The purpose of the Israeli strike against Syria and the leaks on Israel's intention to strike Iran is to make the Arabs cower while Tel Aviv flexes its military muscle, writes Ibrahim Nafie I do not normally buy into conspiracy theories which, all too often, are used to pass off our own failings. Nevertheless, one cannot look at US and Israeli actions in this region without reaching the conclusion that a plot of some nature is in the process of being hatched against the Arabs. The plot requires a footing in an oil-rich Arab country so as to ensure the free flow of cheap oil and to use this country as a base for reshaping the regional map and undermining the Arab identity. To its architects, the members of the current US administration, the events of 11 September were a godsend that they deftly manipulated in the name of "the war against terrorism". Recent developments in Palestine, Syria and Iraq also make it abundantly clear that the ultra-conservatives in the White House have been working in close coordination with the extremist government in Israel, whose designs for regional hegemony mesh perfectly with the aims of the Bush administration. Recent deliberate leaks from Israel's secret service Mossad regarding Tel Aviv's intention to launch missile strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities underscore the nature of the Israeli role. The Arab world, thus, faces an unprecedented threat which calls for a closer look at its various dimensions. In Palestine, Israeli occupation forces have unleashed a campaign of death and destruction unprecedented in the history of civilised nations. The recent incursion into Rafah is but the latest episode in the systematic murder of innocent people, the demolition of their homes and the razing of their fields. In tandem with this barbarity, the Sharon government forges ahead with the construction of the racist wall of separation, positioned so as to enable Israel to gobble up another large tract of Palestinian land. That this wall is cutting through villages and separating families has compelled Nigel Roberts, director of the World Bank in the West Bank and Gaza, to comment, "the wall being constructed by Israel will increase the suffering of Palestinian families and communities." Apart from such humanitarian pleas, echoed by numerous international human rights organisations, the wall constitutes a flagrant breach of the UN Charter and international law which prohibits the acquisition of territory by force, and of UN resolutions calling upon Israel, as an occupying power, not to alter the situation on the ground in the occupied territories. But the international community has its hands tied. Any Security Council resolution condemning Israel for its crimes is certain to be blocked by a US veto, even though formulas currently under consideration do not invoke Chapter Seven of the UN Charter which would make it possible to back such a resolution by force of arms as was the case with resolutions passed against Iraq in 1990 and 2003. Not only is there no power to restrain Israel; the current US administration is actively encouraging Israeli atrocities. By branding organisations that are exercising their internationally sanctioned right to resist occupation as "terrorist", and by declaring that Israel has the right to do whatever it deems necessary to defend its security, Washington has spurred the Likud government to ever greater heights of brutality. The extent to which Washington is prepared to coddle Israel is evident in a recent shift in position. Whereas only a few months ago, President Bush likened the wall to a snake twisting through the West Bank, he has since expressed his sympathy for Israel's motives in erecting it, giving the Likud government yet another green light to perpetuate its crimes. In Iraq, where another dimension of the conspiracy is unfolding, US occupation authorities appear to have taken the cue directly from the Israeli occupation forces in Palestine, emulating to the letter the process of house-to-house raids, mass arrests and the deliberate degradation of an occupied people. Simultaneously, Washington persists in its adamant rejection of all calls for the rapid transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqi people and handing over the management of Iraq to the UN. All indications are that Washington is determined to prolong its occupation of Iraq and rule it as though it were a part of the US. More ominously, it is clearing the way for Israeli companies -- and Turkish forces -- to enter Iraq, thereby advancing the spurious designs of two non-Arab regional powers. Meanwhile, in the face of the growing intensity of the armed resistance against US occupation forces, Washington is pressing for a Security Council resolution creating a multinational force that would take the heat off American soldiers in Iraq. The American proposal has been roundly rebuffed by such international powers as France, Germany, Russia and China. All are unwilling to sanction, retroactively, a war and an occupation based on non-existent weapons of mass destruction and waged without a UN mandate. Instead, these powers insist upon an early date for popular elections preparatory to the transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqi people. Nor can they countenance any justification for keeping the UN out of Iraq. As president of the European Commission Romano Prodi put it, "The situation in Iraq is getting worse, making it increasingly difficult to find a