May 6, 2002
Who
runs America's foreign policy? The answer to this vexing question seems to
vary, depending on the day of the week which could mean it has something
to do with the position of the Moon. Some days, it's Colin Powell over at
the State Department. Other times, control is ceded to the super-hawks in
the Defense Department. And, on occasion, it seems no one is at the helm,
with different factions of the government each enunciating their own
foreign policy, giving the odd impression of an administration talking out
of both sides of its mouth.
CHANGING
THE CHANNEL
Just
this past weekend, the Sunday morning talk shows featured Colin Powell on
"Meet the Press" essentially saying the Israeli settlements over
30 new ones have been built during Sharon's tenure have
got to go. But one had only to change the channel over
to Fox News Sunday to hear National Security advisor Condoleeza Rice instantly
transform the official US position on the settlements question:
"Let's
take one thing at a time. Settlements will eventually be an issue. But I think
we have to get the context right here. We need to end the terror, create a
situation in which there is better security and no violence."
Now, you
tell me: what is the US position on the settlements question? Damned
if I know. Is anybody in charge? If so, who?
We'll know the
answer to this fascinating question by the time Ariel Sharon winds up his
trip to Washington at the end of this week.
CHALLENGE
AND RESPONSE
The recent
turn in US policy, away from unconditional support for the Sharon's policies,
and toward a more even-handed position, is a gauntlet thrown in Sharon's path
and he did not hesitate to take up the challenge. A showdown is imminent.
General Sharon has mustered his troops especially the brigade stationed
in Washington, D.C. and I hope George W. Bush is prepared for the all-out
assault, because it is going to be merciless.
The Washington
gossips whisper that George W. Bush is liable to agree with whomever he met
with last. This may explain why Sharon was so quick to take up the President's
open invitation, at the conclusion of his meeting with Crown Prince Abdullah,
to visit with the leaders of other Middle Eastern states. The triumph of the
Arabists, exemplified by the administration's embrace of the Saudi peace offensive,
provoked a counter-attack launched from Tel Aviv. But something tells me this
guided missile is going to misfire, and badly.
THE BULLDOGS
After
all, the crusty old ultra-nationalist is not exactly the best advertisement
for his cause. Prolonged exposure to him Sharon is certain to invite comparisons
to Jean Marie Le Pen. Short, squat, and constantly barking, the two of them
resemble bulldogs, or pit-bulls. i.e. potentially dangerous creatures that
need constant reining in.
UP AGAINST
IT
Aside
from the abrasive personality of the Israeli leader, the bad public relations
of coming up against an American President, especially one who is being tested
as he hasn't been since 9/11, puts the Israelis at an automatic disadvantage.
In spite of Ms. Rice's Likudnik effusions, the administration has set down
certain parameters, chief among them being the legitimacy of the Palestinian
Authority and its chief executive, Yasser Arafat. The Los Angeles Times
reports
the view from inside the State Department:
"'We
don't have a whole lot of faith in Arafat. But at the same time, there isn't
any alternative,' said the senior State Department official. 'He was chosen
legitimately, if not totally democratically, by the Palestinians. We can't
pick the leader. So our view is that he needs to be pushed, and we have to
rebuild the Palestinian Authority based on democracy and transparency.'"
The State Department's
proposal to build up the Palestinian Authority, to transform it into a real
administrative and sovereign entity accountable to its own people and the
international community, is diametrically opposed to Sharon's program, which
is to destroy the PA and expel the Palestinians from the occupied territories.
Sharon's campaign to take out Arafat politically, physically, and permanently
has failed, due to US pressure, but don't think the Israelis have given
up.
ISRAEL CREATED
HAMAS
Driven
by domestic political pressures, Sharon is coming to Washington armed
with a 100-page dossier supposedly proving, beyond the shadow of a doubt,
that Arafat personally ordered and planned the suicide bombings. His "proof"
comes, we are told, from "captured documents" supposedly taken out
of Arafat's offices, left lying around by fleeing PLO personnel. Uh huh. Very
convincing, but, as the Los Angeles Times had
the temerity to report,
"U.S.
officials say they plan to remind Sharon of Israel's attempt to foster an
alternative to the nationalist Palestine Liberation Organization by encouraging
Palestinians in the 1970s to turn to their religion. One
result was the growth of Hamas, one of three extremist groups behind
the recent spate of suicide bombings in Israel."
Ouch! The last time I mentioned
Israel's past sponsorship of Hamas, we received at least half a dozen
letters saying, essentially, "how dare you even imply such a thing!"
Well then, here we have it out of the mouths of our own officials and so,
I ask you, is the government of the United States run by anti-Semites? Or
by Americans who have decided, for once, to put America first? We report.
You decide.
OH, SILLY
ME
I was
astonished to read, in the British Telegraph, a story headlined: "Sharon
to take hard line with Bush." Oh really? Gee, and here I thought
it was Israel that was dependent on American aid, and not vice versa: all
this time I've been laboring under the delusion that the US was the dominant
party in the US-Israeli alliance. Silly me, I actually believed that we
were the patron, and they were the patronized.
