Fear And Loathing
Across
The Middle East
By Hasan Abu
Nimah & Ali Abunimah
17 March 2005
The
Electronic Intifada
The
Bush administration is eager to weave recent events in Palestine, Iraq
and Lebanon into a narrative that "democracy is on the march"
across the region. Even some of Bush's critics seem impressed lately.
Underlying the turmoil, however, is a heavy dose of old-fashioned power
politics and manipulation rather than the outburst of "people power"
that the US media is revelling in. And where people power is strongest,
it isn't marching in the direction Bush wants.
UN Envoy Terje Roed-Larsen
left Aleppo last weekend satisfied with the timetable he received from
President Bashar Assad for a complete Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon.
In a clear attempt to intimidate the Syrians before Roed-Larsen's arrival,
The Washington Post, in an article based on briefings from US and UN
officials, reported that "Roed-Larsen plans to inform Syria that
the international community is united in insisting that Damascus comply
with U.N. Resolution 1559 -- and is prepared to impose wide punitive
sanctions if it does not act quickly."
No one should object
if Syria is asked to leave Lebanon in accordance with the Taif accord
-- indeed an end to its heavy-handed intervention in Lebanon's internal
affairs is overdue. Syria should never have been so complacent as to
allow the current situation to arise. Nor should anyone worry if UN
resolutions calling for foreign troops to go home are implemented --
as that has always been the unheeded demand of people in this region.
But the unbalanced
approach towards Syria is unlikely to guarantee Lebanon's sovereignty,
territorial integrity and political independence, though it may clear
the way for more US interference in the region and strengthen the hand
of an intransigent Israel. Roed-Larsen's mission was not a principled
demonstration of international resolve to implement lawful decisions,
but another example of the double standards that are fuelling growing
resentment and anger across the region.
In contrast with
this sudden haste with respect to resolution 1559, it took 22 years
for Security Council resolution 425 of 1978, which demanded Israel "withdraw
forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory" to be implemented.
When Israel left most of southern Lebanon in 2000 it was entirely due
to the fierce Lebanese resistance that defeated Israel on the battlefield.
Neither have we seen any action from the UN or the other governments
to pressure Israel to accept Syria's repeated invitations to resume
peace negotiations in which a global settlement including Lebanon would
be up for discussion.
This week, UN Secretary-General
Kofi Annan also undertook a new foray to the region, starting with a
visit to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Jerusalem. Mr Annan
reportedly expressed "admiration" for Sharon's Gaza "disengagement"
plan even as Sharon lectured him about all the reasons why Israel still
refuses to start serious peace negotiations with the Palestinians. Unlike
Roed-Larsen in Syria, Annan did not present Sharon with any ultimatums
or demand a timetable for dismantling Israel's illegal settlements and
the separation wall in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions,
the July 2004 ruling of the International Court of Justice or even the
Road Map. However, according to Ha'aretz, "Annan told Sharon that
the UN would not stand for a partial withdrawal of Syrian troops from
Lebanon and is insisting all forces be evacuated as soon as possible."
It is not just Annan's
blatantly pro-Israel statements that are so damaging to peace prospects
and the neutrality of the United Nations, but also the provocative symbolism
of his visit. In 1980, Israel applied its "basic law" to Jerusalem,
as part of its campaign to tighten its hold on the city. The Security
Council in resolution 478 determined that the Israeli action was "null
and void and must be rescinded forthwith" and decided "not
to recognize the 'basic law' and such other actions by Israel that,
as a result of this law, seek to alter the character and status of Jerusalem."
It called on "those States that have established diplomatic missions
at Jerusalem to withdraw such missions from the Holy City."
For decades, senior
foreign diplomats refused to meet Israeli officials in Jerusalem in
order not to imply any recognition of Israel's claim that the occupied
city is its capital. By meeting Israel's Prime Minister in Jerusalem
Annan is himself ostentatiously flouting international law and personally
bestowing recognition on Israel's illegal actions. And other than a
brief courtesy call to Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas
in Ramallah, Annan rejected all invitations to see for himself the destruction
and suffering Israel's wall is causing to Palestinians in the occupied
territories, or to visit Jenin refugee camp where Israel committed war
crimes in 2002. He did however return to Jerusalem to attend the opening
of Israel's new Holocaust museum.
Meanwhile, the United
Kingdom, France and Germany made a worrying announcement that if Iran
fails to submit to the demands they are making regarding its nuclear
program, they will allow the issue to be transferred to the Security
Council, as the United States wants, where there is a good chance that
Iran could be subjected -- like Syria -- to threats of sanctions. This
would only deepen the sense in the region that the UN has become a tool
in the hands of the West to be used only to punish disobedient Arab
and Muslim countries, while Israel is exempt from any action to enforce
international law. European silence and American encouragement in the
face of Israel's escalating threats to attack Iran do not help avert
a looming confrontation.
Since the war in
Iraq and Bush's re-election we have witnessed the collective surrender
by large segments of European and Arab ruling elites, as many allow
themselves to become tools of Bush administration policies or scramble
desperately to protect themselves. Bush and his supporters are misinterpreting
this trend as vindication for their ideas.
As existing regimes
remain impotent in the face of Washington's onslaught, more people in
the region turn to radical groups as the only movements with grassroots
appeal that give voice to people's sense of injustice. Hizbullah's stunning
"march of the million" in Beirut is one sign of this phenomenon
and Hamas' recent landslide victory in Gaza's municipal elections is
another. When people in the region have expressed themselves -- even
in Iraq's flawed election -- they have overwhelmingly sided with the
forces that Washington fears and loathes the most.
The prestigious
Pew Research Center, which has been conducting detailed attitude surveys
in dozens of countries for decades, prefaced a new report (Global Opinion:
The Spread of Anti-Americanism, January 2005) with the sobering observation
that, "anti-Americanism is deeper and broader now than at any time
in modern history. It is most acute in the Muslim world, but it spans
the globe -- from Europe to Asia, from South America to Africa."
It added that, "[f]or Muslims, it has become almost an article
of faith that the United States sides unfairly with Israel in its conflict
with the Palestinians; 99% of Jordanians, 96% of Palestinians and 94%
of Moroccans agree. So too do most Europeans."
Even hawks like
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair recognise that this naked double standard
helps fuel much anti-Western feeling. But instead of serious action
the response is becoming more superficial, patronizing and self-deluding.
No one in power dares whisper about sanctions against Israel. Instead
Blair hosted a high profile London conference supposedly in support
of the Palestinian Authority on March 1. His Foreign Secretary, Jack
Straw, revealed the true agenda of the meeting, which Israel contemptuously
boycotted, when he explained that its purpose was "above all for
security reform and better support for the security work of the Palestinian
Authority."
Private Eye magazine,
which bitingly caricatures Blair by depicting him as the sanctimonious
vicar of an English village church, summed up the London conference
most effectively in its March 4 issue. "The vicar's outreach mission
to Palestine is going terribly well," it reported in a satirical
dispatch, "[t]his week there is an unprecedented peace conference
in St. Albion's bringing together both sides in this long-running conflict
except for one of the sides. Under the chairmanship of the vicar there
is every chance that the one side will agree with itself and real progress
will be made."