Uncategorized

Who’s in the golf cart? (Or MIAs at Aqaba)

Posted on

The other day, thanks to a fine piece by David Grossman, I offered “a flicker of hope” for movement toward a future settlement of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Today, with much upbeat reportage in our press on the Aqaba “summit,” I thought I might suggest some of the reasons for caution. It was perhaps remarkable that yesterday’s meeting at Aqaba even took place and that it didn’t instantly fall to pieces. This is a testament to the impressive nature of this American “moment” in the Middle East in the wake of our latest Iraqi war. And, in fact, much of yesterday’s meeting was part and parcel of a developing American strategy for maintaining a massively dominant position in the Middle East.

In its very make-up, the Aqaba meeting was a striking statement of American power and presumption. It’s worth starting by considering who was MIA. Tony Blair, for one, much disliked by the Sharonistas. Any evidence of European power or influence for another. (As with Iraq, the Busheviks are remarkably uninterested in anything other than a uni-powerful position in a unipolar world). And although clearly a crucial part of any future regional settlement, both Syria and Lebanon were also missing in action. (The administration may have other plans for Syria.)

The striking, though in the American press largely uncommented upon absence of those two countries, is a reasonable gauge of the weakness of the Arab world. On this, Zvi Bar’el of the Israeli daily Ha’aretz had the following to say (Behind the smiles at the summit):

“One of the key issues of contention between the
Arab leaders and Bush and his entourage was about
Syria and Lebanon, whose absence was more
prominent than some of the other participants’
presence. According to an Egyptian source,
Mubarak made clear to Bush that the composition
of the summit meeting ’embarrassed the Arabs …
people are talking about how we are dividing the
Arab world into two. There are those who meet
with you and those you boycott, those you
threaten and those who go with you in a golf
cart.’

“The leaders made clear to Bush that Syria and
Lebanon are part of the Arab world and that a
solution to the Palestinian problem will not
solve the Arab-Israeli conflict as long as Syria
and Lebanon are not involved. ‘We can’t speak for
all the Arab states,’ the Arabs at the summit
told the Americans, ‘and we are committed to the
Arab League decisions.’ Behind those
clarifications is the Arab desire to avoid
another split in the Arab world after the war in
Iraq.”

Missing also from the Aqaba meeting, or at least keeping a remarkably low profile, were the neocons linked to the Israeli right-wing who consider any road map a path to hell. They, however, remain well entrenched at the highest levels in Washington, and on some of them may fall responsibility for carrying out the president’s policy. In Ha’aretz, Shmuel Rosner had this to say about them (U.S. nurses illusions on the road to Aqaba):

“No wonder that Frank Gaffney, founder and
president of the Center for Security Policy, and
one of the hawks in the neo-conservative camp in
Washington, has been worried in the last week. He
calls the road map the road trap.

“The leaders made clear to Bush that Syria and
Lebanon are part of the Arab world and that a
solution to the Palestinian problem will not
solve the Arab-Israeli conflict as long as Syria
and Lebanon are not involved. ‘We can’t speak for
all the Arab states,’ the Arabs at the summit
told the Americans, ‘and we are committed to the
Arab League decisions.’ Behind those
clarifications is the Arab desire to avoid
another split in the Arab world after the war in
Iraq.”

Missing also from the Aqaba meeting, or at least keeping a remarkably low profile, were the neocons linked to the Israeli right-wing who consider any road map a path to hell. They, however, remain well entrenched at the highest levels in Washington, and on some of them may fall responsibility for carrying out the president’s policy. In Ha’aretz, Shmuel Rosner had this to say about them (U.S. nurses illusions on the road to Aqaba):

“No wonder that Frank Gaffney, founder and
president of the Center for Security Policy, and
one of the hawks in the neo-conservative camp in
Washington, has been worried in the last week. He
calls the road map the road trap.

“[Elliot Abrams, the National Security Council official responsible for the Middle
East is in] many circles suspect. The person now leading
policy in the Israel-Palestinian issue was, from
the start, opposed to the way the road map was
created. He did not want the Europeans involved
nor any quarrels with Sharon over the
settlements.

“People who know Vice President Richard Cheney’s
views say he is one of the main proponents of
cooperation with Sharon.The
political reason is clear: the right,
particularly the Christian right, sympathizes
with Israel.

