A united Palestine for peace
The international community must give its support to the recent peace deal between the two main rival Palestinian factions. The agreement between the Al Fatah movement, which rules the West Bank, and Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, brings not only the two groups together but also their people under one single authority, even if physically they are still separated.
Not unexpectedly, Israel has criticized the Egyptian-brokered deal as a big setback to any peace prospect with the Palestinians given Hamas’ UN designation as a terrorist group. Western governments have also threatened to cut the massive financial aid that has propped up the Fatah government.
But weren’t they the ones who criticized Palestinian Authority chair Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah for negotiating with Israel with the mandate of only half his people? They surely could not have been serious in suggesting that Israel could have cut a peace deal with the Palestinians in the West Bank but not those in the Gaza Strip. Abbas could not have been expected to sign any peace deal for the establishment of a Palestinian state without the Gaza strip.
At this stage in the peace process, it is far more important to tend to the interests of the Palestinian people and not so much about the prospect of peace with Israel. Interestingly, the Fatah-Hamas deal came in response to pressures from grassroots Palestinians who drew their inspiration from democratic uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia. Their message is clear: Palestinian leaders need to put their house in order first before they negotiate and settle their dispute with Israel.
This means nothing less than establishing a democratically elected government, one managed on the principles of good governance and that is held accountable to the people. The Fatah-Hamas deal calls for the establishment of a credible technocratic authority to prepare for a free and fair election in both the West Bank and Gaza.
The eventual elected Palestinian government, whether under Fatah or Hamas, will be in a much better position to negotiate with Israel. It will have not only come to the table with a full mandate, but also with stronger leverage to press its claims. This show of unity is also important as the Palestinian Authority formally requests admission as a United Nations member state in September.
Like it or not, peace with Israel has a better chance of succeeding under a united rather than divided Palestine.
Not unexpectedly, Israel has criticized the Egyptian-brokered deal as a big setback to any peace prospect with the Palestinians given Hamas’ UN designation as a terrorist group. Western governments have also threatened to cut the massive financial aid that has propped up the Fatah government.
But weren’t they the ones who criticized Palestinian Authority chair Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah for negotiating with Israel with the mandate of only half his people? They surely could not have been serious in suggesting that Israel could have cut a peace deal with the Palestinians in the West Bank but not those in the Gaza Strip. Abbas could not have been expected to sign any peace deal for the establishment of a Palestinian state without the Gaza strip.
At this stage in the peace process, it is far more important to tend to the interests of the Palestinian people and not so much about the prospect of peace with Israel. Interestingly, the Fatah-Hamas deal came in response to pressures from grassroots Palestinians who drew their inspiration from democratic uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia. Their message is clear: Palestinian leaders need to put their house in order first before they negotiate and settle their dispute with Israel.
This means nothing less than establishing a democratically elected government, one managed on the principles of good governance and that is held accountable to the people. The Fatah-Hamas deal calls for the establishment of a credible technocratic authority to prepare for a free and fair election in both the West Bank and Gaza.
The eventual elected Palestinian government, whether under Fatah or Hamas, will be in a much better position to negotiate with Israel. It will have not only come to the table with a full mandate, but also with stronger leverage to press its claims. This show of unity is also important as the Palestinian Authority formally requests admission as a United Nations member state in September.
Like it or not, peace with Israel has a better chance of succeeding under a united rather than divided Palestine.
Creeping Islamic state
Beyond our imagination, the Indonesian Islamic State (NII) teachings have spread to many layers of society, but the way the government plays down the lurking danger that may cost the existence of Indonesia is regrettable.
Coordinating Minister for Political, Legal and Security Affairs Djoko Suyanto raised many eyebrows when he, in response to brainwashing practices involved in the recruitment of NII members, regarded the clandestine organization as having no potential to endanger national integrity.
Unfortunately, Djoko’s statement is too good to be true.
Due to its aspiration to form a state that breaches the Constitution, NII makes no difference from the now defunct Free Aceh Movement and the Free Papua Organization, which the government used to and is trying hard to quell due to their secession movement, which is a serious crime.
