HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
---------------------------
THE MIDDLE EAST: FAILURE OF LEADERSHIP
Wednesday, December 19, 2001
In the Holy Land, life has been getting ever more nasty, brutish, and
short over the past year. It will get worse before it starts getting
better, if it ever does. No improvement will be possible for as long as
the current key leaders remain in place.
In the short term, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has succeeded in
shifting the blame for the ongoing cycle of violence onto the
Palestinian Authority (PA), marginalizing its leadership, and enabling
his security forces to operate with political and physical near-impunity
against all real or presumed enemies of the Jewish state (and carrying
out some thirty political assassinations in the process). In the long
term, however, it is almost impossible to devise a rational model of
Israel's peaceful and prosperous survival based on Mr. Sharon's
assumptions about the nature of the conflict.
Israel's security is correlated to the extent the legitimacy of its
existence is accepted by its Arab neighbors. It has a developed economy
with a tiny territorial base and a small, static population. It cannot
afford indefinite losses in tit-for-tat attacks that have claimed some
fifty lives on each side in the two-week period following November 26
alone. To put it crudely, an end to the Israeli occupation is an
infinitely more likely end result of the spiral of violence than the
Palestinians' acquiescence in that occupation. While the Arabs are well
advised to remember that in extremis Israel would not hesitate to use
some or all of its two-dozen-odd nuclear devices, this ultimate
deterrent has no meaning for many young Palestinians-armed, dangerous,
and radicalized by the uprising-who no longer accept Yassir Arafat's
leadership. They now control Tanzim and its militias, such as the
al-Aqsa Brigades. They are ready to cooperate with the Muslim
fundamentalists from Hamas and Islamic Jihad who openly defy Arafat.
They all agree that the intifada will end only with independence of
Palestine, but in their mind this entails the destruction of Israel.
They see the Palestinian Authority as part of the problem, not its
solution.
Young radicals do not mind Mr. Sharon's policy of hitting Palestinian
Authority targets in retaliation for Islamic suicide bombings, because
it has undermined the position of the "pragmatists" within the
Palestinian Authority leadership, led by Arafat's security chiefs
Muhammad Dahlan and Jibril Rajoub. Other possible successors to Arafat
who have no qualms about doing business with Israel-notably Mahmoud
Abbas ("Abu Mazen"), the PLO representative who helped craft the Oslo
accords, and Ahmed Korei, a.k.a. Abu Ala, speaker of the Palestinian
Legislative Council-are also weakened by Sharon's strategy. They have
maintained that the preservation of the Authority is in the interest of
the Palestinian people, even if the price for its survival means eating
humble pie by ending the intifada and resuming security co-operation
with Sharon's government. They are ready to impose order by force-if
only Israel would give them some breathing space.
It is shortsighted of the Israeli government to breed long-term
Palestinian radicalism for the sake of short-term diplomatic and
security gains, but perhaps it would be unrealistic to expect more from
Ariel Sharon. When he declared, ten days before Christmas, that "Yasser
Arafat is no longer relevant to the state of Israel" and that he would
seek alternative Palestinian interlocutors, he was being disingenuous.
Sharon likes Arafat just where he is, as powerless to stop terrorist
attacks on Israeli civilians by groups outside his control as he is
unable to resist Israeli retaliation against the Palestinian Authority's
security forces. Those "alternative interlocutors" potentially more
accommodating than Arafat are also the main losers from Israeli attacks;
while those more radical than he do not want to talk to Israel, they
want to destroy it.
The problem with Yasser Arafat is not that he has been around for too
long, but that he is no good- and probably never was. To his own
long-suffering people he is not delivering optimal returns. What should
matter to the rest of us is that Arafat's many failures fit in neatly
with those of Ariel Sharon to prevent the emergence of a new and long
overdue generation of leaders who could bring peace and stability to the
region.
