — which, incidentally, Pakistan won — was not the sole motivation behind his ouster. Misbahul Haq, the Test captain, has now been named as Afridi`s replacement. Misbah represents the umpteenth change in captaincy in both Test and one-day formats of the game during the tenure of PCB chairman Ijaz Butt. Shahid Afridi did not deserve to be sacked, for the simple reason that he was putting Pakistan back on the winning track after several years in the cricketing wilderness. To his credit, Afridi has opted to continue playing even though he is no longer captain. What is needed now is a shake-up in the governing body, not the team which is doing itself credit despite the myriad problems it faces. Ijaz Butt should fully realise the importance of the job he is expected to do, or leave it.