Ahmed Abdel-Halim* examines spurious, and other, links in the chain Ramadan this year arrived -- as it has arrived for as long as anyone can remember -- in a troubled Middle East. Israel has unleashed all its military might against the Palestinians, especially in Gaza, and the US is doing the same in Iraq. As the US and Israel work in tandem to encircle or partition the Arab world the Arabs, as usual, are absorbed in internal squabbles, aggravating their difficulties and abetting US-Israeli schemes. The Arab world appears determined to remain oblivious to the fact that the rest of the world is coalescing into mutually supporting coalitions, blocs and federations. It has maintained a studied indifference to the contest that is taking place inside the US between two presidential candidates who are, as far as Arab rights are concerned, clones of one another. Ramadan comes at a time when the Arab world is succumbing to concerted outside pressures to meddle in its domestic affairs under the pretext of reform. Across the Atlantic Washington called for a Greater Middle East, a phrase that has now expanded into the Extended Middle East and North Africa, catchwords for the Israeli and American supported regional remapping that Israel believes holds the key to its future security. Taking up the call NATO, eagerly looking eastwards, has held intensive meetings on security arrangements for the region, arrangements that mesh comfortably with those of Sharon. Days before the start of Ramadan terrorism, driven from abroad, appeared once more in Egypt while Israel's prime minister, whose policies were one of the prime causes, moved quickly to extract the maximum political and media capital out of the bombings. Meanwhile, Arab countries bend over backwards to please the US, regardless of how this might conflict with Arab national interests. There is no doubt the Taba bombings were aimed against Israel. They were an extension of the suicide operations that have struck Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and other areas inside Israel. That the Egyptian- Israeli peace treaty limits the presence of Egyptian forces in Area C in Sinai to a small police force aided the saboteurs. Now that Palestinian resistance organisations have lost much of the manoeuverability they once enjoyed Taba was probably selected as a target because it offered a better opportunity to strike at Israeli civilians than other areas accessible from the occupied territories. But Taba could also have been chosen as a target to deliver a message to Egypt to take urgent action to alleviate the pressures faced by Palestinians at this critical phase, while at the same time delivering an ultimatum to the international community to the effect that if it does not act immediately to resolve urgent regional problems, and specifically to get the Palestinian-Israeli negotiating process back on course, there is no telling where resistance operations will strike next. It is almost certain the bombings were not the work of an Egyptian group. This was not an operation that could have been carried out on the spur of the moment but rather an operation that required huge amounts of planning, preparation and training. Considerable time was put into the detailed staging of each phase of the operation, into selecting the target and studying the lay of the land, into assessing the quantities of explosives that would be needed, coordinating the transport of these explosives, selecting and training operatives and arranging for them to enter the country and be ready for action at a moment's notice. Given the many security checkpoints in Sinai, one imagines, too, that the trucks that were used were clean when they entered and were rigged at the selected assembly point, and that the operators entered the area surreptitiously or in the guise of tourists. Israel has frequently accused Egypt of smuggling arms, ammunition and explosives into Gaza via tunnels from Rafah, despite the fact that the provisions of the Camp David accord obviate Egyptian control over the area. But it is well established that over two-thirds of the military equipment that Palestinian resistance organisations use in their operations inside Israel come from Israel itself. This fact could easily lend itself to the conclusion that the equipment used in the Taba bombings came from Israel. And that equipment could well have entered Egypt via the tunnels over which Israel now has complete control. Or perhaps the equipment took a different route: directly from Israel via the Gulf of Aqaba, for example, or via agents in neighbouring countries. One must also bear in mind that such an operation requires enormous outlays of cash to cover the purchase of equipment, training, transport, reconnaissance and other activities. Nor could it have been carried out without sophisticated technological know-how, as well as access to technology for land, aerial, and perhaps even satellite surveillance and communications. Speculation over means leads on to motives, the latter clearly related to policies towards this region in the absence of viable political initiatives aimed at resolving regional problems. These problems have been compounded by the American invasion of Iraq and Washington's absolute and unwavering support for Sharon's recourse to arms. Israel and its Western supporters have yet to fathom that military action, regardless of how ferocious, cannot solve political problems and cannot generate lasting security and stability in the region. We can only hope that Bush's recent speech at the UN marks at least an inkling of change in Washington's thinking in this regard, and that his references to the need to create a common ground of political, cultural and religious beliefs so that people can work together in a spirit of brotherhood towards solutions to the problems in this and other regions signals a shift away from the confrontational approach his administration has so far favoured. Until the Americans prove true to such principles, though, two other factors have a direct bearing on the Sinai incident: the unilateral Israeli disengagement from Gaza and American attempts to link its military operations and general policy in Iraq with events in the occupied territories. Israel -- and, by extension, Washington -- wants Egypt to play an instrumental role in Israel's disengagement. Egypt, for its part, is keen to diffuse tension on the Palestinian-Israeli track and, as it has made clear to the contending parties and to the international community, will work tirelessly for peace. Egypt has also made it clear that it will act only to promote the security needs of all parties, not one party at the expense of another, and has therefore stipulated conditions it wants both the Israelis and the Palestinians to meet regarding disengagement. It wants Israel to withdraw completely from Gaza, to dismantle all (as opposed to only four) of its settlements there, to hand over full control of Gaza airport and port to the Palestinians, and to relinquish its policy of "hot pursuit" in accordance with which it reserves the right to reinvade Gaza in the event of any perceived threat. Nor has Egypt any intention of intervening in Gaza unless officially invited to do so by the Palestinians. Egypt's primary demand from the Palestinians, therefore, is to reach a consensus over aims and strategies, and, specifically, over whether they want Egypt to play a role in Gaza. US attempts to link military operations and policies in Iraq with events in the occupied territories bodes ill for all. For Washington to compare its situation there with that of Israel in Palestine is to hint at an ambition to establish a permanent presence in Iraq. There should be no confusing the two crises; they are radically different in origins and dynamics and in the means needed to steer them towards a just solution. Without adopting a fresh approach to hastening developments in the region the Arabs will forfeit major opportunities. And the starting point in this endeavour is for us to take the initiative in solving all our problems, from the imperative of domestic reform to perilous regional political issues. I can only voice the hope that all parties work together to bring greater security and prosperity to all countries of the Middle East. Israel has no more right to security and prosperity than any other country in the region: the more it persists in the belief that it has, the more it seeks to impose its version of peace and security by military means, then the less likely it becomes that a lasting peace will be achieved. And while Israel may enjoy the unqualified support of the US there have been indications that there may well come a day when Washington will take Israel by surprise, having finally come to realise the prerequisites for a lasting peace and permanent stability in the region. * The writer is a member of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs.