For the best part of the past decade Mr. Arafat has played what he
assumed was a clever game. One day he was president of the Palestinian
Authority, when he needed to bring his dissidents to heel and to indulge
his vanity with the kitschy head-of-state decorum. The next he was
chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, when he sought to
raise the heat on Israel and appease the radicals. By the mid-1990s, for
instance, as the popularity of Arafat's corrupt and undemocratic rule
began to suffer and the prominence of the Hamas and other Islamist
radical organizations grew, the Palestinian leader sought to bolster
himself by taking a harder stand on Jerusalem, particularly on the
Temple Mount. For seven years after the Oslo Accords of 1993 Arafat
could get away with it, not because of his intricate skill but because
of the inherent fudge of the Oslo peace process. It left open the most
difficult issues-Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, borders-in the
mistaken belief that they would be easier to resolve through an
incremental, open-ended "peace process." Other key actors-the United
States and Israel-considered Arafat the devil they knew who, when forced
to make a choice, would play along.
Then came Arafat's blunder, when he rejected the deal Bill Clinton
presented at Camp David in the closing months of that inglorious
presidency. Clinton was desperate to score a foreign policy triumph that
would atone for his many domestic scandals, and the package on
offer-while imperfect-accurately reflected the limits of Israeli
flexibility at that time. It offered Palestinian sovereignty over Arab
parts of Jerusalem, sweeping administrative powers elsewhere, and
"formal custodial status" on the Temple Mount, the symbolic core of a
conflict that is territorial, ethnic, and sectarian. All this, on top of
a recognized Palestinian state and billions of dollars of aid would have
given Arafat the position that seems virtually unattainable today.
Whether bravely or as his chief political rival Ariel Sharon alleged
recklessly, former premier Barak had attempted to reverse his political
fortunes at home by bringing back a comprehensive peace deal, and then
winning convincing endorsement for it in a popular referendum. What
Clinton offered and Barak accepted did give Arafat grounds for loudly
proclaiming victory, and going home in triumph. But rather than
negotiate he stood on his opening position. Arafat failed to grab the
day, paving the way for Barak's defeat, Sharon's victory, and the
intifada.
In that new equation Arafat ended up with the worst of both worlds. He
did miss further opportunities in the meantime. Until only a few months
ago he could observe with some satisfaction the steady shift in world
opinion, prompted by Sharon's heavy-handed tactics against the
stone-throwing Palestinian teenagers, and the tacit acceptance on both
sides of the Atlantic that no enduring solution was possible without
meaningful Palestinian statehood. Even after September 11 the Bush
Administration acted prudently in resisting the Amen Corner's demands to
extend the war against terrorism to Israel's many enemies throughout the
Middle East, and in restraining Sharon's initial attempts to use Bin
Laden as a smokescreen behind which he could deal with the Palestinians
as he deemed fit.
In the closing months of 2001, however, Arafat's two-hat approach
backfired badly. A putative head of state should be able to stop
violence, the world told him. In December the European Union joined the
United States in saying that Arafat must dismantle the "terrorist
networks" of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, arrest and prosecute all suspects
named by Israel, and appeal-in Arabic-for an end to the armed intifada.
They also called on Israel to end the assassinations and freeze
settlement building in the occupied territories, but everybody knew that
the onus was on Arafat to act first. A credible leader could have
responded, accurately or not, that this was akin to asking the leaders
of occupied Kuwait to renounce resistance in order to be able to
negotiate with Saddam Hussein. The problem is that Arafat can no longer
convincingly advance any arguments because the world no longer takes him
seriously. He is akin to Slobodan Milosevic, in that otherwise perfectly
valid arguments sound false when they come from his lips.
The Bush Administration would be wrong to act forcefully before the time
is ripe for it to become involved, as facilitator rather than moderator.
This demands patience with the continuation of a distinctly unpleasant
status quo. For now each side is hoping to inflict so much pain on the
other over a sustained period that the opponent eventually loses heart
and surrenders what had been refused in negotiations. Courage, skill and
imagination are needed to find a way out of the impasse. Those qualities
may be provided only by the eventual successors to Messrs. Sharon and
Arafat; but for now we'll have to wait, and stay away.
