MER -
WASHINGTON - 21 August:
The Arab "client regimes" daddle as usual, unable to even
convene an Arab League meeting, not to mention assert major influence in the world, even
in their region. As the Arabs babble on Israeli settlements continue to expand, Jerusalem
continues to be Judaized, the Palestinians continue to be turned into a caricature of
Indians on Reservations, and the "New War" will bring even greater U.S./Israeli
pressures to draw them in, creating even greater tensions and dismay within their own
societies...and in the end more "terrorists".
The Arab American "client organizations" -- dysfunctional
as they are -- continue ridiculously complimenting themselves for managing to sewing many
patches in "The Quilt" during this "50th anniversary year" of the
first Palestinian catastrophe. Worse yet they keep subjecting their grassroots, what
little there is of it, to Clovis Maksoud's even more ridiculous rhetorical bombasts that
bear little relationship to reality. True, Clovis relishes the role of Arab mouthpiece;
but at best his cheap words ring terribly hollow and his actions are few and
insignificant. Long ago Maksoud should have been recognized for what he really is -- a
pompous, self-serving, charlatan -- and his terrible misleadership of Arab American
affairs as truly tragic.
Meanwhile, the big leagues American Jewish organizations remain
split between Labor and Likud -- a fissure which masquerades these days as support, or
lack thereof, for Oslo and the "Peace Process".
But in the end they all know they are way on top while playing the
"Good Cop/Bad Cop" game with the Arabs. And besides they now have both the
Holocaust Museum -- a gift from the U.S. Congress -- and some $1+ billion from the
befuddled Swiss to play with.
As for the Israelis, well the Israelis could hardly be more pleased
with themselves. Not only has their infiltration of American politics and much of the
media brought the U.S. more and more into their war against Arab, Islamic, and Palestinian
nationalism; but this latest escalation happens just in advance of the 5th anniversary of
Oslo and right in the midst of its inevitable collapse. Note: Bibi is sending others to
attend, he's abit preoccupied further undermining what was a terrible agreement for the
Palestinians in the first place.
Meanwhile, the American media is doing its usual kabuki
"reporting" and "analysis" -- the range of allowed kosher opinion from
extreme right-wing bigots to so-called liberals "reluctantly" supporting
"what has to be done."
At least this article by Robert Fisk throws a little sense and
understanding into this devilish brew. Robert Fisk was the first major Western Journalist
to meet and interview Osama bin Laden last year. Fisk is convinced there is much more to
come and that the cost of American policies will be "incalculable". [Note: Fisk
was exclusively and extensively interviewed on MID-EAST REALITIES T.V. last year about the
entire Middle East situation and the "Peace Process" -- for details and to
obtain a video email to INFOMERTV@MiddleEast.Org and see http://www.MiddleEast.Org/Fisk.htm].
FOUR days ago, as President Bill Clinton was testifying to Kenneth
Starr about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, foreign diplomats in Pakistan were told
that "all foreigners" in Afghanistan were in danger.
European embassy staff suspected that the United States, with the
help of the Pakistani authorities, was about to assault Osama bin Laden, the Saudi
dissident opposed to Washington's continued presence in Saudi Arabia. One foreign embassy
official in Islamabad told me the sources were American.
Now we know why. But the results are likely to be incalculable.
President Clinton says that Mr Bin Laden declared war on the United States. Now Mr Clinton
has declared war on him - which is exactly what Mr Bin Laden, guilty or otherwise of the
American embassy bombings, will have wanted.
Mr Clinton wants to destroy Mr Bin Laden. Now Bin Laden will want to
destroy Mr Clinton. He can count on the support of millions of Muslims who will never be
persuaded that the strikes against Afghanistan and Sudan were anything but a cynical ploy
to distract attention from Mr Clinton's sexual adventures. They are also aware that the
camp in Khowst, in Paktia province, which the Americans bombed, was originally set up by
the CIA to train Afghan - and Arab - guerrillas in their war against the Soviet army. For,
in the 1980s, Mr Bin Laden and his men were regarded as "freedom fighters"
rather than "terrorists" and were encouraged to use British-made Blowpipe
anti-aircraft missiles against the Russians.
Mr Bin Laden demands the withdrawal of US troops from his native
country of Saudi Arabia - some of whose officials give him considerable support. None of
this, of course, was finding its way into the American news reports from Washington last
night.
Of one thing we can be sure, that in the coming days the story will
change. We will hear of civilian casualties. We will ask why Mr Bin Laden survived. We may
even hear of secret deals - rumoured in the Middle East these past five days - between
Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and the United States that would prepare the ground for the lifting
of UN sanctions against Libya in return for its support in the war against Palestinian
"terror": the story that Abu Nidal, the cruellest of Palestinian militants, has
been secretly sent from Tripoli to Cairo in a semi-comatose state, persists.
Egypt, it is said in the Arab world, has demanded action against its
domestic enemies - which may be why the United States helped extradite five Egyptians from
Albania to Egypt and bombed Sudan.
And what was the Khowst base that Mr Clinton bombed in Afghanistan?
When I saw Mr Bin Laden last year - ascetic, cautious, intelligent and very ruthless - we
met at a moun-tain camp near Khowst. He possessed - a few metres from his tent - a massive
air-raid shelter, cut into the rock of a mountainside, protection against anything bar
nuclear attack and built during the height of his war against the Soviet army. Was this
the "base" that Mr Clinton thinks he bombed?
Sudan was bombed, too. But was it not Sudan which, at America's
request, ordered Mr Bin Laden out of Khartoum in 1996? Was it not Sudan which handed over
Carlos the Jackal to French intelligence agents in August 1994? Was Sudan - a ramshackle
dictatorship if ever there was one - really making precursor chemical weapons?
Meanwhile, the very word "terrorist" will incite the fury
of Arabs. Yes, bombing embassies is an act of terrorism. But so is murdering Muslim
worshippers in a Hebron mosque or assassinating an Israeli prime minister - carried out by
Israelis but never called "terrorism".
Double standards will be on the lips of every Arab this morning. And
if the word "terrorism" is now little more than racist terminology against
Arabs, it also serves to silence the question "Why?"
Last night not a single hint came from Washington as to why Mr Bin
Laden - now taking the place of Abu Nidal, Colonel Gaddafi, Ayatollah Khomeini and Colonel
Nasser in our book of hate - should loathe America. No suggestion that he wants US troops
to leave Islam's holiest land.
No clue that he was obsessed - as he still is - with the Israeli
massacre of 106 Lebanese civilians at the UN base at Qana in 1996, a slaughter (the
Israelis said it was a mistake) for which he also blames the United States.
So President Clinton is declaring war on "terrorism", is
he? If only he would, the Arabs will say today. And if only he would start by seizing the
two leading "terrorists" in Europe's own backyard: General Ratko Mladic and
Radovan Karadjic, responsible for the massacre of tens of thousands of Muslims.
But they are not the sort of "terrorist" Mr Clinton is
looking for.Instead, he has decided to assault his enemies with their own weapons of
violence. And Americans, as well as Arabs, are likely to pay the price.
