25 April - 1 May 2002
Issue No.583
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 25 April - 1 May 2002 Issue No.583 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
Time to act
Washington has long stood on the sidelines of Palestinian suffering, but now its own interests are at stake, writes Osama El-Ghazali Harb*
Washington's responsibility to achieve a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict is now more acute than ever. Israel's invasion of the West Bank on 29 March has not only deepened the crisis; it also made the United States look like an accomplice. Before and throughout the invasion, the world's sole superpower threw its weight on the side of one of the most bellicose Israeli governments yet.
Now, Washington has only two options. It could maintain the aloofness that has so far strengthened Israel's hand and, in so doing, jeopardise US interests and security for good. Or it could vigorously try and resolve the conflict. But the latter option would require it to pressure Israel as well, not just the Palestinians.
These two options have been extensively analysed by American political writers over the past few weeks. Some advised a measured and limited US involvement in the region, with the aim of establishing interim security arrangements. Others advised a bold intervention, aimed at achieving a comprehensive political solution. Henry Kissinger, for example, still believes that the United States should refrain from seeking a comprehensive solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict and focus instead on containing the crisis and establishing a cease-fire. Zbignew Brzezinski, on the other hand, wants the United States to work on an overall political settlement. He notes that the United States is the only power capable of accomplishing this task.
The reality, however, is that events in Palestine post-29 March have made it increasingly essential for the United States to play an active role and assume its responsibilities in the Middle East -- responsibilities that it had chosen to forgo for quite some time.
The past few weeks made it clear that the US administration has claimed Israel's battle against the Palestinian Authority (PA) and resistance for its own. For a fleeting moment, following the 11 September attacks, it seemed possible that the United States would comprehend the underlying causes of terror (social repression, political injustices, frustration, despair) and make an earnest effort to address them. Instead, the United States branded Palestinian resistance groups as terrorist, choosing to focus on the methods these groups use rather than the cause they fight for.
Right-wing Zionists happily danced to the same drum. Ariel Sharon described Arafat as "Israel's Bin Laden." Binyamin Netanyahu opined on the "clash of civilisations" that presumably pits the United States and Israel against Arabs and Muslims. Washington's Jewish lobby continued to pursue the same line of argument, with -- and this is a disgrace -- little or no Arab and Muslim opposition.
The overlap in world-views of the Bush administration and Sharon's government were more than evident even before Israel launched its offensive against the Palestinians on 29 March. Cheney refused to meet Arafat during his recent regional tour. A controversy arose over the possibility of Arafat's attending the Beirut Arab Summit. The lack of guarantees for Arafat's return to Ramallah was among the reasons President Hosni Mubarak refrained from attending the summit. By late March, the US and Israel seemed less to be merely cooperating, more to be colluding.
As the Arab summit got underway, with Arab leaders hotly debating both Arafat's fate and the Saudi-proposed peace initiative, a suicide operation took place in Natanya on 27 March. On 28 March, the summit issued its final statement, outlining the Arab peace initiative. It was a natural step for Sharon, a staunch opponent of the peace process and the Oslo accords, to use the Natanya attack to undermine the most important peace offer made by the Arabs since former Egyptian President Anwar El- Sadat first tabled his 1977 peace initiative. And, surprisingly, the Bush administration seemed to endorse Sharon's attitude. The United States did vote in favour of a 30 March UN Security Council resolution calling for Israel's withdrawal from Palestinian areas, but this was little than a PR move. In fact, the United States made no real effort to implement that resolution.
Washington did not ask Israel to exercise self- restraint, a request it had made during the Gulf War. This time round, Washington did not make a serious effort to activate the Arab summit's peace initiative. On the contrary, President George W Bush gave his blessing to the Israeli offensive against Ramallah and other West Bank areas, saying that he understood Israel's need for self-defence.
On 4 April, only a week after Israel launched its offensive, President Bush made a speech, announcing his intention to send Secretary of State Colin Powell to the region. The speech made it clear that Bush was still more concerned about "terror" than peace. It was no coincidence that the Arab peace initiative got little more than a cursory mention in that speech, a few lines noting the Arab offer to recognise Israel and live with it in peace.
