|
April 2002, pages 6-7, 104
Special Report
U.S. Foreign Policy Is Now Israel's Writ Large
By Rachelle MarshallThe Palestinian vision of peace is an independent and viable Palestinian state on the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, living as an equal neighbor alongside Israel with peace and security for both the Israeli and Palestinian peoples...We seek only what the free world now enjoys and what Israel insists on for itself: the right to control our own destiny and to take our place among free nations.
—Yasser Arafat, op-ed article in The New York Times, Feb. 2.
I am very worried about this American debate. I think this discussion about equating Arafat with terrorists is both inappropriate and stupid. It is a very dangerous policy.—Swedish Foreign Minister Anna Lindh at a meeting of the European Union on Feb. 5.
Until George W. Bush became president, U.S. policymakers tried to preserve at least a semblance of balance on issues concerning the Middle East. Previous administrations gave unstinting support to Israel, but at the same time tried to maintain close ties with the moderate Arab nations that sold us their oil and used the revenue to buy our weapons. The Bush administration, in aligning itself with Israel more closely than any of its predecessors, has adopted a Middle East policy that lacks even the illusion of balance.
Shortly before Bush took office his future national security adviser Condoleezza Rice wrote in an article for Foreign Affairs, “This administration will proceed from the firm ground of the national interest, not from the interests of an illusory international community.” During his first year in office Bush carried out Rice's pledge to go it alone by rejecting one international treaty after another and adopting a hands-off policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Immediately after Sept. 11, however, the administration veered sharply away from unilateralism and sought cooperation from Arab and Muslim nations, as well as from the Europeans, in the war on terrorism.
After the seeming victory of U.S. forces over the Taliban, however, a triumphant Bush returned to his original stance. In his State of the Union address in January he branded Iran, Iraq, and North Korea “an axis of evil” and warned that the United States would take pre-emptive action against them with or without international support.
CIA Director George Tenet soon enlarged the list of potential U.S. targets by adding Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Tenet said that although these groups did not necessarily have ties to al-Qaeda, “they have displayed anti-U.S. sentiments. In defining groups dedicated to ending Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza as terrorists or sponsors of terrorism, along with Iraq and Iran, the Bush administration declared that Israel's enemies were America's enemies as well, and that the United States, like Israel, will deal with them in whatever way it considers necessary—regardless of international opinion.
Bush's speech immediately provoked concern in Europe and in Arab and Muslim nations. French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine called Bush's policy simplistic, and British and German officials said their countries would not participate in a U.S. attack on Iraq, since they saw no connection between Iraq and the events of Sept. 11.
Arab leaders worried that an attempt to oust Saddam Hussain would result in a fragmented Iraq and create shock waves throughout neighboring states.
Despite such criticisms, Secretary of State Colin Powell told a congressional committee the next day that the United States was determined to bring about a regime change in Iraq even if it must do it alone, and he again accused Iran of sponsoring terrorism by sending arms to the Palestinians. Vice President Dick Cheney kept up the drumbeat in a Feb. 15 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in which he called Iraq and Iran “dangerous adversaries and, with no apparent irony, accused Iran of “trying to destroy the Middle East peace process.
The Bush administration had clearly adopted Israel's position that Iraq and Iran were outlaws and threats to the Jewish state. According to Middle East historian David Hirst, after Bush's State of the Union speech “one could almost hear the sighs of relief and satisfaction from Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. James Bill, director of the Reves Center for International Studies at William and Mary College, was more direct: “The United States views Iran through spectacles manufactured in Israel, he said.
The response by Iran's pro-reform President Mohammad Khatami was mild. He told a group of foreign ambassadors that “we should all be worried that the president of the United States has put forward the highest budget for war. We should think about a coalition for peace, not for war.
But his plea for peace was drowned out by the cries of hundreds of thousands of Iranians who shouted “Death to America when they gathered in Tehran on Feb. 10 to observe the 23rd anniversary of the Islamic Revolution. In pleasing the Israelis Bush had succeeded in worrying America's European allies, angering Arabs and Muslims, and giving a boost to anti-reform conservatives in Iran.
