08.11.2021 Views

09-11-2021

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

TUESDAy, NOvEMBER 9, 2021

4

Acting Editor & Publisher : Jobaer Alam

e-mail: editor@thebangladeshtoday.com

Tuesday, November 9, 2021

Sustainable poverty

reduction

Many poor families in Bangladesh climb out of

poverty one year to slip back into extreme poverty

conditions in the next. Natural calamities like

floods, cyclones and river erosions increase the number of

the poverty afflicted or push them back into poverty after

they had achieved considerable success in getting rid of

poverty from their lives.

What can the policies be to conquer poverty on a

sustainable basis ? One way can be hedging the rural poor

with insurance policies to cover risks like crop losses,

damage to homesteads by floods, loss of poultries and

cattle, etc. According to media reports, a crop insurance

pilot project was about to be launched in a limited way. The

project would be funded jointly by GOB, Asian

Development Bank (ADB) and Japan.

But further developments on this project are not heard

nowadays. This project's outcome should be monitored

and, if found effective, should be replicated all over the

country. The small insurance policies can help poor people

at the grass roots from getting some financial assistance

directly at the time of their acute distresses.

Rural marketing systems may be improved so that rural

producers can sell directly to buyers at good value,

regularly, without having to sell to exploitative

middlemen at a loss. The overall availability of micro

credits to the poor must be increased with repayment

of the loans at substantially lower rate of interests and

on other easy terms.

Government will have to run special programmes to take

care of the needs of the victims of river erosion, monga

(periodic famine conditions in northern areas). It should

provide food and housing supports and create planned

employment for affected people under these special

programmes and operate them with some regularity.

Greater availability of energy and other means of

production in the rural areas that have the highest

concentration of poverty can also have a positive effect

against poverty.

The fastest results against poverty at the national level

can come from much increasing the rate of economic

growth. Economic growth creates jobs, earnings and

employment that have the most effect in reducing poverty.

But the economic growth is vitally dependent on greater

investment activities. The first requirement, thus, is to

create an environment more conducive to investments.

The creation of an investment-friendly environment in

the country is linked to a host of factors such as increasing

the availability of power and other forms of energy, long

term favourable and unchanging fiscal and monetary

policies of the government that create confidence for the

investors, improved law order conditions, upgradation and

addition to infrastructures supportive of investments,

prevention of smuggling, etc.

There was a time when landlessness which accompany

inevitably poverty and its attendant ills, affected a smaller

part of the Bangladesh population than today.

But the number of the landless ones is noted to be rising

in the country. People are forced to sell their last parcels of

ancestral holdings after falling into worse poverty

conditions in the wake of natural calamities ; river

erosion regularly leads to loss of homesteads and

croplands for a large number of people.

The ones without land join the ranks of the worst ones in

extreme poverty and the tasks of poverty alleviation

becomes even more difficult. According to one reliable

assessment, the number of the landless in the

population was 28 per cent in 1972 ; the number has

increased to 50 per cent at present. Bhumi

AdhikarParisad, an NGO, claims that the number of

the landless today is as high as 54 per cent.

Considering the links between landlessness and poverty

or the need to score better successes against poverty, it is

so important to put a hard brake on the process of

becoming landless. One way of doing it involves

distributing government owned lands, called khas lands,

among landless people. There is also a countywide

programme for doing this but it suffers from pervasive

corruption and neglect.

A report in this paper sometime ago highlighted that in

the Sylhet district about 53 per cent of the distribution of

khas lands remained pending while the 47 per cent of

those who received khas lands against their names were

undeserving persons.

Locally influential groups could get their target

persons to become beneficiaries in the settlement of

khas lands to the exclusion of ones who should have got

ownership rights over these lands in view of their

landless state and acute poverty.

In the cases of both undistributed and distributed khas

lands, unlawful squatters are in possession by using their

links to locally powerful vested interest groups.

The situation in Sylhet is symbolic of khas lands

distribution in other areas of the country. Clearly, the

report indicates the need to take action in two fronts : to

ensure that truly landless and very poor persons get

entitlement as well as effective possession of khas lands

and the eviction of undeserving people from their

current occupation of these lands.

Amputating Lebanon from the Arab world

The dismissive retort of

Lebanon's ridiculous Foreign

Minister Abdullah Bou Habib

to GCC proposals for addressing the

latest crisis was: "If they just want

Hezbollah's head on a plate, we can't

give them that." Healso ludicrously

blamed Saudi Arabia for Hezbollah

flooding the Gulf states with

narcotics. Such was BouHabib's

volley of abuse that he may need to

serve up his own head on a plate if

there is to be any hope of salvaging

this shattered relationship.

