13 - 19 December 2001
Issue No.564
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 13 - 19 December 2001 Issue No.564 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
Getting rid of Arafat
Mohamed Hakki has a better idea
To remove him or not to remove him? That is the question everyone in Washington is asking. The subject is Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, and the debate is taking place not among Israelis, or even pro-Israeli Jews in America, but among media commentators and other talking heads.
Open almost any American newspaper or turn on the television: chances are, you will hear the same discussion. I first noticed this characteristic of life in Washington -- a goldfish bowl if ever I saw one -- in 1973: commentators start a discussion and then think: "If everyone agrees about this, it must be right." Now, therefore, the goal is to get rid of Arafat, or so it seems.
It all started with the suicide attacks in Jerusalem and Haifa, which killed 25 Israelis. That weekend, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was meeting US President George Bush.
Everyone thought Bush would put some pressure on Sharon during this meeting. Instead, in the immediate aftermath of the bombings, there was an outpouring of sympathy in the United States for the innocent victims. In this sense, the Palestinian act was both self-defeating and self-destructive. Bush, who had launched a peace initiative only two weeks earlier, and referred to "Palestine" and a two-state solution, must have been livid.
Several other factors came into play, however. Sharon not only defied the US president, he was determined to torpedo the US peace initiative before it began. He knew the tide in America was turning against Israel. No matter how much Israel's friends try to distance it from the events of 11 September, Israel still hovers in the background. It may not be considered the root cause of what happened (no one, after all, would want to exonerate the perpetrators) it nevertheless forms the backdrop against which the Arab world inevitably views America.
So what did Sharon do to prevent the tide from turning? Only a day before the US envoy to the Middle East, Anthony Zinni, arrived in Israel, Sharon ordered the assassination of Hamas military leader Mahmoud Abu Hannoud. When the militant group responded with suicide attacks in Jerusalem and Haifa, Sharon wrapped himself in the American anti- terrorism flag. He cynically uses American-supplied F-16's, Apache helicopter gunships and tanks to bomb the Palestinian people to kingdom come, and destroy the American peace initiative in the process. He claims all Palestinians are terrorists, and Arafat is another Bin Laden. He relies on his knowledge that the American media might show a picture or two of Palestinian homes being demolished, but will not dwell on the Israeli forces maiming and killing Palestinian children. He is confident that the US media is not as free as the European or even the Israeli media, both light years ahead of the US when it comes to showing what is really happening in the occupied territories.
American audiences do not see Israeli sharpshooters blowing off the heads of Palestinian children on their way to school. They do not see mothers giving birth at Israeli checkpoints, then watch their babies die before they can get to a hospital in the next town. They never, ever, see a day in the life of a people who, having been occupied by military force for 34 years, now face new and horrific suffering under the inhuman conditions of closure and siege imposed by Sharon. All this is hidden.
Bush gave Sharon the right to "defend" his country as he sees fit. Then Congress stepped in. They gave Sharon the go-ahead, and he began his rampage. Both Houses of Congress passed a resolution "expressing solidarity with Israel in the fight against terrorism." Thus, Israel's war against the Palestinians has been characterised as an extension of America's fight against terrorism. The sheer number of Congresspeople willing to approve this bill is more worrying than the bill itself, which the Senate approved unanimously (and which received only 11 votes against, with 21 voting not present, in the House).
Congress says that Arafat has to destroy "the infrastructure of the Palestinian terrorist campaign." But commentators say that Arafat himself has to go, without revealing what comes next. Very few allow that he might be "a necessity for peace."
Unfortunately, the US media are not the only outlets that have come to this conclusion. Even the distinguished Economist is now chiming in: Arafat "may well be past his retirement age." Its commentators continue: "Brilliant as he is a resistance leader, he has turned out to be rotten at government, leading his people to wretchedness." Sadly, the Economist repeats the two canards propagated by Israel's friends in America: that he failed to prevent a year of Palestinian violence against Israel, and that he failed to accept a "fair deal" last year in Camp David.
It took an Israeli to rebut this nonsense. Emanual Gross, professor of law at Haifa University, who served in the Israeli army for 25 years as a soldier and later as a military judge, wrote in the Washington Post: "Waging war on Yasser Arafat and his Palestinian Authority will not solve the problems in the Middle East. That can only happen at the negotiating table." He believes that getting to the negotiating table is like a tango -- you need a partner to cooperate, and he is almost sure that "our partner is not Arafat." But there is another side to the consequences to getting rid of Arafat. Professor Shibli Telhami of the University of Maryland writes: "The demise of Arafat and the Palestinian Authority would significantly increase the prospects of transforming the conflict into a religious and ethnic one. The entire nationalist project would crumble."