APPENDIX: WHAT THE MIDDLE EASTERN PAPERS SAY
In Israel the pro-government Hatzofe editorialized (12/13): "The entire
Western world already knows who Arafat is and who is whispering to his
ears-openly and covertly. The only ones who still believe they are
dealing with a man endowed with values and noble features are Shimon
Peres and the Oslo bunch who are ashamed to admit the extent of the
disaster they have inflicted upon Israel and refuse to climb down from
the tree called Arafat. . . . It appears that U.S. President George W.
Bush is more of an Israeli patriot than some ministers in the national
unity government."
Oded Granot wrote in Maariv's lead editorial (12/13): "The impression
that there is a homogenous European-American front against the
Palestinian Authority is inaccurate, even misleading. The President of
the United States is no longer sure that Arafat is the right man to lead
the Palestinian people at this time; the Europeans do not share that
view. The European Union's prime ministers . . . will also ask Israel
to make a contribution in order to ease Arafat's fight against
terrorism. The EU also disagrees with the U.S. position that nearly
grants Israel a green light . . . for all military actions it is taking
to defend itself against terrorism."
Liberal columnist Gideon Samet wrote in independent Ha'aretz (12/12):
"America has been shaking Arafat with immoderate pressure these past few
weeks. Very good. Even the most consistent leftists supported the
White House's arm-twisting. And Sharon can rightfully take credit for
this almost unprecedented success in the long-standing menage-a-trois of
America, Israel and the Palestinians. Nonetheless, and forgive the
question in these invigorating times, when will the Americans begin-or
will they ever-pressure Sharon? . . . Arafat, and the terrorism in our
streets, are now in the international community's gun-sights. Now
another miracle is needed. . . . More will be needed to
continue-pressure on Sharon to go for a deal. And the sooner the
better, before Sharon's euphoric trance with America goes to his head."
Yoel Marcus warned, also in Ha'aretz (12/11) that "No matter how
disgusted the United States is with Arafat's lack of cooperation in
halting terrorism in Israel, the PA is not on the list. . . . America's
interest is in dialogue that will provide Arafat and his Authority with
the incentive to wage a genuine battle against terror. . . . The option
of toppling the Palestinian Authority and getting rid of Arafat may be
in America's hands, but it certainly isn't in ours. Arafat has not
reached the point [of combating his domestic adversaries] yet, but
neither has Sharon. Far from it. Even if Arafat jails the terrorists
and outlaws their organizations, is Sharon ready to confront his
fundamentalists and dismantle settlements? Without political vision,
without creative thinking that inspires hope, Sharon is not at liberty
to act like a global superpower, throwing caution to the wind."
Conservative, independent Jerusalem Post editorialized (12/7): "Yasser
Arafat has had any number of 'last chances,' but even he must be
noticing that something new is going on. One of the most emblematic
events of this change in the wind is yesterday's visit of Egyptian
Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher. . . . Arafat may not yet have gotten the
message, but the Arab states
have: In the face of U.S. and Israeli resolve, Arafat had better stop
terrorism now. . . . If the current U.S. shift is not sufficient, the
United States should show even more support for Israel, and more
determination to isolate Arafat."
Yediot Aharonot opined (12/5): "The government of Israel, led by Ariel
Sharon, Tuesday at dawn, disconnected itself from contacts with its
Palestinian partner; by declaring the Palestinian national movement a
sponsor of terror, by weakening it and by attempting to knock it down,
the government made a tragic move. . . . If the PA is made to collapse,
how would it be possible to stabilize Israel's future relations with a
renewed chaos of groups and factions, some particularly virulent?"
In the West Bank, independent Al-Quds editorialized (12/13): "There is
no doubt that the American envoy knows the truth about of the Israeli
claims that it is seeking calm and an end to violence. The Israeli side
wants the Palestinians to surrender in the face of Israeli continuous
military attacks. This means that the Israeli government wants to
continue acts of suppression under the banner of Israeli security and
self-defense and that the Palestinians should be quiet and warmly
welcome Israeli attacks. It is important for General Zinni to know the
meaning of the Israeli refusal to comply with his demand for 48 hours of
calm and the Israeli intentions against the Palestinians, their rights,
and the peace process."