The logic of abandoning Hezbollah

and Lebanon to drown together, as

advocated by some Arab opinion

leaders, may appear seductive.

However, this would be disastrously

counterproductive. Gaza was

abandoned to Hamas; the economy

collapsed and people starved, but

Hamas entrenched its monopoly.

Gulf states disassociated themselves

from post-2003 Iraq, surrendering it

to Tehran. Arab abandonment of

Syria rendered it a hellish playground

for Iranian-Hezbollah-Russian

interests. Lebanon would be the

cherry on the cake for Iranian

dominance of the Arab world. And

once it is given away, wresting it back

will be no easy feat.

Hezbollah is Tehran's Trojan horse

for colonizing the Arab world. We

must dismantle it, not welcome it in.

The Houthis in Yemen thrived thanks

to Hezbollah training and support.

Hezbollah waded through a river of

Syrian Arab blood to maintain

Tehran's puppet in power, with

Hezbollah deputy leader Naim

Qassim now threatening to send

additional Hezbollah forces back to

Syria. Hezbollah leader Hassan

Nasrallah is the idol of thousands of

bearded Hashd thugs in Iraq - and

after their recent electoral wipeout,

Tehran wants Hezbollah to play an

even more direct role.

The international community is

wrong to consider Lebanon in

isolation. In the context of escalating

stakes in Iran's game of nuclear

brinkmanship, Hezbollah is just one

grants victory to Iran

of the cards in Tehran's efforts to

dominate the region, buttressed by

nuclear and ballistic weapons. If we

are to abandon Lebanon, we may as

well go the whole way and recognise

Ayatollah Khamenei as Supreme

Leader over the entire region.

Iran and Hezbollah made inroads

only because of the eclipse of Arab

nationalism - the belief that Arabs

should stand together locally and on

the world stage. From Jerusalem to

Sanaa, from Baghdad to Beirut, we

should treat every inch of Arab

territory as sacrosanct and worth

fighting for, particularly when UN

institutions, international law and

multilateral forums are under

sustained attack. Every scrap of

territory we relinquish only makes

our enemies hungry for more. With

the Arab world's mighty collective

resources, the challenges posed by

tiny Lebanon and hostile Iranian

encroachment should be well within

our capabilities.

Let's not rip our own heart out. The

Arab world without Beirut - without

the Lebanon of Khalil Gibran,

Mikhail Naimy, Fairuz - is

inconceivable. Generations of

Khaleejis flocked to Lebanon and fell

in love with the country and its

people, which is why so many are

blessed with Lebanese mothers! The

largely Kuwaiti-owned town of

Bhamdoun, near Beirut, is a

microcosm of this seamless

Lebanese-Khaleej relationship.

Generations of Arabs were raised on

Lebanese films and TV, art, music,

poetry, and boundless creativity.

Lebanon's cultural renaissance

since the civil war was achieved

BARIA ALAMUDDIN

FAN HONGDA

thanks to vast GCC investment. Its

economy thrived thanks to millions

of Arab visitors every year, with tens

of billions of dollars of investment in

banking, telecoms, media,

infrastructure, culture and the

military. Diaspora remittances

amount to about $7 billion a year,

$2.2 billion from Saudi Arabia alone,

and Lebanese assets in Saudi Arabia

are worth about $100billion. Eighty

percent of Lebanese fruit and

vegetable exports went to Saudi

Arabia until Nasrallah turned

Lebanon into a narco state.

This is not about gratitude, but

rather a hard-headed understanding

of the foundations of Lebanon's past

and future prosperity. The

transformation into an Iranian

appendage was always fated to fail.

Aside from lavishing funds on

Hezbollah, would - or could - Tehran

supply the merest fraction of Gulf

investment in Lebanon? The trickle

of Iranian tourists encouraged by

Hezbollah have minuscule spending

power compared with their Gulf

predecessors.

Other than in Houthi-land, where

George Kordahi is hailed a hero (his

family must be so proud!) Lebanon's

hapless information minister is a

nobody who once had a lucky break

via a Saudi TV channel. The problem

is infinitely larger than his bigoted

views. Virulent anti-Gulf propaganda

has been pumped out for decades by

Al-Manar and dozens of other Iransponsored

Beirut media channels.