Bush made it seem as if the United States and Israel were standing together against Palestinian "terror," which Arafat was failing to curb.
Not even Sharon's government itself could have expressed its position more vehemently than Bush did in the opening lines of that speech. Bush intimated that Arafat's incarceration was borne of his own actions. Arafat, the US president said, had missed his chance and betrayed his people. The Israeli government, he added, is compelled to strike at the terrorist groups that are attacking it. Bush went even further by calling on the governments of the region to stop glorifying terror and to quit describing those who carry out terrorist operations as martyrs. They were not martyrs, Bush told the world, but murderers.
What is amazing, and pathetic to boot, is that George W Bush -- president of a great nation, a nation known to uphold the sanctity of freedom -- had no words of sympathy for those who do struggle for the freedom of their country without resorting to methods that could be labeled "terror." His speech equated all resistance against Israeli occupation with terror. The US president spoke merely of Palestinian "terrorists" and "ordinary Palestinians" who want to take care of their families. So the Palestinians, in Bush's mind, are either terrorists or depoliticised civilians.
On the ground, the way the United States has so staunchly supported Israeli brutality will lead to one of two possible outcomes. In one scenario, Arab (and Muslim) public opinion will hold the United States responsible for what has happened in Palestine over the past weeks. Washington has, sadly, identified itself with an Israeli government known to reject the bulk of the peace process, the foundations of the Oslo accords, and the existence of a Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Gaza. Worse still, the next few days are bound to reveal the extent of atrocities committed in the West Bank and Gaza, all of which were committed in the course of this US-blessed "campaign against terror." Hundreds of Palestinians have been killed or wounded. The towns and villages of the West Bank have suffered extensive damage. These are lasting reasons for Arab and Palestinian wrath.
The Israeli military have humiliated thousands of Palestinian young men, who were taken at gun point from their homes, handcuffed and blindfolded, to interrogation centres. These young men will never forget that they were insulted and degraded with US encouragement and blessing. They know that the Israelis would not have dared to act in that fashion without US support and backing. How can any Arab or Palestinian forget the sight of the young George W Bush, sporting a casual shirt and sitting on a rocking chair, as he appeared on television from his Texas ranch on 30 March? Just one day after the invasion, he denounced the veteran leader of Palestinians, who was at that moment besieged in Ramallah, like a hunted lion, by Israeli tanks and armoured cars.
These feelings, now common among besieged Palestinians and other disillusioned Arabs and Muslims alike, call for some attention on the part of the Americans, particularly in view of the terrible memory of 11 September. If the Americans choose to keep on identifying with Sharon, they should be ready for the consequences of this choice. The Israelis may succeed in tightening the noose around Palestinians' necks in the West Bank and Gaza, but this may only spur overseas Palestinians into action. President Mubarak has warned that Israel's reckless violence will create generations of "terrorists." The consequences of such an Israeli policy on the United States and the world can only be terrible and long- term.
There is a second possibility, though. Now that the United States has become so involved in the Arab- Israeli conflict, it has a lot to gain from seeking a final, overall settlement. This is the only way for the United States to avoid the terrible repercussions of the recent mayhem. President George W Bush seems to have acknowledged -- albeit belatedly -- the error of his diplomatic reluctance. He has, to a certain extent, renewed US commitment to peace in the region. If promptly conducted, a forceful US peace offensive could succeed, for several reasons.
Firstly the Israelis, having lived through this nightmare, are ready for a change of mood. Both the Israelis and Americans are under the impression that Sharon's military campaign has succeeded, at least partly, in destroying the so-called "terrorist infrastructure." Second, the Palestinians, for their part, have gained a renewed sense of self-confidence and unprecedented international support. Yasser Arafat is likely to emerge from this ordeal stronger than at any earlier time. Third, the Arab peace initiative is still on offer, despite the shock and frustration that accompanied its birth.
So will the US administration muster the insight, vision, and patience required for an unbiased and firm mediation? Only time will tell.
* The writer is editor-in-chief of the quarterly Al- Siyassa Al-Dawlia (International Politics), issued by Al-Ahram, and member of the Shura Council.
© 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