The irony of Bush's reference to “an axis of evil is that to many in the Arab world and beyond it is the alliance of Israel and the United States that is to blame for the suffering and instability in the Middle East. Judith Kipper, a Middle East expert who recently returned to Washington from a trip to Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Dubai, said in an interview with The New York Times that she found growing popular resentment against the United States in those countries. Television viewers see U.S.-built F-16s and Apache helicopters drop missiles on populated Palestinian areas, they see bodies of Palestinian children shredded beyond recognition by Israeli shrapnel, they watch Israeli bulldozers demolish Palestinian homes and rip up olive trees, and they wonder why Bush criticizes only Arafat. They undoubtedly had even more cause to wonder when on Feb. 19, only hours after the Israelis had shelled refugee camps in Gaza and killed 18 Palestinians, the State Department again ordered Arafat “to halt the violence and terror.
The U.S. position seems especially unbalanced since it is Arafat rather than Sharon who is urging a return to negotiations, and it is the Palestinians who accepted last year's Mitchell Commission recommendations and the Israelis who rejected its most important provisions. In the most conciliatory move yet by either side, Arafat wrote an op-ed piece that appeared in The New York Times on Feb. 3 titled “The Palestinian Vision of Peace. The Palestinian leader condemned terrorist attacks on Israelis and appealed for a peace based on U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338, which, he noted, grant Israel 78 percent of historic Palestine and return the remaining 22 percent—the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem—to the Palestinians. He even conceded that the right of refugees to return could be modified to take into account Israel's demographic concerns.
Arafat's statement appeased neither the Israelis nor the Americans. Israeli officials ignored it, and National Security Adviser Rice called it “not helpful, adding again that Arafat must implement the Mitchell Commission recommendations and stop the violence. Rice did not say how Arafat could have done either when he was under house arrest in Ramallah, his headquarters ringed by tanks, and his offices destroyed by Israeli bombs. Nor did she explain how Arafat can arrest militants while the Israelis kill his security forces, bomb his jails and courtrooms and destroy their records. Israel has done its best even to prevent Arafat and other Palestinians from communicating with the outside world. The army has twice demolished the headquarters of the Voice of Palestine radio and television service.
By mid-February the Palestinians, under siege and using primitive weapons, found themselves in an all-out war with the world's fifth most powerful military force. The bloodiest week of the 17-month long conflict began after Hamas lobbed two homemade mortar shells from Gaza that landed harmlessly in Israel. Israel responded by bombing Gaza City for two days, injuring more than 40 people and damaging the offices of U.N. Middle East Coordinator Terje Rod-Larsen, who strongly condemned the bombing of civilian areas. The next day Israeli forces invaded three Gaza towns, killed five Palestinians, destroyed buildings, and bulldozed farmland.
On Feb. 18, the day after a huge peace rally in Tel Aviv, Israel without provocation lobbed a rocket into Jabaliya refugee camp, killing two Palestinians, and wounding several small children. As Israeli air strikes and shelling continued, Palestinians retaliated by killing six soldiers at an Israeli army post west of Ramallah. Israel retaliated in turn with even heavier attacks, directing firepower from the air, ground and sea at targets in the West Bank and Gaza, including Arafat's home in Gaza. Nearby ambassadors residences and a United Nations building were damaged as well. In three days Israeli forces killed more than 40 Palestinians.
By the end of February, the number of Palestinian dead totaled more than 1,047, including 250 children, with the toll continuing to rise. In the same period at least 270 Israelis were killed. The carnage prompted U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to ask for international intervention to stop the conflict, and Arab states again called on the United Nations to send monitors to the region. Only Israel and the United States expressed opposition, with the U.S. representative, John Negroponte, repeating the tired mantra that the two parties must settle their differences themselves.
Washington's refusal to support an international peacekeeping force does no favor to the Israeli people. As the number of deaths increased, Israelis expressed worry that Sharon had no plan to stop the violence and that punishing the Palestinians with more raids, assassinations and bombings only led to more violence. An editorial in Maariv complained that “These boxing rounds in which we liquidate and they commit suicide and shoot and we raid and they plant bombs have left Israelis without “any sign of hope, initiative, or vision. A poll by the newspaper showed that 49 percent of those surveyed believe the government “has lost control of the security situation.