The damage is entirely to Lebanon,

cutting off its nose to spite its face in

gratuitous self-mutilation against

Lebanon's Arab identity.

GCC political leaders and

intellectuals I speak to aren't so much

angry as puzzled and saddened. They

have lifelong ties with Lebanon and

instinctively desire to help. But how

can you assist someone who is

destroying themselves and doesn't

want to be rescued?

Lebanon's criminal leaders are

beyond redemption (not just

Hezbollah - kullun!), but Lebanon's

citizens - Christian, Shiite, Druze,

Sunni - are Arab to the bone. They

know where their interests lie. They

know what severing ties with the

Arab world has cost them. They all

have brothers, uncles, sons in Gulf

and Arab states, and so retain

intimate material and emotional

connections to the Arab world.

Lebanon is drowning but it is not

lost. Particularly with elections just

months away and a vigorous upswell

of progressive anti-sectarian

independents arising from the 2019

movement, there is everything to play

for. Hashd electoral losses in Iraq

demonstrate how public anger can be

translated into political losses for

Iranian proxies. In Lebanon,

Hezbollah's political dominance is

wholly reliant upon hollowed-out

Christian factions whose support

base has cratered.

Lebanese citizens who lost

everything are desperately looking

for a savior. Arab states can use the

elections to toss Lebanon a lifeline. If

citizens elect new and nondiscredited

leaders who can

marginalize Hezbollah then the GCC

will fully re-engage, while also

encouraging international donors

such as the IMF to refloat the

economy. This is a vision that every

patriotic Lebanese citizen can rally

around, simultaneously giving them

a reason to participate in the

democratic process, providing an exit

route from their hellish situation, and

sweeping aside these ridiculous,

hated figures who have dominated

Lebanese politics for decades too long.

Source: Arab news

The Palestine question cannot be viewed

through an old lens

Despite the fact that the Palestine

question has waned in importance in

the hotspot-ridden Middle East, it still

manages to attract some attention. Not only

do Palestinians, Israelis, and other closely

involved parties have differing perspectives

on the issue, but Chinese public opinion is also

becoming increasingly divided.

The Palestine question must be divided into

stages, taking into account the differences in

the characteristics of the issue at various

timeframes, in the sense that the present

cannot be viewed through the lens of the past.

The question of Palestine, which has

hampered peace in the Middle East for more

than a century, has its roots in the rise of

Zionism in the late 19th century. It can be

divided into three stages of development,

from its inception to the present: territorial

competition between Jews and Palestinians;

successive wars between Israel and the Arab

states; and Palestine's current claim to Israeliheld

territories for the establishment of an

independent state.

The United Nations Resolution 181 on the

partition of the Palestine Mandate, which was

issued on November 29, 1947, marked the

end of the first stage of the question of

Palestine. With the rise of the Zionist

movement and increased Jewish

immigration to Palestine, competition for

land between Jews and Palestinians became

more intense.

At the urging of the major powers, the UN

voted on the partition and the establishment

of a Jewish state and a Palestinian Arab state.

All Arab countries voted against the

partition, and when Israel declared statehood

on May 14, 1948, many of them waged war on

the new state in the name of defending

Palestinian interests. The Arab states were

adamant about standing up for Palestinians

because they saw Palestine as part of the Arab

world and Palestinians as part of the Arab

people.

As a result, the history of the Palestinians, as

seen through their eyes, can be traced back to

the Arab conquest of Palestine following the

rise of Islam in the 7th century AD.

Until the adoption of the UN resolution on

the partition of Palestine in 1947, Palestinians

were a people ruled by others, never having

established their own independent state and

severely lacking the capacity and ability to do

so. The Arab states' collective boycott and

Lebanon's cultural renaissance since the civil war was

achieved thanks to vast GCC investment. Its economy

thrived thanks to millions of Arab visitors every year, with

tens of billions of dollars of investment in banking,

telecoms, media, infrastructure, culture and the military.

rejection of Resolution 181 pushed the

Palestinians even further away from

establishing an independent and sovereign

state on that basis.

The First Middle East War began on May

15, 1948, the day after Israel was established

in accordance with UN Resolution 181, when

several Arab countries launched a military

attack on Israel under the banner of

defending Palestinian interests. This led to the

second stage of the question of Palestine, the

Arab-Israeli War, which ended with the Third

Middle East War in 1967.

