11 - 17 April 2002
Issue No.581
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 11 - 17 April 2002 Issue No.581 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
Sidelining Arafat
Has Sharon convinced Bush it is time to dispose of the Palestinian leader? Mohamed Sid-Ahmed examines the question
The Palestinian Authority has unconditionally accepted President Bush's ideas on ending the bloodshed in the Middle East and his call for Israel to begin withdrawing from Palestinian-controlled cities, as well as his insistence that the Palestinian people and their leaders condemn terrorist attacks against Israelis. He also announced that he was sending Secretary of State Colin Powell to the Middle East to work for a cease-fire.
Arafat welcomed the American proposals because they call on Israel to stop building settlements in the occupied territories, to withdraw from the territories it has reoccupied in recent days, and to distinguish between those Bush describes as terrorists and ordinary Palestinian people, so that Palestinians are no longer subject to harassment and humiliation at borders and checkpoints.
Bush's proposals were also welcomed by European capitals. French President Jacques Chirac described them as "very positive" and a "turning point" in the efforts furnished to reach a cease-fire. His foreign minister, Hubert Vedrine, who is usually critical of American foreign policy, said "the time has come to search for possible alternatives which will help Israelis and Palestinians break out of the impasse." A spokesman for British Prime Minister Tony Blair said "Britain, as the US's principal ally, welcomes the leading role President Bush is now assuming." Italy's Berlusconi supported the move, as did Javier Solana, the European Union's commissioner for security and political affairs. A European delegation including Solana had just visited the region, meeting Peres and Ben Eliezer, both Labour Party ministers in the Likud-led coalition government, but left Israel without speaking to Sharon, in protest at his refusal to allow the delegation to see Arafat.
On the international level, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan described the White House statement as "encouraging" and expressed satisfaction that Washington had decided to activate its role in the region. But European diplomats have noted that, in delaying Powell's visit to the occupied territories for a whole week, Bush was offering Sharon the chance to dismantle the Palestinian infrastructure totally and subject the Palestinians to more attacks, arrests and interrogations.
Arafat also welcomed the US proposals despite the harsh criticism levelled against him by Bush, who laid the full blame for what he called the dramatic deterioration in the situation squarely on the Palestinian leader's shoulders. He accused Arafat of betraying his people's hopes for a Palestinian state, which he said would never materialise through acts of terror. He further accused him of not opposing or confronting terrorists consistently, and described the situation in which he finds himself today as largely "of his own making." Calling on all parties in the Middle East to move decisively in word and deed against terrorist acts, Bush singled the Arab media out for criticism, accusing it of inciting violence by glorifying suicide bombers. As for the violence perpetrated by Israel, Bush, speaking "as a committed friend of Israel," classified it as legitimate self-defence: "America recognises Israel's right to defend itself."
Despite Bush's clear bias, Sharon squarely rejected his proposals, instead stepping up his military offensive against Palestinian cities in total disregard of the two Security Council resolutions calling on him to withdraw immediately.
Israeli diplomats countered charges of insubordination by pointing out that Bush had merely "asked" Israel to halt incursions into Palestinian- controlled areas and begin the withdrawal from the cities it has recently occupied without setting any time- frame for withdrawal. The omission of such a vital detail from such an important policy statement cannot be an accident. Nor, for that matter, can the postponement of Colin Powell's visit to the region for one full week, which many interpret as granting Sharon a grace period in which to continue his rampage throughout the Palestinian areas in the name of destroying terrorist infrastructures.
Bush's failure to set a deadline for withdrawal and his postponement of Powell's visit are also seen as an undeclared invitation to the Israeli prime minister to put his oft-declared statement that Arafat is irrelevant into effect by disposing of him once and for all, either physically or politically. Analysts believe Bush shares Sharon's view that Arafat has outlived his usefulness, pointing to the fact that he avoided referring to the Palestinian leader by name in his statement. The few times he did mention Arafat was to reprimand him for not controlling terrorists, betraying his people's hopes and failing to fulfill his obligations.
Bush called on the Palestinian people, the Palestinian Authority, and "our friends in the Arab world to join us" in delivering a clear message to terrorists. Can his failure to direct his appeal to Arafat be explained as an unintentional lapse, or is it, rather, a sign that the "regime change" he referred to in his joint press conference with Tony Blair is as applicable to Palestine as it is to Iraq? Is it, in fact, an invitation to members of the Palestinian Authority to move away from Arafat and switch their allegiance to an eventual new leader?
And who exactly are "our friends in the Arab world"? Since 11 September, fighting terrorism -- as defined by Bush -- has been the criterion by which nations, leaders and entire peoples are judged and America's alliances determined. Nor does Bush apply the definition of terrorist only to those who use terror tactics against civilians. Even Hizbullah, which has exercised its legitimate right to end the occupation of Lebanese territory by all available means, including military means, as sanctioned by the UN Charter, was recently added to Washington's list of terrorist organisations. Bush called on Syria to decide which side of the war against terror it is on and said he expected it to act against Hizbullah. Its refusal to do so proves that it supports terrorism, and qualifies it to join the ranks of the "axis of evil"...
Bush took a swipe at the two Middle Eastern members of his three-member axis of evil, Iran and Iraq, accusing them of sponsoring terror and instigating violence in the region. In a clear allusion to the shipload of Iranian weapons allegedly headed for the Palestinian territories and intercepted by Israel in the Red Sea a couple of months ago, he said Iran's arms shipments and support for terror fuel conflict in the region and must stop, and described those governments, like Iraq, that reward parents for the sacrifice of their children as guilty of soliciting murder of the worst kind. Is Bush suggesting that Arafat should distance himself from both Iraq and Iran, as members of the "axis of evil," if he wants the US to accept him? Is condemning these countries America's criterion of "friendship"? How to reconcile Bush's support for a peace initiative approved by all the Arab countries, including Iraq and Syria, with his insistence on dividing the Arab world into two camps: countries friendly to America and others which belong to an "axis of evil"?
It is clear that the US administration is no longer opposed to Sharon dealing with the Palestinian Authority as it dealt with Al-Qa'eda in Afghanistan. The situation has not yet reached the point where Arafat is to be treated like Osama Bin Laden, but things are moving in that direction and efforts are now underway to find a Palestinian Karzai.
When Sharon, immediately after Bush launched his war on Afghanistan, announced that Arafat was no different from Bin Laden, that he was, in fact, "the Middle East's Bin Laden" and, as such, not a partner in but a hindrance to the peace process who should, like Bin Laden, be eliminated, the US president made it clear that he did not share this view. At the time, Bush did not want attention diverted from Bin Laden, or the American campaign to be seen in the Arab world as a war against Arabs and Muslims in general.
Now that Al-Qa'eda is assumed to have been dismantled, even if Bin Laden is still on the run, and that the epicentre of events has shifted from Afghanistan to Palestine and Iraq, Bush has come close to accepting Sharon's reading of the situation. Indeed, there are fears that Arafat may soon find himself joining Iraq, Iran and Syria as a member of the "axis of evil" in the Middle East. This is Bush's real answer to the Arab summit in Beirut, which succeeded in producing a document unanimously endorsed by the Arab states.
Actually, what is underway is not only an attempt to dismantle the Palestinian Authority, but also to disrupt Arab cohesion. Can the Arab parties stand up to this challenge before it is too late?
© 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