Abdullah Awad opined in pro-Palestinian Authority Al-Ayyam (12/13): "The
real aim of Zinni's mission is to create a suitable atmosphere for the
escalation of the international war against the Palestinians and not to
stop confrontations between the two sides and achieve calm. In brief,
Zinni's mission is to make the Palestinians choose between two things;
either an escalation of the international war against the Palestinians
carried out by the Hebrew State or the instigation of a Palestinian
civil war similar to the Afghani war of the last 20 years. The first
choice is unimaginable because it is impossible to create a 'Northern
Alliance' here. Thus, the second choice is the most possible because an
'international' war has been launched against Palestine and can be
dramatically escalated at any time when General Zinni successfully
finishes his mission. The success of Zinni's mission means coming out
with a statement holding the Palestinian Authority and President Arafat
responsible for not achieving calm."
Samieh Shubeib commented in pro-Palestinian Authority Al-Ayyam (12/7):
"The Israeli military operations and the coinciding American and
European positions indicate a sensitive situation, which requires an
extra care in administering the political issues. It is now clear that
the martyrdom operations (suicide bombings) will only give excuses to
the Israeli government to increase its pressure on the Palestinians. It
is also clear that the military option in the Palestinian-Israeli
conflict is an Israeli option, which allows Israel to take advantage of
its military might against the Palestinians. Safeguarding the
Palestinian existence, which is presented by the PLO and its arm, the
Palestinian Authority, is a national interest that should top all the
priorities. Given the military and political pressures exerted on the
Palestinian Authority, it is essential to seriously move towards
achieving a cease-fire to deny the Israelis any excuse [to attack the
Palestinians] and to relief the American political pressure.
Accomplishing a cease-fire, despite the means needed to achieve it, is
now a national need that must be realized."
Ali Al-Khalili opined in Al-Quds (12/6): "Washington does not care about
the quick, strong and serious condemnation by the Palestinian Authority
for the attacks in Jerusalem and Haifa. Any slight interest in the
Palestinian condemnation from the United States would have curbed
Sharon, his military power, and his extremist right-wing government from
continuing their plans to destroy the Palestinian Authority, which
Washington does not want. Nevertheless, it is clear that Washington is
supporting these hostile plans in one way or another. Thus, the
American intention is uncovered and it has become obvious that Bush's
remarks regarding the 'perspective' or 'idea' of establishing a
Palestinian state beside Israel is just a deceptive speech aimed at
gaining the support of the Arab and Islamic worlds for the ongoing
American war in Afghanistan. This war is intended to extend to Iraq,
Syria, Yemen, and Somalia."
Abdullah Awad in Al-Ayyam (12/6): "Away from the diplomatic language,
which is only good for self-deception or public relations, there is no
doubt that the Bush administration has fully and unconditionally granted
Sharon permission to launch a criminal war against the Palestinians.
This administration, starting with Bush, has not only supported this war
but also has taken measures to support this war through freezing the
funds of the U.S.-based Holy Land Foundation and other institutions
under the pretext that they fund so-called Palestinian terrorist
operations against the Hebrew State. This step reflects full support for
the criminal war against the
Palestinian Authority and people."
Al-Quds insisted (12/5): "The empty cycle of violence and reciprocal
violence requires from the international community and the United
States, which have been adopting a biased position towards Israel,
especially after the attacks in Jerusalem and Haifa, to look into the
roots of the conflict: The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian lands
and the Jewish settlements. The only way for the international community
and the United States to put an end to violence and bloodshed is through
ending the military occupation and the settlements, and by allowing the
Palestinians to achieve their freedom, security and independence."