But General
Sharon is nobody's satellite, and he is determined to yank American policy
back into its familiar Israeli-centric obit. What's more, he just may pull
it off
.
GEORGE W.
BUSH TAKES CHARGE
"We're
certainly going to hear Sharon out," a State Department official told
the Los Angeles Times, "but the president has provided a broad
outline of what he thinks needs to happen, and we're not going to back away
from that." The President's men are not only drawing a line in the sand,
they are drawing three of them, telling the Israelis they must:
Sounds good
to me. The whole thing is supposed to come together at an international conference,
including the Europeans, the Russians, and other regional players: the Israelis,
naturally, are unalterably opposed, citing a Euro-Russian-"anti-Semitic"
world conspiracy and vowing never to take part.
FOR A FREE
MARKET PALESTINE
The Times,
citing their State Department source, lets us in on the plan to build up the
PA, albeit in a new and unfamiliar form:
"Washington
is now determined to ensure that a new Palestinian state is built on democratic
and free-market principles.
"'I
can't imagine that Israel will not find that attractive,' the official said."
I can. The last
thing the Israelis want is a free market Palestine on their border. That socialist Sparta won't allow
free enterprise in Israel proper why should they permit it in the occupied
territories?
THE GREAT
WALL OF SHARON
Sharon,
for his part, is coming to the US armed not only with his Arafat dossier,
but also with plans to build a "security fence," Israel's version
of the Great Wall of China although perhaps the Berlin Wall is a more apt
architectural precedent. It will be interesting to see just how far into the
occupied territories this proposed barrier is slated to extend. This may have
something to do with the alleged "concessions" Sharon is purportedly
willing to
make being touted
by Time magazine. As to what, exactly, these consist of, Time is inexplicably
mysterious, revealing only that:
"Israeli
officials say the concession will involve a new map for a potential Palestinian
state."
In the Israeli
view, you see, even admitting the potential legitimacy of a Palestinian state
is an enormous "concession," even if it's only a series of disconnected
South African-style bantustans, as was offered by the Israelis last time around.
But while this
kind of arrogance is applauded in Congress, it's not going to go over well
in the White House. Time cites "a senior US official close to
the talks" as saying of Sharon:
"He's
got to be willing to say that the [Palestinian] state will come in a reasonable
time frame; it has to be viable [that is, territorially contiguous], and even
if it's established on an interim basis, it's got to be linked to a final
settlement."
ATTACK OF
THE AMEN CORNER
None
of this is acceptable to Sharon, who, even if he agreed to Bush's terms, wouldn't
last long enough in office to sign his name to an agreement. In order to prevail,
Sharon must go over the head of the American President and make a political
appeal to Likud's supporters in this country to put the pressure on and
keep it on. The campaign took off well before Sharon's plane, with non-binding
resolutions passed by both houses of Congress pledging unconditional allegiance
to Israel. Mary
McGrory had it right. With the fate of the Middle East hanging in the
balance, and the President's policy teetering on the edge of either glorious
success or utter failure,
"It
did seem an ideal moment for adult inaction. But the die was cast at a Tuesday
meeting at the White House. Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle announced
the restiveness among his horses, who were hot to trot for Israel; Tom DeLay
announced he couldn't hold his, and the derby was on."
Particularly
interesting is McGrory's analysis of how the Republicans engaged in an amazing
stunt of political doublethink
to explain away openly undermining the President. By opposing him, you see,
they were really supporting him:
"House
Republicans, usually sticklers for loyalty, quite easily rationalized resistance
to George Bush's objections. They took a cue from Binyamin Netanyahu, who,
on a recent U.S. tour, announced that George Bush, whatever he was saying,
was on Israel's side. He might talk evenhanded 'on the days he talks to
Colin Powell,' in the cloakroom formulation but he wasn't kidding when he
called Ariel Sharon 'a man of peace.'"
SABOTAGING
THE PRESIDENT
While
Israel's poll numbers are
rapidly falling, albeit not out of any real sympathy for the Palestinians
so much as disgust with both sides, the Likudnik strategy is to make an end-run
around the majority. If Israel can touch all the right pressure points, rally
its small but vocal cadre of American
Likudniks, and mobilize the far right wing of the President's own party
against him all the while openly courting the Democrats the President's
new policy can be effectively sabotaged. That would suit putative presidential
candidate Joe Lieberman, author of the Senate resolution, just fine. It would
also suit the President's enemies in the conservative movement, especially
the neocons still seething over
the alleged "dirty tricks" that supposedly cheated their man
McCain out of the nomination.
LET US PRAY
George
W. Bush, famous for "bonding" with world leaders from Vicente
Fox to Tony
Blair to Crown Prince
Abdullah, has his work cut out for him in Ariel Sharon. When he butts
heads with that old soldier, we'll see what kind of stuff this President is
made of: marshmallow or granite. For those of us who want to see peace in
the Middle East, let us hope and pray it is the latter.
Antiwar.com
520 S. Murphy Avenue, #202
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
or
Contribute Via our Secure Server
Credit Card Donation Form