What Sharon may be counting on is the downfall of Arafat, which would open the way for an internal struggle among Palestinian factions and justify Israel's re-occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Above all, Sharon wants to avoid peace negotiations. When the Palestinians refrained from violence for three weeks last December the army continued to raid Palestinian towns and refugee camps, and finally succeeded in provoking renewed violence by assassinating a popular militant leader. Bush has continued to shun Arafat but has so far refused to cooperate with Sharon in ousting him, perhaps because Saudi officials have warned that Arafat's fall would encourage extremists and pose a danger to Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries.
Although Arafat's imprisonment by Israel and snubbing by the United States have increased his popularity, many Palestinians nevertheless see him as corrupt and ineffective, and a group of prominent Palestinians is calling for a new and democratically elected leadership. One of the younger candidates who has emerged is Marwan Barghouti, a leader of Arafat's Fatah faction. Barghouti, who holds a master's degree from Birzeit University, has survived at least one Israeli assassination attempt to become a chief spokesman for the Palestinian armed resistance. Unlike leaders of Hamas, Barghouti favors restricting Palestinian attacks to the West Bank and Gaza. In doing so he said, Palestinians send the message that “we are fighting against the Israeli military occupation, and we are not fighting against Israel as a state.
It is a message that will appeal to the increasing number of Israelis who see the settlements as the chief cause of Israel's security problems and are demanding an end to the occupation. Ten thousand Israeli Palestinians and Jews rallied in Tel Aviv on Feb. 10, waving banners saying “Occupation No, Peace Yes! and “Stop Sharon Before He Kills Us All. A letter is circulating signed by 300 reserve officers and soldiers who have declared: “We will not fight beyond the Green Line with the aim of dominating, expelling, starving and humiliating an entire people [see box on previous page]. The reservists expect to get 300 more signatures, and a poll reported by Israeli radio on Feb. 21 showed that 30 percent of Israelis support them. An additional 20 percent agree that Israel is acting “immorally in the occupied territories.
On Feb. 17, 20,000 Israelis turned out for a rally in Tel Aviv sponsored by the Israeli Peace Coalition, which includes Peace Now, the Meretz party, and a number of smaller organizations. According to a report in the San Francisco Chronicle, the biggest applause was for Sari Nusseibeh, the PLO representative in Jerusalem, who said the Palestinians want a return to the 1967 borders, but with “a warm peace, not a cold peace, between our nations. A spokesman for Peace Now said the rally was the first major activity of a “Get Out of the Territories—Get Back to Ourselves campaign, which will culminate with a huge rally on June 6, the anniversary of the occupation.
International pressure on Israel to end the occupation also has increased. Fourteen members of the EU have endorsed a proposal by French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine calling for immediate recognition of a Palestinian state based on pre-1967 borders, and Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has offered peace with Israel in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal from all of the territory it occupied in 1967, including East Jerusalem. The proposal is similar to one made in 1981 by King Fahd when he was crown prince, but differs in allowing Israel to retain control over the Western Wall and other Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem.
Several Arab states have reacted positively, but it will take strong pressure from Washington to persuade Sharon to accept it. This year, with Israelis sick of the continuing violence and their economy experiencing zero growth, such pressure would be more effective than ever. Since Sharon is certain to ask the United States to help bail out his government, Bush has a priceless opportunity to demand in exchange a complete and immediate end to the occupation. But first he will have to wrest U.S. foreign policy from the grip of administration hawks who are determined to wage a new Cold War, this time against enemies determined by Israel. So far there is no evidence Bush will do so. Unless the administration changes course, however, the U.S. alliance with Israel in an endless “war on terrorism is certain to cause a split between the United States and its European allies, threaten a wider war in the Middle East, and make the world a more dangerous place for everyone, including Americans.
Rachelle Marshall is a free-lance editor living in Stanford, CA. A member of the International Jewish Peace Union, she writes frequently on the Middle East.
|
|