Issue No. 604
Opinion
Previous issue
Site map
|
|
19 - 25 September 2002 Issue No. 604 Opinion |
Current issue Previous issue Site map | |
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Recommend this page | ||
The tragic unraveling
The last 12 months has seen the world propelled towards a threefold polarisation, argues Hassan Nafaa
It would never have occurred to me on my way home from work on 11 September a year ago that an event of such cataclysmic proportions was about to happen. It was just after four o'clock when I entered my house and switched on the TV, so that I could catch a bit of news before changing my clothes and taking a short siesta.
All thought of sleep was driven from my mind as I beheld that image of smoke pouring out from the top of one of the twin towers of the World Trade Centre and heard the newscaster announce that a civilian airplane had crashed into it. The cameras remained fixed on the scene of the disaster as one reporter after another confirmed that something mysterious was happening, though no one was quite sure what.
I was so stunned that I remained standing, transfixed for some time when I saw a plane came into view and crashed into the second tower, just above the middle, turning it into an inferno of fire and smoke after which a jet of flame burst out from the other side. The tragedy reached its climax as the two towers collapsed into a heap of rubble. At that moment I knew that I was watching a turning point in history. I found myself nodding spontaneously in answer to the commentator on one of the Arab satellite stations who had just asked whether the world after 11 September would differ radically from the world before that date. I remained glued to the television set until I dozed off out of exhaustion with the breaking of dawn the following day.
Naturally, in the course of that disaster my heart went out to the thousands of innocent victims who had been trapped inside the buildings and to their relatives and friends who had been desperately praying for a miracle to release them from that hell. Nevertheless, even in the grip of the overwhelming anger and grief triggered by that human tragedy, I began to feel an irrepressible sense of alarm.
As though it had a will of its own, my mind began to dwell how the US would react. My first thought was that the US response would be constrained by considerations commensurate with a responsible international power possessing strong democratic institutions and a high degree of transparency and accountability. Such factors would ensure a period of reflection before action, I thought. But I quickly cast that opinion aside, finding it based on a faith in the US that is no longer merited now that Washington sees the world almost entirely through Israeli eyes.
Consequently, it was not long before I reached the conclusion that the US reaction would be completely unrestrained and perhaps be more impetuous and foolhardy than the act that provoked it. This conviction was based on two factors. The first pertained to the nature of the ruling elite in Washington, specifically the mindset and political orientation of the president and the White House team that would be managing the crisis. The second pertained to the personality of the prime minister of Israel and the attitudes and beliefs of the team responsible for formulating Israeli foreign policy, which has a powerful sway over the orientation of US foreign policy.
The hijack bombings of the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon took place less than a year after the Republican administration was sworn into office. This administration is unique in American history. Although it has happened before that a presidential candidate won the elections on the basis of the electoral college vote rather than a majority in the ballot box, this was the first time a victory was determined by a federal judicial ruling. This ruling, moreover, was only forthcoming after several weeks during which the US had seemed like a third world country as incriminations were hurled back and forth between the Democrats and Republicans over electoral fraud and poll rigging. The new president had come to power on the basis of a shaky, if not non-existent, legitimacy. The events of 11 September came as a lifesaver.
A few months before the attacks on the US, early elections were held in Israel, also producing a government unlike any of its predecessors. Following his victory in the polls Sharon formed a "national unity" government, which, in addition to the Likud, included the Labour Party and most of the factions of the Israeli ultra-right. Although Labour and Likud had formed national unity governments with the right before, this was the first time in which Labour agreed to become no more than a prop or façade for an extremist rightwing government led by a notorious war criminal. From the outset it was obvious that the primary aim of this government was to crush the Palestinian Intifada and force the Palestinians into a "deal" that would fall far short of Palestinian demands than that offered by Barak and brokered by Clinton at the end of their terms of office. As this aim could not be accomplished without first obtaining US assent for undermining Oslo and imposing a new perception for a settlement by force of arms, it was only natural that Sharon would attempt to find in 11 September an excuse to further his own cherished designs.
