How honest, the broker?
Who's Elliot Abrams? Laila Al-Marayati*, who sat with him on the US Commission on
International Religious Freedom, provides some clues
By appointing Elliot Abrams as one of two US envoys to prepare for the Aqaba summit, President Bush confirms that his administration is not interested in serving as an honest, neutral broker for establishing peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. Abrams' record, as pointed out in a recent article in the Washington Post (26 May 2003) reveals that, like many of the neo-conservatives populating the White House, he is an avowed Zionist who is very committed to Israel, with specific support for the right-wing establishment of Prime Minister Sharon.
So much so, that Abrams has gone on record as praising Sharon for his "strength" and "firmness" vis- a-vis the Palestinians, in contrast to the "weakness" displayed by Barak.
Abrams "pays a lot of attention to the pro-Israel lobby", according to the Washington Post, even allowing AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) to influence changes made to the roadmap itself. In addition, as past chair of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (2000- 2001), he refused to publicly endorse any statement that would criticise Israel's well-documented record of religious freedom infringements against the country's minorities.
Under these circumstances, even though he works for the US government and, by definition, the American people, one questions whose interests come first: Israel's or the United States. Would he be willing to support US policies that infringe on his zealous support for Israel's right-wing government, or would he exert pressure to change US policy in order to fall in line with what favours Israel first and foremost?
Abrams' inclusion on the US negotiating team is a blatant statement that solidly reinforces perceptions of the lack of American evenhandedness in the process. Clearly, the US government acts mainly as an advocate for Israel, merging Israeli and American interests into one. As such, President Bush further erodes his attempts to mollify his critics in the Arab world and simply reinforces the belief that he is not acting in the interest of a balanced and fair solution to the crisis in the region.
If the president wants to show that his intentions for peace are genuine, then he should either exclude Abrams, or at least include another envoy who is equally supportive of the Palestinian side. Since such a move is highly unlikely, President Bush should be ensured that, despite Israel's (and Abrams') objections, the European Union remain engaged to correct the imbalance imposed by the US siding so strongly with Israel.
The Post also indicated that Abrams has clashed with Assistant Secretary William Burns, head of the Near East Bureau at the State Department. Perhaps the administration expects Burns' position to serve as an indication of balance and even-handedness. But given the well-known contempt that Abrams and other neo-conservatives have for the State Department, observers tend to view Burns' participation in the process as superficial at best. It's hard to imagine how they can make up a functional "team" when they have such divergent views on the critical issues at hand.
By including pro-Sharon staff members on the team for pushing the roadmap, it seems unlikely that President Bush intends to bring the necessary pressure to bear on the Israelis to ensure their full compliance with the roadmap.
This is a set up for failure from day one, ensuring that the prospects of peace with some modicum of justice for the weaker party are doomed.
* The writer is a medical doctor based in Los Angeles, and board member of the Muslim Public Affairs Council.