For years NII has been recruiting members, many of them students and even political party members and government officials, and collecting funds, findings that should give cause for concern not only to the government but also the public at large.
No less surprising is the confession of a former NII minister, Imam Supriyanto, who said President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s Democratic Party donated US$10,000 to an Islamic boarding school widely rumored to have been used to promote NII ideology and recruit followers.
Not to mention a possibility that NII deposited billions of rupiah into the now defunct Bank Century, prompting the House of Representatives to ask the Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre to verify the report.
NII may have not transformed its dream to build an Islamic state into an armed movement as the Aceh rebels and the old NII did, and Papua separatist group is perpetrating, but the ideology war NII is waging could be more effective, particularly if people lose their confidence in democracy and a prosperous and just society envisioned by our founding fathers.
Indonesian modern history has seen the commitment to a nation state that preserves plurality surviving a series of efforts to change the Pancasila state ideology to Islam, either through constitutional or unconstitutional ways.
The fourth and latest constitutional amendment in 2002 confirmed that the Pancasila ideology, which does not recognize the Islamic state, was final and would be maintained as it stood.
Sadly the political elites have been compromising the national consensus by giving false hope to an Islamic state or a quasi of it for short-term interest and political gains. The passage of regional ordinances that are inspired by Islamic law in many regencies and provinces is a trick the elites have deliberately chosen, regardless of its repercussions which many warn as creeping Islamization.
The hard-won democracy has allowed everybody to exercise their freedom, but there is always a limit. The freedom shall not put the nation state that was built on blood and sufferings of our founding fathers at stake.
It was this concern that perhaps triggered noted Muslim scholar, the late Nurcholish Madjid, to consistently uphold his famous and hopefully everlasting motto “Islam yes, Islamic parties no”.
Coordinating Minister for Political, Legal and Security Affairs Djoko Suyanto raised many eyebrows when he, in response to brainwashing practices involved in the recruitment of NII members, regarded the clandestine organization as having no potential to endanger national integrity.
Unfortunately, Djoko’s statement is too good to be true.
Due to its aspiration to form a state that breaches the Constitution, NII makes no difference from the now defunct Free Aceh Movement and the Free Papua Organization, which the government used to and is trying hard to quell due to their secession movement, which is a serious crime.
For years NII has been recruiting members, many of them students and even political party members and government officials, and collecting funds, findings that should give cause for concern not only to the government but also the public at large.
No less surprising is the confession of a former NII minister, Imam Supriyanto, who said President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s Democratic Party donated US$10,000 to an Islamic boarding school widely rumored to have been used to promote NII ideology and recruit followers.
Not to mention a possibility that NII deposited billions of rupiah into the now defunct Bank Century, prompting the House of Representatives to ask the Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre to verify the report.
NII may have not transformed its dream to build an Islamic state into an armed movement as the Aceh rebels and the old NII did, and Papua separatist group is perpetrating, but the ideology war NII is waging could be more effective, particularly if people lose their confidence in democracy and a prosperous and just society envisioned by our founding fathers.
Indonesian modern history has seen the commitment to a nation state that preserves plurality surviving a series of efforts to change the Pancasila state ideology to Islam, either through constitutional or unconstitutional ways.
The fourth and latest constitutional amendment in 2002 confirmed that the Pancasila ideology, which does not recognize the Islamic state, was final and would be maintained as it stood.
Sadly the political elites have been compromising the national consensus by giving false hope to an Islamic state or a quasi of it for short-term interest and political gains. The passage of regional ordinances that are inspired by Islamic law in many regencies and provinces is a trick the elites have deliberately chosen, regardless of its repercussions which many warn as creeping Islamization.
The hard-won democracy has allowed everybody to exercise their freedom, but there is always a limit. The freedom shall not put the nation state that was built on blood and sufferings of our founding fathers at stake.
It was this concern that perhaps triggered noted Muslim scholar, the late Nurcholish Madjid, to consistently uphold his famous and hopefully everlasting motto “Islam yes, Islamic parties no”.
0 comments:
Post a Comment