topic by
Posted by Lynette
6/9/2002 (3:28) |
|
Call for Mideast conference must be heeded
Musa Keilani
PALESTINIAN PRESIDENT Yasser Arafat's appeal to the United States for speedy moves to convene a Middle East peace conference is natural and it assumes urgency and significance in view of the escalation of armed resistance and suicide bombings targeting Israelis.
Israeli accusations that Syria is responsible for the latest wave of attacks, since Islamic Jihad leaders are based in Syrian territory, are adding fuel to the alarmingly rising tempo of violence; it seems that it might take an armed conflict in the region to rekindle moves for genuine peace. But the entire region would pay heavily in the event of an armed conflict with unpredictable consequences.
Pondering over the course of possible events in that direction is best left undone since it would only add to the gloom that is descending on the region in the wake of Israel's intransigence and Palestinians' determination not to succumb to Israel's military power and give up their rights.
From what we have seen so far, the sense of urgency does not seem to have been felt in Washington. In all probability, it is being deliberately suppressed by Israeli pressure since Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has shown no inclination to move towards diplomatic options to break the deadlock.
Sharon appears dead-bent on pursuing his eye-for-an-eye and tooth-for-tooth approach, with the illusion that sooner or later the Palestinians would simply give up resistance and bow to his unreasonable and illogical demands. Obviously he wants the US to stay put until he feels assured that his objective is achieved and the situation is right for him to dictate his terms.
Little is expected to emerge in concrete terms from the ongoing visit of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to the US and the talks Sharon will have with US President George W. Bush on Monday unless Sharon is willing to relent on his rejection of diplomacy.
It has gone beyond the stage of pointing out that Arafat and his Palestinian National Authority (PNA) colleagues have been rendered totally incapable of effective action to keep the frustrated Palestinians under check against undertaking suicide bombings and other forms of armed resistance. But it would seem that the Israeli hardline camp has never once given up the goal of eliminating Arafat from the Palestinian leadership and that the lull that some of us felt in Sharon's campaign against him was superficial and deceptive.
The latest suicide bombing, which killed 17 people, has added ammunition to Sharon's arsenal and the focus of Israeli effort seems to be a complete destruction of the PNA.
It is no secret that the fear is high in the region that Israeli military assaults could somehow lead to the demise of Arafat. But then, that would lead to an explosion of violence in Palestine. It is a safe bet that the Palestinian groups — especially the Islamic Jihad which received millions of dollars from Iran last week — which oppose the Oslo accords and the peace process itself, as well as Arafat's policies and approach, would be staging revenge attacks of a much larger magnitude throughout Israel. Against that possibility, what we do hear from the Israelis? Nothing but repeated calls for more sweeping military action against the Palestinians and hints that the time to physically eliminate Arafat is now.
In realistic terms, what could be expected from that eventuality? Obviously Sharon seems to harbour hopes that he would be able to influence the Palestinians' choice of an Arafat successor and then “negotiate” with him. What Sharon seems to overlook is the reality that no Palestinian leader would be ready to sign away his people's legitimate rights under any condition. What does that signify? Only that the vicious cycle of violence would continue and more Israelis and Palestinians would be killed and more Palestinians would be maimed and incarcerated.
It is against this backdrop that we need to see the pointed Israeli campaign to drag Syria into the equation with an intent for an armed conflict. Obviously Sharon, or at least some of his strategists, may feel that a war might shake the situation and project Israel in a much stronger position to demand Arab acceptance of its terms for “peace”. Could one have expected in 2000 the kind of today's Israeli military action against the Palestinians? We all were somehow convinced that Israel would wake up to the reality that military assaults are not the answer to the crisis, but a carefully considered approach to making peace, involving compromises. Well, our hopes and beliefs were totally shattered. And now our hope is that Israel will realise that a regional war would be futile, but those hopes also seem to be misplaced.
Sharon has clearly demonstrated that he would stop at nothing, in terms of military action, to fight off Palestinian resistance. Having launched sweeping attacks against the Palestinians in the West Bank, he might now be eyeing Syria as a target in his drive to stifle Palestinian resistance. This could mean several scenarios: cover Mossad operation to assassinate leaders of some of the Syrian-based and Lebanon-based Palestinian groups; or “precision” bombing aimed at achieving the same goal. A war is, of course, another scenario, but the second course of action, if undertaken, would definitely lead to a war, since Syria would not take it lying down and would retaliate in kind, which would involve Iran, since it committed itself openly last month to give strategic support to Damascus, to the nascent Jordanian faction of Hizbollah and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Indeed, the key focus of Sharon's talks with Bush on Monday would be Syria, and we would expect the intensity of that focus growing in the days to come.
The world has heard Arafat's frantic appeal to the US for an early convening of a Middle East conference in Turkey next month and has realised that the best option to avert another catastrophe in the region is diplomacy, and not Sharon's sinister plans to shake the status quo with a hope that something might yield. But has Arafat's call been heard in Washington? And can we afford to have another radical player in the region, like Iran and its supporters like Hizbollah and Islamic Jihad suicide militia?
Sunday, June 9, 2002
|
|