 |
Al-Ahram Weekly On-line 19 - 25 October 2000 Issue No. 504 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly On-line 19 - 25 October 2000 Issue No. 504
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
||
Egypt Elections Palestine International Economy Opinion Culture Focus Features Travel Sports Profile People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Generations of anger
By Gamil Mattar
I was left with the bitterest sense of irony after reading a recent article by William Saphire, the Jewish American columnist whose blood courses with venom and whose pen drips racist malice against the Palestinian people and everything that is Arab, Islamic, or Eastern Christian. Saphire, in his article, appealed to the US government to give up its "neutral" mediating role between the Israelis and Palestinians and to ally itself with Israel in order to protect it from those Arab "snakes," in the words of the spiritual leader of the Israeli Shas Party, or Arab "barbarians," as a spokesman for the Jews of Italy put it. It seems, too, that the timing of Saphire's article was not haphazard. Within a few hours of its publication, a convention of Miami Jews met and drew up a resolution calling upon Washington to declare its support of Israel openly in its conflict with the Palestinians and the other Arabs.
What struck me as so hideously funny in the Saphire article and the subsequent Jews of Miami communiqué was that many Arabs these days have been saying exactly the same thing -- that Washington should come right out and say that it would no longer play the mediator, thereby restoring to the US a measure of credibility and consistency more in keeping with its status as the world's greatest superpower. And indeed, the only consistent element of US policy, especially with regard to the Middle East issue, is that it has always said one thing and done completely the opposite. It has put itself forward as a partner and an "honest broker" in the peace process. A partner it has been, no more or less than Israel, the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Syria. But by no means has it been an "honest broker." At no point, since Camp David at least, has it undertaken any action to demonstrate that it was a dependable, sincere, fair and impartial mediator. Camp David itself was a thinly disguised trap set up by the US go-between to force the Palestinian negotiators into choosing between two impossible alternatives: either concede to the Israeli solution for Jerusalem or stand charged as having forfeited a last-ditch opportunity for peace. Had the US truly been a fair and honest broker, it would not have forwarded an Israeli proposal as though it were its own, it would not have made Jerusalem the issue to make or break Camp David and it would not have laid so many snares to embarrass the Palestinian authorities in the Arab world and internationally. By no stretch of the imagination are these acts of an impartial intermediary; they are the acts of an adversary.
The list of favours this mediator has performed for Israel is endless, as is the untold damage it has inflicted upon the Arabs. That monstrous machine known as US diplomacy has worked to keep other international parties from playing a mediating role or even having so much as a say of their own on the issues. And to see all those leaders scurrying off to the Middle East, with Kofi Annan in the lead, as thought they were schoolchildren charged with an assignment, one can only conclude that the machine did its job effectively. Not one of these leaders had anything new or constructive to offer commensurate to the conflagration whose blaze was set off by the Israeli generals and fanned throughout the entire region. All they did was to parrot Washington's fear for Israel and for Israeli POWs in Lebanon. Not one expressed sincere sympathy for the Palestinian young killed and maimed by Israeli bullets and missiles or a desire to visit the wounded or the families of the dead. Neither Kofi Annan, the EU delegate nor any other envoy asked to visit Palestinian and Lebanese detainees in Israeli prisons, but they all wanted to be reassured of the safety of Israeli POWs.
Whatever it might say to the contrary, Washington is Israel's ally. Its opposition in the Security Council to the draft resolution proposed by the non-aligned countries with regard to Israeli assaults on Palestinian civilians is neither the first nor the last demonstration of its position. That the US exerts occasional pressure on Israel, as is sometimes pointed out, does not detract from the reality of its alliance with Israel. To ask Israel to defer declaring a national unity government or to postpone mounting retaliatory raids against Lebanon are little more than stopgaps. What the US did not do is tell Israel to move its forces away from Palestinian cities and villages and to stop using excess force. Moreover, the US never once until today asked Israel to implement the relevant international resolutions and end its occupation of Arab territories.
Some Arabs argue that it is against our interests to deal with the US as an adversary, even if that is how the US deals with us. What harm can come of continuing to delude our people and ourselves in order to repel a greater harm, they ask. What good would it bring us were we to be absolutely candid and admit to the US and to our people that we know Washington is not an honest broker, has never been an honest broker and can never be an honest broker because, the US, at least as far as its current strategic thinking goes, perceives the Arab nation as its enemy, or potential enemy? Were we to be so open and aboveboard with the US, they say, we would lose potential support among various sectors of US public opinion and we would only be playing into the hands of Jewish lobbies in the US and in Europe.
It is worth recalling, however, that for some time India consistently refused to believe that the US could act as a fair and impartial mediator and that, despite its longstanding conflict with US policy, it always found encouragement and respect among the US public and now enjoys Washington's support and understanding. Cuba, and Castro personally, triumphed on the basis of their hostility to the US and now they are both treated with respect by the US government, sentiments that are gradually pervading Congress. Another example is China. No matter how strong its economic and commercial relations with the US, China remains suspicious of Washington's intentions and is ever vigilant against some underhandedness and even open hostility when the matter pertains to Taiwan.
In all these cases, to which we can add Russia, North Korea and some European countries, notably France, relations with the US are founded upon a certain mutual candour and openness. All these governments are perfectly aware of where they agree and disagree with the US and they are not about to delude their people into believing that the US is their close ally or an impartial intermediary. Nor do they have to. They share economic interests with the US, no more; this is where their relationship with Washington ends, and should end. All these nations were able to resolve their problems, or most of their problems, with the US because they dealt with it as an adversary or an interested rival. Why should the Arabs act any differently? Why should we let Israel continue to hide behind so-called US efforts and why should we let the US continue to hide behind its cloak of mediator? Was the US an honest broker when it used all its influence in its push for a limited summit in Sharm Al-Sheikh in order to rescue the third in a series of Israeli rulers who was on the verge of drowning? Was Washington being truly fair and impartial when it arrogantly gave itself the right to determine who could or could not attend the summit? Could it be that it did not want Russia, Spain, France or any other party to stand witness as it reprimanded and threatened one party, then flattered and humoured the other? Or perhaps it feared that it would betray to others not only its anxieties as to Israel's security and the stability of its government, but also as to its own interests and security, its economic welfare and the stability of the domestic situation.
The Arabs are angry. The Arab people know that the US is an adversary, not a mediator. If Arab governments cannot admit to the fact that they are suffering under US pressure, whether as "a close friend" or as an "honest broker," they have only themselves to blame. It is not reasonable that the US should compound the problems of governments already encumbered by untold concerns. Nor is it acceptable for the US to persist in inciting the anger of the peoples of the region in the hope that the Arab governments will quell that anger at every turn.
The Arab people in recent weeks have confirmed that a major change has taken place. At the heart of this change is the fact that they will no longer allow their governments or themselves to be humiliated, not by Israel and not by US brokerage. All eyes will be on the Arab summit and I am certain that the reaction to its results will be different quantitatively and qualitatively from anything we have seen before. Young Egyptians have remained poised for action in recent days. This is the "Camp David" generation, the generation nurtured on the culture of peace, on peaceful solutions to conflict and on peaceful coexistence and normalisation with Israel. And this generation is very angry.
Related:
Intifada in focus 12 - 18 October 2000
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