This is an important point, especially in light of the war against terror in Afghanistan and the new dangers to which it has given birth; and this is why the Taliban's collapse comes as such a relief to the US and Arab governments alike.
It gives both sides a chance to put to rest the silly notion of the clash of civilisations. Western civilisation is the culmination of a process made up of the experiences of many others, chief among them Muslim civilisation. It is built on the positive foundations both America and the Arab world have been trying to maintain since the Cold War, despite the overwhelming influence that Israel has on the US's Middle East policy.
For nearly 16 years, under Reagan and Clinton, each of which lasted two terms, Israel came to enjoy a complete monopoly over US policies in this region. Its hegemony was only interrupted during the four years of the first Bush administration, which proved clearly that only US pressure on Israel could bring results. "Had Bush not forced Israel to choose between US aid and the West Bank settlements," opines Israeli historian Avi Shlaim, "Yitzhak Shamir might have won the 1992 elections and the peace process might have withered."
Shlaim refutes claims that Bill Clinton abruptly reverted to a robust Israel- first approach reminiscent of the Reagan years. Instead of providing leadership in the search for a fair and comprehensive settlement, the Clinton administration helped Israel impose its unilateral terms on the Palestinians and the Jordanians.
Now Bush Jr has a unique opportunity to bring about peace in the Middle East. More than any other leader in recent history, he has a chance to impose a fair solution and put an end to this conflict. He owes no debt whatsoever to Israel or to American Jews for his presidency. His domestic popularity is unparalleled. He has no grudge or quarrel with most Arab countries. If anything, they are all helping him in his fight against terror, although its target is a Muslim country.
If he insists that Israel must give up its "mad dream," as James Baker called it, Israel will have to comply. What else can it do? Turn to Micronesia, the only country apart from the US that consistently votes in its favour at the UN? Can they both stand up to America? In a recent interview, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security adviser to President Carter, remarked: "Precisely because neither side can take the final step, it would be helpful for the US, backed by Europe, to outline in detail what a fair peace would actually involve. What would be the details? Initially, I am sure both sides would not like it, but eventually they will have to say yes."
This is the tack the Arab leaders should adopt. They should form a coalition with Europe and Asia and encourage Bush to take this bold step. He knows the time is right for creating peace in the Middle East, but he has left the hard work to Colin Powell. He has nothing to fear. The pro-Israeli, right-wing cavemen in his defence department enjoy no prestige, no following, and no general respect in the country. They have never been elected to anything. Even Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld publicly mocked Richard Perle, leader of this pack and nicknamed the prince of darkness because he advocates war on most issues.
Indeed, Bush's war on terrorism should galvanise him to take the next step and make peace. He would thereby eliminate 90 per cent of the grievances Osama Bin Laden has cited against America. He would go down in history as the first hero of the 21st century. Such an initiative would guarantee peace and prosperity for Israel, not to mention the rest of the region. During the Gulf War, American officials searched for a polite term to describe Israel's role and came up at last with "irrelevant." Most officials thought Israel was a nuisance -- worse, an expensive nuisance.
This time, Israel is trying to insert itself anywhere and everywhere it can. But it has no place in this war. It remains a nuisance and an embarrassment. It even appears willing to go in and save Pakistani nuclear reactors if Pervez Musharraf's regime falls. It is acting as if it were the superpower and the US the client state. If Bush decides to impose an American solution, what can the Israelis do? Assassinate him? Emanual Gross concluded his article thus: "Even now that I am really angry with what Arafat is doing I know that we must not try to impose new leadership upon the Palestinian people. I can still understand the dreams and aspirations of the Palestinians for an independent state with East Jerusalem as its capital, and resolving the problem of the Palestinian refugees."
If anything, this shows that Bush can rely for support on wide numbers of Israelis who want neither to pack their bags and go, as Gross says, nor to live in constant fear of suicide attacks. A leader's job and duty is to lead. If Bush leads, the world will follow. He would be the first US president to receive a Nobel peace prize while in office; and he would certainly serve a second term.
© 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