Ramzy
Baroud Interviewed
By Munish Nagar &
Ramzy Baroud
10 February, 2007
Countercurrents.org
Ramzy
Baroud is a veteran Palestinian-American Journalist and is Editor-in-Chief
of the Palestine Chrinicle. He worked in Al-Jazeera as a producer, and
an author of The Second Palestinian Intifada: A chronicle of people’s
struggle. Ramzy is a virtuoso media professional and has been a guest
speaker at many Universities of the world. He talked about on the war
between Palestine and Israel with Munish Nagar through e-mail.
Q. What is the importance of Hizbollah’s last year victory
to Hamas and other Palestinian groups?
Hizbollah’s victory
is important for more than one reason; one aspect is pertinent to the
timing of that victory, which comes at a time that the US had just discovered
the limitation of its military capabilities in Iraq. Israel was trying
to achieve a military victory for itself and others: US, those who were
set to benefit from the elimination of Hizbollah in Lebanon and for
the region’s traditional US allies (corrupt regime, business elites,
etc). Following its Lebanon adventure, which was weighed in at least
one year in advance, Israel has also learned that its military power
as well had its own limits and was taught a hard lesson, and the results
of that lesson continue to reverberate throughout Israel’s political
scene.
Another factor is that Hizbollah
emerged as a formidable foe in Lebanon, and is now trying to translate
its popularity and military strength into political strength, stirring
a battle (mostly a political one that had recently spilled into violent
confrontations following the debilitating strike) whose outcome is yet
to be determined.
Moreover, the US hoped that
a quick Hizbaollah defeat would both intimidate Iran before the sheer
might of the Israeli military, which also served an American purpose.
The opposite transpired, as Iran emerged more powerful and confident,
further exasperating American’s woes in the region, but also compounding
fears of a regional Shiite-Sunni clash.
Q. It’s in
the hands of Israel to stop or end violence on Palestinian people or
Israel is being played like a puppet in American Hands?
Israel is by no means a puppet
in American hands. The relationship between the two is rather unique.
Israel is not exactly a ‘client regime’ per se, yet it doesn’t
necessarily ‘control’ American foreign policy in the region.
What is taking place is rather an exchange, equitable or otherwise,
where both parties are hoping to advance their own interests in the
region, while mutually benefiting from each other’s unique advantages.
Traditionally, Israel served as an American proxy and ally, whereby
the US uses Israel’s strategic positioning to further its own
designs in the region, warranted or otherwise. Israel, on the other
hand, has benefited tremendously from American financial and military
aid, in addition to political backing that has shielded it rather successfully
from any accountability to international law.
To guarantee its interests
in America, Israel had relied heavily on several lobbying bodies, notwithstanding
The American Israeli Public Relations Committee (AIPAC), whose degree
of success in fortifying Israel’s position is hardly debatable.
However, during the George W. Bush years, that relationship began tilting
more in Israel’s favor than in favor of the traditional American
foreign policy view; this was due to the ability of the neoconservatives
- a group of influential pro Israeli ideologues, purporting as patriotic
Americans – to sway US policy in the Middle East to fit Israel’s
regional agenda, thus getting the US to achieve what Israel couldn’t
do alone, hense the regime change in Iraq, containing Iran and Syria,
etc. The neoconservatives shrewdly convinced the US administration that
what is good for Israel is good for America. 3068 dead and 40,000 wounded
American soldiers later, the US is beginning to realize this fatal mistake,
despite the stubbornness of the President.
Q. At what extent you are right that Israeli leader with the
support of US and allies to dominate the Arabs? Was the Iraq’s
invasion by US and allied forces and the execution of Saddam was a step
towards the domination of Arab World?
In many ways America had
often determined its relationship to Arab states based on these states’
perception and/or relationship with Israel and the so-called peace process.
