-Caveat Lector-
>From http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2002/583/7inv1.htm
}}}>Begin
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
Not dazed and not confused
America's apparently contradictory attitude towards the Israeli invasion is not as
messy as it first appears, argues Mohamed El-Sayed Said
The publicity war between opponents and supporters of Israeli aggression in the
occupied territories is heating up in the United States. With it, criticism of the US
administration's policy in the Middle East is mounting among the experts.
The main theme of local criticism of US policy is the contradictory and confused style
of the administration's reaction to Israel's invasion and brutalisation of major cities
and refugee camps in the West Bank. The US voted for Security Council resolutions
1402-1405, which used increasingly militant language in calling for the withdrawal of
Israeli troops and the establishment of a fact-finding mission to Jenin refugee camp.
In practice, however, the US leadership has failed to conceal its wholehearted
support for the hideous operation launched by Israeli prime Minister Ariel Sharon
against the Palestinian people.
President George W Bush even acted as an apologist for the operation, terming it
"self-defence." His now famous words, that "Sharon is a man of peace," are unlikely
to be agreed on by even Sharon himself, or by anyone else in their right mind.
The most obvious conclusion cannot have escaped anyone, no matter how naive.
The US deliberately gave the Israeli government and the Israeli army ample time to
"finish the dirty work of Zionism." In the course of Sharon's dirty work, the American
administration produced two different sets of signals. The first set was embodied in a
series of statements voiced by none other than the President and his top aides, not
to mention the ready-made aides he has in the Congress. These signals gave
unequivocal support to Israel's military drive until most of the massive destruction
had already been carried out. The second set of signals, however, gave Arab states
and Arab public opinion a milder version of what they wanted to hear, direct from the
United Nations.
The contradiction is obvious at face value. But to what extent is it really true?
Addressing the question, Ambassador Nabil Fahmy, the Egyptian ambassador to the
United States, told to Al-Ahram Weekly that, " One has to give credit to America in
that President Bush has supported a two- state solution, including the end of
settlements and occupation. America's positive vote in favor of the Security Council's
resolutions lately is consistent with president Bush's vision declared at the United
Nations and Secretary Powell's speech in Louisville, Kentucky. It is only sustained
and consistent policy that will bring this vision to fruition. The national interests
of all
parties and those of international security must reign supreme over political
arguments raised by some pundits in the political arena of the United States."
A soldier aims his gun at a building in a street near the Church of the Nativity in
Bethlehem
Citing the statements made by President Bush himself, and by his aides, which serve
to discredit the entire administration in the eyes of the Palestinians, Arabs and the
international community at large, I argued with Ambassador Fahmy. There is no
foundation even a minimum measure of trust in the American administration's role in
the political process in the region, I argued. In light of these statements and
contradictions, what could be his views on rumors in Washington that this
administration is bent on a swift move to activate the political track after the
present
rampage in the occupied territories ends? "Wouldn't this simply amount to granting
Sharon the political advantages he planned to gain from his savage military
operation?" I asked Ambassador Fahmy.
"The conflict in the Middle East and between Palestinians and Israelis in particular is
an asymmetrical one in terms of the traditional components of power, be they
political or military. But I believe the real strength of the Palestinians lies in the
justice
of their cause," he replied. "That alone, more than anything else, has allowed
Palestinians to gain support for their independence. Once Israeli aggression ends, I
believe that it is crucial to engage in comprehensive and sustained political talks in
order to make Palestinian rights a reality. Even with all its military might, Israel
will
not win this conflict politically. The fundamental goal of the much-discussed political
negotiations is to meet Palestinian aspirations. And only this can provide Israel with
the security It needs," he added.
Ambassador Ahmad Abu El-Gheit, Egypt's permanent representative to the United
Nations, provided much more specific and certainly more militant answers to the
same questions. He went straight to the roots of Security Council resolutions 1402-5.
"I believe that they (the Americans) were faithful in their moves which intended to put
an end to (Israeli) military operation and undelayed withdrawal," Abu El- Gheit said.
"It is notable, however, that the American side always started the meetings with a
declaration on the floor of the Security Council, which contradicted Arab demands.
But the American position rapidly evolved into one of merely introducing
modifications to draft resolutions prepared by Arab or European diplomats," he said.
"During the consultations on resolution 1402, the American representative
unequivocally rejected the call for immediate withdrawal, and replaced it with the
milder and non-specific expression 'without delay.' In resolution 1404, the American
representative agreed to the term 'immediate implementation' (of resolution 1402)
which was actually used in the text. My own interpretation is that they were sincerely
trying to persuade the Israelis to withdraw through these resolutions. The Israeli
lobby, however, gnashed its teeth, and was capable of amassing enormous
pressures on the administration," said the ambassador.
"The American media did show some balance in its coverage of the Israeli military
operation, which lasted almost three weeks. But this relative balance ended in a
shambles when a whole row of Congressmen orchestrated a massive effort on the
floor and in the media to tilt the balance towards an unwavering support to Israel.
Also, note the huge number of pro-Israeli demonstrations in front of the Capitol and
on the occasion of the AIPAC conference which ended Tuesday," Ambassador Abu
El-Gheit added.
An important key in explaining the double-talk of the American administration is the
mild language used in Security Council resolutions pertaining to the latest Israeli
invasion. Why did Arab diplomats go along with this mild language, which in
resolution 1402 failed to condemn Israeli military operation in the occupied
territories? Why did Arab diplomats not insist on using the language of sanctions?
Addressing this question, ambassador Abu El-Gheit answered in the same
straightforward and committed manner. "The fact of the matter is that it was clear
that the US would veto any draft resolution which used this language. The same is
true, at least in part, of many European countries which emphatically supported the
substance of the Arab position but were either reluctant to use the same language or
were opposed to it."
"In Egypt, we were determined to prevent the veto from taking place, because once it
had used the veto the United States would tilt even more towards Israel. That would
relieve the American administration of its responsibility as a permanent Security
Council member and as the leading power in the world capable of safeguarding
peace and standing with the substance of Palestinian rights as stated in Security
Council resolutions," added Abu El-Geit.
"The Palestinian ambassador was even more interested in passing these Security
Council resolutions, because those resolutions make clear commitments for the
rights of Palestinian people including withdrawal. He had to compare the situation on
the ground between passing resolutions, and having recognition of rights in principle
even without actual power to support it, or having neither recognition nor
implementation," the ambassador explained.
" But wasn't that the case in the latest resolution on the issue of atrocities in
Jenin?" I
asked. " Yes," he replied. "But the story is a little more complicated. When news
about calamity of Jenin started to leak, the Arab diplomatic group in the UN drafted a
very strong resolution to be advanced on the Council floor. At the outset, the
Americans as usual said that they would not stand for any more resolutions. The
same was said by a number of European countries, such as Norway and Bulgaria.
But a new factor came into play when the Americans learned that the UN Secretary-
General Kofi Annan had, acting alone, made up his mind to send a fact- finding
mission to Jenin."
"They know that this was in his power without having to have mandate from the
Security Council. They also considered the fact that it would have been very difficult
for them to veto a resolution based on international humanitarian law. Hence, they
came to us and asked: why don't you focus on the humanitarian aspect instead of a
political resolution? We then had to go with the resolution framed within the
framework provided by the secretary-general, which calls not only for fact- finding but
also for lifting (Israeli) restrictions and impediments against humanitarian assistance
to the distressed people of the occupied territories. It also calls on Israel to
respect
international humanitarian law. It was the Americans who proposed this resolution
themselves."
The implicit analysis in Ambassador Abu El- Gheit's narrative is clear. The
Americans provided an almost complete political cover-up for the savage Israeli
operation in the West Bank. The way in which Colin Powell's visit to the region was
planned betrays this purpose.
The latest speech made by the former Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in
an AIPAC conference in a Washington hotel last Sunday claimed that there was
never an American president more friendly and committed to Israel than President
Bush. The Israelis have obviously convinced the American administration that a
complete re-structuring of the Palestinian politics in essential to quell the
resistance
movement in Palestine. They have managed to formulate their objectives within the
American "war on terrorism" jargon.
One major hurdle remains, however. The barbarism with which the Israeli military
operation was conducted can only generate more anger, which will fuel the struggle
against Israel and America in the Arab world for decades to come. The style of the
American cover-up can only aggravate the extremely negative image of the US in the
eyes of Arab youth from the Gulf to the Atlantic Ocean.
America will surely pay a heavy toll for its complicity. The Bush administration, known
for its total ignorance of the region and lack of professionalism in foreign policy
generally, may have been self-indulgent in playing out its fantasies. But still, it is
in a
position to predict what is to come.
Everybody in this region has warned the US of the consequences of its inaction. In
fact, an adequate number of "experts" made the point clear even in American media.
The administration was no doubt aware of Arab anger but went along with its policies
regardless. What this administration was striving to do through the United Nations is
to reduce this public relations catastrophe, now and in the future. More precisely, the
present American administration hoped to reduce the political cost of what is
evidently the most destructive and insane piece of policy implemented against
Palestinians and Arabs since the 1948 disaster.
The American policy in the region was far from confused. It only reflected a deep-
seated anti-Arab and Anti-Palestinian fixation and bias within the United States
generally, and within ultra-right- wing circles more specifically.
Recommend this page
FULL COVERAGE: INVASION
� Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
Send a letter to the Editor
End<{{{
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Forwarded as information only; no automatic endorsement
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe
simply because it has been handed down for many generations. Do not
believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do
not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not
believe in anything merely on the authority of Teachers, elders or wise men.
Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it
agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all.
Then accept it and live up to it."
The Buddha on Belief, from the Kalama Sutta
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will
teach you to keep your mouth shut."
--- Ernest Hemingway
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