“The more substantive reason is the more
interesting one. Cheney has told his people the
U.S. should not make things difficult for Israel
by making demands for various concessions,
because in the future, the U.S. might also find
itself facing demands for similar concessions in
the fight against terror”

The Guardian reports that before Sharon even made his statements at Aqaba he was already backtracking. (Chris McGreal, Sharon sticks to script in front of Bush – but the backtracking has already begun):

“In a bizarre twist, the Israeli prime minister’s office issued what amounted to a clarification of his speech before he even made it by saying that when he referred to a Palestinian state he meant one that was demilitarised and that would be the only home for the Palestinian diaspora.

“Mr Sharon had notably made no such qualification in his speech, apparently because the Americans told both parties to steer clear of demands about the right of Palestinian refugees to land they once owned in Israel. Mr Sharon’s office also went on to say that by ‘viable’ he meant an ‘interim’ state.”

And, of course, the facts on the ground, where low-level Israeli operations continue as destructively as ever, are not encouraging. See, for instance, Conal Urquhart’s Guardian piece, Children shot in third day of Israeli army raids, or Ha’aretz reporter Amira Hass’s We don’t raze homes for no reason.

Finally, below, I include two mainstream pieces, both warnings about the future. Henry Siegman of the Council on Foreign Relations wrote an op-ed for the International Herald Tribune, passed on to me by the always helpful people at Jewish Peace News with the following note: “Siegman’s advice is: watch the settlements. They are the crux of the agreement. Regardless of what the politicians are saying, genuine progress towards peace will only be evident in the removal of Jewish-only colonies from stolen Palestinian land.” In addition, you’ll find a report from the sober and reliable Christian Science Monitor suggesting the degree to which the Aqaba summit was a secret Israeli victory party. Finally, I include a piece by Ira Chernus from the CommonDreams website on the “two lives” of Israeli Jews and what needs to change in their consciousness for peace to be truly possible. Tom

Has Sharon Set a Trap for Bush?
By Henry Siegman

International Herald Tribune

3 June 2003

NEW YORK – President George W. Bush’s summit meeting Wednesday
with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel and the Palestinian
prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas, is unexpected and extraordinary.
The hope it generates for progress in the implementation of the
American-backed peace plan known as the road map could not have
been imagined just days ago. Nevertheless, it is difficult not
to view Sharon’s and Abbas’s acceptance of the road map without
a large dose of skepticism.

In the case of Abbas, that skepticism has less to do with his
intentions than with his ability to implement the road map’s
requirements, particularly the demand that he put an end to
terrorism. Abbas must contend with the likely obstructionism of
Yasser Arafat and with the sorry state of Palestinian security
forces, destroyed by Israel.

The writer is a senior fellow on the Middle East at the Council
on Foreign Relations. These views are his own.

To read more Siegman click here

At summit, Israel solidifies gains
By Cameron W. Barr
Christian Science Monitor
June 5, 2003

AQABA, JORDAN – In this phase of its struggle against the Palestinians,
Israel can just about declare victory.

At a summit meeting held Wednesday on the shores of the Red Sea,
Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas stood alongside the leaders of
Israel, Jordan, and the US and declared that his government “will exert
every effort and we will use every means available to us to end the
armed intifada” (uprising) against Israel. He added: “We must use
peaceful means in our endeavor to end the occupation,” which began when
Israeli forces seized the Palestinian territories in 1967.

These remarks may signal the end of the war that Israelis and
Palestinians have fought against each other for nearly three years.

To read more of this CSM piece click here

Six Day War Changed Everything Except Jewish Fears
by Ira Chernus
CommonDreams.org
June 4, 2003

36 years ago, this week, Israel conquered the West Bank and Gaza. That changed everything in the Middle East-except the deep-seated fear underlying Jewish life. Until that fear begins to lift, there is little hope for Middle East peace.

The number 36 has a very special meaning in Judaism. 18 is the number that symbolizes “life.” So 36 is twice life, or two lives. The Zionist movement and the state of Israel have indeed lived two lives, one before June, 1967, and the other after that fateful time. Before June, 1967, Jews in Israel and around the world viewed ourselves as a tiny vulnerable minority. We had good reason to be afraid. We had spent nearly two millennia without a state, an army, or any way to protect ourselves. In our powerlessness, we were easy to victimize, and far too often we were victims.

Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

To read more Chernus click here