Most Arab states are more or less dominated by the US and even ‘rogue’
states had at times good relations with Washington and were very willing
to become client regimes at a whim. But while some either agreed to
normalize with Israel openly (Jordan, Egypt, Mauritania), others did
so in more subtle ways (some Gulf countries, Morocco, etc). Those who
rejected Israel’s terms of peace or exhibited hostility toward
the Zionist state were branded as ‘rogue’, and there sins
were augmented beyond reason. (The submissive camp was dubbed moderate
and friendly, despite the fact that some were brutal and utterly despotic).
So what has happened following
the murder of Saddam and the intimidation of Syria is not exactly an
overhauling of the relationship between Washington and Arabs, but rather
a redefining of that relationship. America is realizing that is has
to change the rules of the game to guarantee that ‘rogue’
states become a thing of the past. It wants to deny even its allies
in the region the most basic bargaining power so that the relationship
shifts from that of superpower-client state to a super-power and mere
proxies. This is what Washington is currently concocting. There are
many obstacles standing in the way of course, including the resurgence
of Islamic forces, Hamas and Hizbollah and the resistance in Iraq.
Q. Palestinians are
suffering from the Israeli forces since long time. What role has played
by United Nations Human Rights Commission in this regard?
The United Nations Human
Rights Commission is to a large degree free of US influence in the UN.
The US uses various control mechanisms to influence the proceedings
of various UN bodies, including the use of veto at the Security Council,
political pressure in the General Assembly and withholding of funds
from various UN arms. UNHRC however, despite occasional failures has
held its ground and on many occasions called Israel on its brutality.
The commission however has little or no executive power. It can embarrass
Israel at times, and has repeatedly called on the international community
to interfere on behalf of Palestinians. The commission’s position
however, was hardly ever translated to an actual work plan at the UN
for the US’ control mechanisms were much greater that the commission’s
limited powers and ability to withstand pressure.
Q. The Article 3
of UN Declaration clearly states “Everyone has the right to life,
liberty and security of persons”. But the killings of Palestinian
civilians by Israeli forces made to think that rules and regulations
are meant to be broken. Do you agree with this?
The UN founding principles
and original declaration are very noble as they clearly spoke out against
the cruelty of WWII where human dignity and the sanctity of life sunk
to their lowest levels in recent memory. However, aside from the theoretical
aspect of this, since its founding nearly six decades ago, the UN is
yet to become an equally representative organization that is capable
of translating its principles into action, guiding and guarding its
Human Rights Declaration in a serious enough manner that is capable
of challenging the arrogance of both super powers like the US or smaller
entities that violate international law such as Israel and Ethiopia.
To answer your question more directly, while the spirit of the UN declaration
shall endure, it is yet to be substantiated with concerted and meaningful
action; at least as far as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is concerned.
Q. What would you
like to say on the “Ceasefire” concept of Israel?
Israel doesn’t believe
in ceasefire as a step toward calm, thus peace. Israel is a state that
still believes that military supremacy must be maintained and exercised
at all times to ensure the submission of its enemies, and it does so
disproportionately and frequently. Israel would resort or use the term
“ceasefire” in the three following occasions: as a farce,
meaning using the term but not implementing its conditions to evade
criticism; two, when its forced to do so, as was the case in Lebanon
following the July-August war with Hizbollah. Even in this occasion,
this was a tactical ceasefire. Third, as a political strategy, such
as strengthening Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’
position against his rivals in Hamas. As a concept in itself that aims
at establishing meaningful peace, ceasefire is yet to exist in Israel’s
lexicon.
Q. If the violence
on the Palestinians by Israeli forces will remain same, then where will
be Palestine stand over next ten years?
It’s unlikely that
there will be any truly sovereign Palestine in the next 10 years. Indeed,
all signs are pointing to the contrary. Even if one wishes to circumvent
the question, for now, regarding the viability of a Palestinian state
over parts of the West Bank and Gaza, one cannot expect that the current
balance of power, the dishonesty of the US, the absence of a strong
third party, the fragmentation of the Arabs politically and the regional
upheaval that was engendered by the US chaotic Middle East policy, and
notwithstanding the Palestinian eternal strife, could possibly create
a situation that would convince or force Israel to heed to the calls
for peace and respect international law, thus withdrawing from the Occupied
Territories.
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights