11 - 17 October 2001
Issue No.555
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 11 - 17 October 2001 Issue No.555 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
The war inside America
Is the tide of US policy slowly turning against Israel? Mohamed Hakki checks the wind
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's rude and uncalled-for remarks about America and the West selling out Israel as Britain and France did Czechoslovakia in 1938 do not constitute an isolated incident. They did not give rise to a "misunderstanding," as he called it. They are merely part of the continuous and concerted effort by all Israel's Likud prime ministers to prove that, as Sharon himself said recently, Israel "controls" America. He was quoted as having exclaimed indignantly: "You keep telling me this will anger America. Don't you understand? We control America. We know it and they know it."
This arrogance was already evident in relations between Menachem Begin and US President Jimmy Carter. Carter believed Begin had promised to freeze settlement building for the duration of the negotiations following Camp David. Begin not only reneged on his promise but, less than 24 hours after he had given Carter his word, he baldly denied ever having done so. Every member of President Carter's team, including Secretary of State Cyrus Vance and William Quandt, corroborated Carter's understanding. Later, Zbigniew Brzezinski said that Carter was planning to sit down in front of the TV cameras and tell it like it was, but refrained because he feared it might trigger a wave of anti- Semitism across the land.
Israel's attitude was no different when the former President Bush made approval of a $10 billion loan guarantee for Israel conditional on freezing settlement construction. Yitzhak Shamir reportedly replied that Israel controlled Congress and sent 1,000 lobbyists to the Capitol to prove his point. When President Bush described himself as "one little guy down here" confronting America's most powerful lobby, he received overwhelming and spontaneous support from the American people. Jewish lobby leaders considered this a declaration of war. They effectively fought his reelection and defeated him; but Shamir, too, was defeated in the process. This was exactly ten years ago.
Even President Clinton, the most pro-Israeli president in US history, got an unpleasantly large dose of Israeli chutzpah. Surrounding himself with Jewish cabinet members and advisors -- not to mention virtually the entire foreign policy and national security apparatus -- was not enough. When Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu felt Clinton had snubbed him, he threatened to "burn Washington;" not a whimper emanated from the White House, nor a single exclamation of anger or surprise from Congress.
Now it is Mr Sharon's turn. The Bush administration's steadfast support for his crimes against the Palestinians was insufficient. He could not understand the change that came about after 11 September, or accept America's need for Arab support in its war against terrorism. He could not believe that armies of supporters and "Israel firsters" were unable to bully Secretary of State Colin Powell into doing what they wanted. The New York Times, which frequently refers to Sharon as "the bulldozer," remarked that he does not like to be pushed himself; yet he put America on notice five days after the attacks. Sharon claimed that the Arab countries were demanding that Israel pay a diplomatic and security price in return for their joining the coalition. This Israeli would not do.
Mr Sharon made two mistakes. By allowing his goons to attack Colin Powell viciously, he risked arousing the anger of the African American community. By criticising President Bush directly, he risked angering the whole American people.
The American Jewish community was obviously deeply worried about the daily reminders on every television channel that Israel is, if not the sole cause of the problem, at least a major part of it. The terrorists were not the only ones angry about US acquiescence to the atrocities Israel continues to commit: everyone felt the injustice deeply. It certainly fueled the terrorists' sick minds. In much the same way, right-wing extremist groups perceived the disaster at Waco as an onslaught in a war the US government was waging against them. They saw the attack not as a botched-up FBI job but an attempt to annihilate them. It produced Timothy McVeigh.
Although it tamed the media years ago, the Jewish community could not bolt the floodgates and bottle up the free and objective statements being made by independent experts -- retired generals, military analysts, religious leaders, men and women from all walks of life. Israel, they all seemed to agree, is definitely to blame.
Many people are angry because they perceive that the US is supporting repressive governments and undemocratic regimes; most countries, furthermore, abhor Israel's genocidal and repressive policies. The Durban conference is just one example, albeit a glaring one. Not a single country supported the US or Israel there.
Even before Sharon made his foolish remarks, American Jewish organisations were in crisis because the US administration was discussing the creation of a Palestinian state. A letter signed by at least 50 American Jewish figures was presented to the White House expressing support for the administration's war on terrorism as well as policy efforts in the Middle East. This group was deeply worried about the vicious attack the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) had launched on Colin Powell and the administration's Middle East policies. AIPAC, for example, criticised President Bush's "advisers" advocating the creation of a Palestinian state. In a statement, AIPAC said the advisers were encouraging the president "to reward rather than punish those that harbour and support terrorism." Mortimer Zuckerman, the chairman of the conference of presidents of major American Jewish organisations, went so far as to describe the administration's positions as short-sighted and erroneous.
Pro-Israeli neo-conservatives who made a career out of being anti-Soviet have also criticised the administration vehemently. Forty- one of them signed a letter to the president, published in the weekly Standard, calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime, the elimination of Hizbullah, and retaliatory measures against Iran and Syria. They also asked the US to stop providing assistance to the Palestinian Authority. They include figures like William Kristol (former advisor to Vice-President Dan Quayle), Richard Allen (National Security adviser to President Ronald Reagan), Gary Bauer (former presidential candidate) and other "usual suspects" -- Richard Perle, Norman Podhoretz, Jeane Kirkpatrick, and Charles Krauthammer. One surprising new face was Francis Fukuyama, famous for his work on the "end of history." But I was no longer astonished once I had read the article in the Wall Street Journal (5 September) where he had written: "Islam is the only cultural system that seems to regularly produce people, like Osama bin Laden or the Taliban, who reject modernity lock, stock, and barrel." He also thinks there is something about Islam, or at least the fundamentalist versions of Islam dominant in recent years, that makes Muslim societies particularly resistant to modernity and democracy. It is no coincidence that he never mentions Israel once, or the humiliation imposed on the Palestinian people with US support.
Still, the tide does seem to be turning. Several anecdotes further illustrate the growing sense of unease with Israeli manipulation of America at the Palestinians' expense. The Americans for Peace Now movement has released the results of its most recent aerial survey of settlements in the West Bank. The survey reveals that at least 10 new active settlements were established between June and September, although Sharon's government coalition guidelines state explicitly that no new settlements are to be built. Since 11 September, furthermore, Israeli soldiers have killed nearly 30 Palestinians, reoccupied Jenin and Hebron, and imposed even tighter restrictions on the captive Palestinian population of the West Bank and Gaza.
Within the foreign policy establishment, opinion is also changing. In an article distributed by e-mail to members of the Diplomatic Club, former ambassador Ron Speirs criticises Israeli policies, saying they have contributed to Arab and Muslim anger and frustration. When Max Kampleman, another member of the club, criticised him harshly, 50 ambassadors replied, expressing support for Speirs's views.
Sharon may have apologised for his gaffe, but the whole episode remains an open question, as Barbara Crossette put it in the New York Times. Does the US response constitute a setback for Israel? It remains a risky gamble at any rate, one that comes late in the game, and carries within it a commitment to active future involvement in the region, a burden the Bush administration thus far had shrunk from shouldering.
Now that military action has begun, the question is whether or not the administration will honour its pledge to the Arabs and Palestinians after the guns fall silent. If the Americans underestimate the lure and logic of what Bin Laden and company are saying now, however misleading it is, we are all in for a very long, dangerous and bumpy ride.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
Recommend this page