When the First Middle East War ended in

1949, the land given to the Palestinians for

statehood by UN Resolution 181 was divided

among Israel, Transjordan (later renamed

Jordan), and Egypt. When the Third Middle

East War ended in 1967, Israel also took

control of Palestinian land that had been

occupied by Jordan and Egypt, worsening the

Palestinian situation even further. With the

defeat of the Arab states, the second stage of

the question of Palestine also came to a close.

Where war had failed to bring a solution,

Yasser Arafat, the leader of the Palestinian

Liberation Organization (PLO), made the

decision to pursue a path of peace with Israel,

bringing the question of Palestine to its third

stage. Arafat declared the establishment of the

State of Palestinian in 1988, despite the fact

that he had no physical control over the

territory, signaling to Israel that a peaceful

solution to the question of Palestine was on

the table.

After the Middle East Peace Conference in

Madrid in 1991, the Palestinian-Israeli peace

process became the primary means of

resolving the question of Palestine. Since

then, the core of the question of Palestine has

shifted to Palestinian demands for the return

of occupied Palestinian lands from Israeli

hands and for the establishment of an

independent state.

Since 1967, when Israel seized more than

6,000 square kilometers of Palestinian lands

in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the

Gaza Strip from Jordan and Egypt during the

Third Middle East War, these lands have been

the focus of Palestinian statehood claims.

After the Madrid Middle East Peace

Conference and ongoing Palestinian-Israeli

peace talks, the Palestinian National

Authority gained control of a portion of the

land from Israel, and the de jure sovereign

State of Palestine now administers 2,500

square kilometers of territory.

Despite the current perceptions of a few

countries, such as Israel and the US, the

international community continues to

support a two-state solution to the question of

Palestine (that is, an independent Israel and a

Palestinian state).

The Palestinian territory controlled by

Egypt and Jordan prior to the outbreak of the

Third Middle East War in 1967 is the basis for

the current Palestinian claim to statehood.

After the Madrid Middle East Peace Conference and

ongoing Palestinian-Israeli peace talks, the Palestinian

National Authority gained control of a portion of the land

from Israel, and the de jure sovereign State of Palestine

now administers 2,500 square kilometers of territory.

However, objectively, this is an unattainable

dream.

Israel will never give up East Jerusalem,

and no Israeli decision-maker will ever order

a withdrawal from the West Bank's Jewish

settlements against the will of 400,000

Jewish settlers. It is a matter of national

stability for Israel, and the careers of its

politicians are on the line, whereas no

international force is strong enough to force

Israel to withdraw from these lands; the

Palestinians are all the more powerless in this

regard.

The Palestinians must be more realistic

about the boundaries of their future state, and

the international community must fully take

this into account. The hitherto fragmented

Palestinian political forces need to unite as

soon as possible and define a realistic path

and objectives for the sake of their own

statehood.

Some nations and individuals blame Israel

for the current plight of the Palestinians, with

some even criticizing 19th-century Zionists for

returning to Palestine and establishing a

nation-state. The fact remains that one of the

world's most widely influential books - the

Bible - makes their case; not even atheists can

deny the enormous impact this tome has had

and continues to have on the world.

How can a Zionist ignore the Bible's

account of the Jews and their forefathers and

deny the connection between the Jewish

people and Palestine?

Furthermore, Israel is a state that was

established under international law and in

accordance with UN resolutions, and Israel's

occupation of Palestinian land is the result of

wars that the Arab states waged against it;

most of the territories were won from

previous occupiers of Palestinian lands,

namely Jordan and Egypt. The plight of the

Palestinians today is clearly not the fault of

Israel alone.

Third parties must have a more up-to-date

and objective understanding of the question

of Palestine. Because the two parties directly

involved - Israel and the Palestinians - are the

most important to a future resolution of the

question of Palestine, third parties should be

more mindful of their respective viewpoints.

For instance, what is the Palestinian

position on establishing a truly independent

state? How much land is Israel likely to give

up and what land will it give up?

In addition, what is the Arab states' actual

stance on the question of Palestine? Extraregional

third parties should also factor this

into their disposition toward the question of

Palestine, which is, after all, closely linked to

Arab states. What's more, despite its waning

international clout, the US continues to wield

influence over the question of Palestine that

simply cannot be matched by outside players.

Without these fundamental understandings,

simply supporting Palestine or Israel will not

be beneficial to the resolution of the question

of Palestine, and may even be detrimental to

the process. When a third party's approach to

the conflict becomes overtly biased toward

one side, it will undoubtedly undermine the

other party's desire to cooperate, causing

more harm than good to the resolution of the

question of Palestine.

Source: Asia times

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!