Al-Ayyam (12/5): "The American green light, which has permitted the
aggression against the Palestinian people, and the political and
diplomatic covers for this aggression, leaves no doubt that the aim of
this aggression is to undermine the Palestinian leadership, weaken the
morale of the Palestinian people and lower the ceiling of expectations
for the mission of General Zinni. Also, this aggression will help limit
Zinni's mission to deal only with the security issues."
Egyptian TV's Good Morning Egypt (12/13) hosted Ambassador Hassan Issa,
formerly the President of the Department for Israelis Affairs at the
Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs who stated: "The aim of Sharon is
very
clear: demonizing Arafat and the establishment a Palestinian state,
without borders or responsibilities, simply to satisfy the international
community and to end the 'intifada.' He has the 'complete orchestra in
Israel' with the backing of the Jewish lobby in the United States for
achieving the goals of Sharon . . . The two American envoys have no
value because they are sent by the secretary of State and not the
president to implement Powell's 'vision' in the region. Israel's scheme
of aborting the U.S. envoys' mission succeeded when Sharon managed to
time his killing of Fatah leaders to coincide with the arrival of the
U.S. envoys who then witnessed the Palestinian violence."
Leading pro-government Al Ahram's senior columnist Salah Eddin Hafez
(12/12): "In view of the recent Israeli war against the Palestinian
Authority, Israel clearly has resolved to pursue the strategic goal of
Sharon to complete the elimination of the Palestinian Authority . . .
and destroy all possible symbols of a Palestinian state. . . . Although
the idea of eliminating Arafat is facile for Sharon and accepted by the
Americans and even, implicitly, by Arabs, Arafat's succession is no easy
matter. . . . There are three options for his replacement: (1) All the
Israeli-American-Arab powers solidify to enable the doves to rule,
including Arafat's moderate current colleagues...those who do not have
Arafat's stubbornness and shrewdness but are more likely to accept the
required settlement; (2) New generations from Fatah emerge . . . such as
Marawan al Barghouty who became a symbol of the rising revolutionary
generation; or,
(3) The most radical organizations, such as Hamas and Jihad rise...who
are now between the two threats of Israeli killings and Arafat's arrests
and all the while they are gaining fresh popular support daily because
of their sacrifices and resistance.... The matter is far graver than
anyone anticipates, and especially those who are seeking some kind of
settlement and reconciliation."
Al Ahram and English-language Al Ahram Weekly's editor-in-chief, Ibrahim
Nafie, wrote (12/6): "Egyptian condemnation of the attacks in Western
Jerusalem and Haifa recognizes such acts serve neither the Palestinian
cause nor that of peace and indeed play into the hands of notorious war
criminal Sharon . . . . Rather than pleading for self-restraint,
President Bush said that the Palestinian Authority President must find
those responsible for the attacks and arrest them. . . . Sharon took
this statement as a green light. . . . White House spokesman Ari
Fleischer gave the same impression. . . . What can Arafat do when he
cannot even move within Palestinian territories without an Israeli
permit? What can he do when he cannot fully exert his control over the
disparate parts of Palestinian territory, and occupying forces are
targeting Palestinian Authority personnel and installations, and when
every measure is being taken undermine his authority?"
Al Ahram's columnist Kamal Gaballah asked (12/5): "How can the American
partner deny that not having given the war criminal Sharon a green light
to destroy occupied Arab territories with F-16s and Apaches when the
White House announced Israel has the right to self-defense . . . and
that Arafat is responsible for stopping these attacks? What is the fate
of Powell's newly born vision onto which many had pinned high hopes for
activating the peace process and ending Israeli terrorism? Where have
the American envoys Zinni and Burns hidden? One could not hold back the
tears seeing scenes of torture with an Arab singer wailing on
Palestinian satellite channel, 'Where
are the millions of Arabs?' Who on earth could doubt Israel is the
cause
of this region's catastrophe and that the occupation of Arab territories
is the sole reason for all acts of violence and terrorism?"