solution unless the Iraqi people participate in restoring peace and unless the UN plays an effective role in Iraq." Washington's pretext for invading Iraq has proved groundless and it has failed to provide us with any convincing explanation for its refusal to withdraw from Iraq and hand over control to the UN. Such considerations add compelling weight to the likelihood of a comprehensive US-hatched conspiracy against the Arab world. Further evidence resides in the Israeli aerial strike against Syria earlier this month which targeted a site near Damascus. Once again, Bush declared that Israel had the right to do whatever it deemed necessary to defend itself, which Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon seized upon as a green light to launch further strikes against sovereign nations in the region. In addition, the White House withdrew its reservations against the Syria Accountability Act which had been under review in the House of Representatives' Foreign Relations Committee for over a year. In September 2002, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Satterfield told Congress, "President Bush has indicated that Syria has cooperated with the US in the war against terrorism and has stressed that this cooperation was instrumental in saving American lives." What has happened in the interim to change Bush's mind? The war against and subsequent occupation of Iraq. In its visit to Washington in February this year, an Al-Ahram delegation asked several US officials whether there was any truth to the rumour that there existed in the State Department a list of countries to be targeted after Iraq. Certainly not, the officials assured us. However, Washington's shift in position on the Syria Accountability Act puts paid to such reassurances, as do its reaction to the recent Israeli strike against Syria and Israeli threats against Iran. The features of a conspiracy take on greater clarity when we consider the question of Israel's nuclear arsenal in conjunction with that nation's regional designs. The deliberate leaks to US and European media on Israel's nuclear capabilities are clearly intended to create the impression that Tel Aviv can and will strike wherever and whenever it wants without restraint or punishment. On Sunday, the Los Angeles Times reported that Israel had recently modified its Harpoon Cruise missile to make it possible to fit it with nuclear warheads and launch it from anyone of three Dolphin submarines that Israel purchased from Germany in the late 1990s. Israel possesses 120 such missiles. When the newspaper asked an unidentified US official about Washington's position on the matter, he answered, "We tolerate the existence of nuclear weapons in Israel for the same reason we tolerate them in Britain and France. We do not consider Israel a threat." On Monday, Der Spiegel reported that the Israeli prime minister had charged a special unit of Mossad with drawing up plans for striking six Iranian targets using F-16 fighters. According to the Observer, this information had been deliberately leaked by Israeli intelligence with the purpose of drawing world attention to the dangers inherent in Iran's attempts to possess WMDs, and specifically nuclear weapons. The British newspaper then cited Israeli Chief of Staff Moshe Yalon who, on 24 September, stated, "There is a danger of non-conventional weapons being in the possession of a nation as irresponsible as Iran." If the purpose of the Israeli strike against Syria, combined with the leaks on Israeli nuclear capabilities and its intention to strike Iran, is to make the Arabs cower while Tel Aviv flexes its military muscle wherever Washington dictates, such thinking will be of no avail as far as Egypt is concerned. The 30th anniversary of the 6 October War should serve to remind all concerned of how effectively we can draw on our resources. As former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger testified, Israeli forces were in complete disarray following the joint Egyptian-Syrian surprise attack in 1973 and would not have been able to stage a comeback had it not been for the US airlift to Israel. Drawing on his accumulated experience in these matters, President Hosni Mubarak has offered a precise diagnosis of the current threat to the region and how to deal with it. On numerous occasions he has referred to the bellicose nature of the current Israeli government and its refusal to heed Egyptian advice. Israeli citizens will never know security as long as their armed forces persist in attacking others, he said, adding that Sharon's policy was "a mistake the price for which will be paid by the Israeli citizen yearning to live in peace and security". The president also gave sound advice on how to shore up the domestic front in the face of the current challenges. For example, he pressed home the need for Palestinians to respect the security concerns of the average Israeli citizen. While the Israeli government was directly responsible for the current deterioration that is threatening their security, it is nonetheless the case that the more Palestinian factions demonstrated their commitment to the sanctity of life of the average Israeli, the more they will be able to advance the cause of the Palestinian people. As Mubarak said, "When we speak of a safe and secure life for the Palestinian or Arab citizen, we must also take into consideration the innocent Israeli citizen who is powerless to affect his government's policies yet who longs to live in peace."