A glance back at US plans and policies over the last year confirms that Israel and its American lobby were the greatest beneficiaries from the events of 11 September, having succeeded in ensuring that all the options that were open to the US administration were ultimately resolved in their favour. True, the Bush administration hastened to accuse the Al-Qa'eda and then to publish a list of suspects most of whom were of Saudi or Egyptian origin. However, at the same time it knew that the Saudi and Egyptian regimes had been Al-Qa'eda targets well before the US became one, and that these two governments, therefore, were on the same side as the US with respect to the fight against terrorism. Washington also understood that judiciously managing the fight against terrorism required treating Al-Qa'eda as an entity entirely distinct from Arab and Muslim peoples. Only then could it ensure that this fight would not develop into a war against the Arabs and Muslims, fulfilling Bin Laden's dream of becoming the leader, by default, of an Islamic world forced to defend itself against a Western crusade.
Nevertheless, Sharon and the American Jewish lobby, with the backing of the forces of the Christian-Zionist right in the US and the world, managed to gull the US administration, in particular, and the West, in general, into subscribing to a number of dangerous half-truths and misperceptions.
Firstly, they were led to believe, it was no coincidence that all 11 September suspects were of the same ethnic origin, that if the spirit of terrorism was Islamic then its body was Arab. It thus followed that the fight against terrorism had to begin with reform of the Arab world. Secondly, the strikes against the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon were no more than variations of Palestinian suicide bombing operations, it was argued, and Palestinian "terrorism" constituted the source that fueled all other branches of terrorist violence and, therefore, had to be uprooted first. Thirdly, America and Israel's forbearance with corrupt and undemocratic Arab regimes had helped foster a climate conducive to the breeding and spread of terrorism and to augmenting and channeling hatred and resentment against the US and Israel. From this assertion grew the suggestion that eliminating terrorism could only be accomplished through cooperation between democratic countries. Such cooperation, moreover, would have to proceed in accordance with a comprehensive plan of action, spearheaded by the US at the international level and by Israel at the regional level.
In spite of the fact that the contentions, above, have no bases in fact they have come to form the ideological cornerstones of US-Israeli policy in the post-11 September period, setting each and every policy goal. The first is to remove Arafat as a preliminary step towards dismantling the current PA authority and replacing it with a Palestinian leadership prepared to cooperate unconditionally in the liquidation of armed Palestinian resistance. Secondly is the overthrow of the Iraqi regime by force in order to bring an alternative leadership that will comply with US-Israeli policies regarding the naturalisation of Palestinian refugees and oil production and pricing levels. The third priority is to pressure Iran, Syria and Lebanon to eliminate Hizbullah and to effect broad political and economic reforms. The fourth is to pressure Egypt and Saudi Arabia to introduce sweeping reforms into their educational systems, their media and cultural policies and their political systems.
There is abundant evidence that these strategies are already in full swing: the rapid escalation in Washington's campaign against Iraq and the ongoing invective against Egypt and Saudi Arabia in the US media being two of the most obvious examples. And although there is some opposition to these policies inside the US, it is weak and ineffectual. And while some powerful voices outside the US have expressed alarm, their ability to influence the course of US or Israeli policy is severely limited.
If my analysis proves correct, then Israel will have succeeded in transforming 11 September into a mechanism for fueling the "clash of civilisations" and igniting religious and ethnic wars around the world. And herein lies the great tragedy. The events of 11 September could have been a turning point in the global effort to combat extremism in all forms, including the Jewish extremism responsible for assassinating Rabin as a prelude to the assassination of the entire peace process.
The peril inherent in US-Israeli policy is that it is propelling the world towards a threefold polarisation, centering around Jewish fundamentalism in Israel, Christian- Zionist fundamentalism the US and Islamic fundamentalism as represented by Al-Qa'eda. If the most extreme forms of Jewish and Christian-Zionist fundamentalism are embodied, respectively, in the governments led by Sharon and Bush (or, better, Vice President Cheney), Islamic fundamentalism is embodied in an individual or an organisation that is still very marginal in the Arab and Islamic world. The only state espoused such radical fundamentalism was the Taliban regime in Afghanistan which almost no one recognised. Nevertheless, one cannot help but wonder whether there is a plan in progress to transform Al-Qa'eda into a mouthpiece for the Arab and Islamic world. Certainly, the policies of Bush and Sharon seem to be encouraging this -- intentionally, perhaps?
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| 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 |