In Jordan chief editor Taher Udwan wrote on the back page of
independent, mass-appeal Al-Arab Al-Yawm (12/13): "Before the
Palestinian attacks, Europe and the United States were silent. Then as
soon as the Palestinians started to retaliate, the White House
spokesperson came out repeating what Sharon's spokesperson had already
said, that the Palestinian president is to blame. From a political
viewpoint, we understand from the American spokesperson's remarks that
the green light for Sharon to exercise his arrogant power of occupation
still applies. . . . Simply put, Sharon has F-16s, Apache helicopters
and tanks, and most of all, he has Bush's support. But Sharon cannot
stop a Palestinian from dying in what he believes is the possible
response to the occupation's arrogance. If U.S. envoy General Zinni
continues to abide by Sharon's thinking that complete calm must come
from the Palestinian side alone, while Sharon is free to kill and
destroy, then the Palestinian game of death will not end, and Israeli's
security will always suffer."
Jamil Nimri wrote on the back page of independent Al-Arab Al-Yawm
(12/13): "It is sad that the outcome of 15 months of intifada would be
condemning the Palestinian side for terrorism and acquitting the Israeli
side on the pretext of self-defense. President Arafat understood the
post-September 11 climate immediately. He seemed to be winning a round
against Sharon when the tables turned after the latest suicide bombings.
This type of operations might quench the desire for vengeance and
revenge, but only for a day before the Israeli response comes at double
the rate and under international cover . . . It is not in the interest
of the Palestinians to inflame the bloodshed aspect of the struggle by
random killings, even under Sharon's provocations. Hamas must not be
lured by the idea of increasing its Arab and Muslim popularity via these
operations. The fact is help is not going to come form the Arab and
Muslim world, apart from oral solidarity. The Palestinians have rights
and a just cause. This must not be destroyed by operations, which are
condemned and denounced by the world."
In Lebanon an editorial by Talal Salman in Arab nationalist As-Safir
held
(12/13): "If we want to understand what is going on in Palestine, we
have to look first at what is being issued by the American
administration in Washington, by its president, and by his staff. . . .
It appears that the mass murders being committed by Sharon are nothing
compared to Washington's plans against the Arabs. . . . Seven prominent
Jewish donors to the Republican Party said that Bush insulted several
Arab leaders, using foul language. Some of these Arab leaders believe
that they are Washington's allies. . . . Now, George W. Bush has decided
that Hizballah and Hamas are terrorist organizations, and if Lebanon and
Syria protect them they will be no different from the Taliban regime! .
. . The Arabs are listening to Bush's insults . . . and are not even
make their voices heard with a mere objection. . . . The formula is
clear: As long as Arab leaders try to disavow resistance . . . and
Palestine itself, the American administration will continue to terrorize
them and cover up for Israel's terrorism. . . .
We have no choice. A confrontation is imposed on us like destiny.
Bush is
in front of us and Sharon is behind us; where can we escape to?"
According to Beirut's English-language Daily Star (12/8): "Turkey and
Egypt are two of the United States' closest regional allies. That the
leaders of both countries should be so openly critical of Sharon's
policies should send alarm bells ringing in the White House. If
Washington wants the support of the Arab and Islamic world in its war
against terror, giving green lights to a warmonger like
Sharon-regardless of the provocation-is not the way to go about it.
Everyone seems to agree that, love him or loath him, Arafat remains an
essential ingredient to ending the violence and securing a lasting peace
agreement. The alternative is chaos."
Gebran Tueni made this point in An-Nahar (12/6): "The people who really
helped in strengthening Israel since its creation were not the Israeli
leaders, but the leaders of the Arab world. . . . Today, with a sad
heart, we see the radical Palestinian current . . . serving Sharon with
suicide attacks. . . . Thank you, radical resistance! This does not
mean that we are against resisting Israeli occupation, however, timing
and coordination are basic conditions for a successful political or
military operation. . . . The Hamas and Jihad operations damaged the
project for a Palestinian state and offered a gift to Sharon himself."
http://www.rockfordinstitute.org/News/Trifkovic/News&Views.htm
==^================================================================
This email was sent to: [email protected]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9WB2D
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================
