Not dazed and not confused

America's apparently contradictory attitude towards the Israeli invasion is not as messy as it first appears, argues Mohamed El-Sayed Said
The publicity war between opponents and supporters of Israeli aggression in the occupied territories is heating up in the United States. With it, criticism of the US administration's policy in the Middle East is mounting among the experts.
The main theme of local criticism of US policy is the contradictory and confused style of the administration's reaction to Israel's invasion and brutalisation of major cities and refugee camps in the West Bank. The US voted for Security Council resolutions 1402-1405, which used increasingly militant language in calling for the withdrawal of Israeli troops and the establishment of a fact-finding mission to Jenin refugee camp. In practice, however, the US leadership has failed to conceal its wholehearted support for the hideous operation launched by Israeli prime Minister Ariel Sharon against the Palestinian people.
President George W Bush even acted as an apologist for the operation, terming it "self-defence." His now famous words, that "Sharon is a man of peace," are unlikely to be agreed on by even Sharon himself, or by anyone else in their right mind.
The most obvious conclusion cannot have escaped anyone, no matter how naive. The US deliberately gave the Israeli government and the Israeli army ample time to "finish the dirty work of Zionism." In the course of Sharon's dirty work, the American administration produced two different sets of signals. The first set was embodied in a series of statements voiced by none other than the President and his top aides, not to mention the ready-made aides he has in the Congress. These signals gave unequivocal support to Israel's military drive until most of the massive destruction had already been carried out. The second set of signals, however, gave Arab states and Arab public opinion a milder version of what they wanted to hear, direct from the United Nations.
The contradiction is obvious at face value. But to what extent is it really true?
Addressing the question, Ambassador Nabil Fahmy, the Egyptian ambassador to the United States, told to Al-Ahram Weekly that, " One has to give credit to America in that President Bush has supported a two- state solution, including the end of settlements and occupation. America's positive vote in favor of the Security Council's resolutions lately is consistent with president Bush's vision declared at the United Nations and Secretary Powell's speech in Louisville, Kentucky. It is only sustained and consistent policy that will bring this vision to fruition. The national interests of all parties and those of international security must reign supreme over political arguments raised by some pundits in the political arena of the United States."
Citing the statements made by President Bush himself, and by his aides, which serve to discredit the entire administration in the eyes of the Palestinians, Arabs and the international community at large, I argued with Ambassador Fahmy. There is no foundation even a minimum measure of trust in the American administration's role in the political process in the region, I argued. In light of these statements and contradictions, what could be his views on rumors in Washington that this administration is bent on a swift move to activate the political track after the present rampage in the occupied territories ends? "Wouldn't this simply amount to granting Sharon the political advantages he planned to gain from his savage military operation?" I asked Ambassador Fahmy.
"The conflict in the Middle East and between Palestinians and Israelis in particular is an asymmetrical one in terms of the traditional components of power, be they political or military. But I believe the real strength of the Palestinians lies in the justice of their cause," he replied. "That alone, more than anything else, has allowed Palestinians to gain support for their independence. Once Israeli aggression ends, I believe that it is crucial to engage in comprehensive and sustained political talks in order to make Palestinian rights a reality. Even with all its military might, Israel will not win this conflict politically. The fundamental goal of the much-discussed political negotiations is to meet Palestinian aspirations. And only this can provide Israel with the security It needs," he added.
Ambassador Ahmad Abu El-Gheit, Egypt's permanent representative to the United Nations, provided much more specific and certainly more militant answers to the same questions. He went straight to the roots of Security Council resolutions 1402-5. "I believe that they (the Americans) were faithful in their moves which intended to put an end to (Israeli) military operation and undelayed withdrawal," Abu El- Gheit said.
"It is notable, however, that the American side always started the meetings with a declaration on the floor of the Security Council, which contradicted Arab demands. But the American position rapidly evolved into one of merely introducing modifications to draft resolutions prepared by Arab or European diplomats," he said.
"During the consultations on resolution 1402, the American representative unequivocally rejected the call for immediate withdrawal, and replaced it with the milder and non-specific expression 'without delay.' In resolution 1404, the American representative agreed to the term 'immediate implementation' (of resolution 1402) which was actually used in the text. My own interpretation is that they were sincerely trying to persuade the Israelis to withdraw through these resolutions. The Israeli lobby, however, gnashed its teeth, and was capable of amassing enormous pressures on the administration," said the ambassador.
"The American media did show some balance in its coverage of the Israeli military operation, which lasted almost three weeks. But this relative balance ended in a shambles when a whole row of Congressmen orchestrated a massive effort on the floor and in the media to tilt the balance towards an unwavering support to Israel. Also, note the huge number of pro-Israeli demonstrations in front of the Capitol and on the occasion of the AIPAC conference which ended Tuesday," Ambassador Abu El-Gheit added.
An important key in explaining the double-talk of the American administration is the mild language used in Security Council resolutions pertaining to the latest Israeli invasion. Why did Arab diplomats go along with this mild language, which in resolution 1402 failed to condemn Israeli military operation in the occupied territories? Why did Arab diplomats not insist on using the language of sanctions?
Addressing this question, ambassador Abu El-Gheit answered in the same straightforward and committed manner. "The fact of the matter is that it was clear that the US would veto any draft resolution which used this language. The same is true, at least in part, of many European countries which emphatically supported the substance of the Arab position but were either reluctant to use the same language or were opposed to it."
"In Egypt, we were determined to prevent the veto from taking place, because once it had used the veto the United States would tilt even more towards Israel. That would relieve the American administration of its responsibility as a permanent Security Council member and as the leading power in the world capable of safeguarding peace and standing with the substance of Palestinian rights as stated in Security Council resolutions," added Abu El-Geit.
"The Palestinian ambassador was even more interested in passing these Security Council resolutions, because those resolutions make clear commitments for the rights of Palestinian people including withdrawal. He had to compare the situation on the ground between passing resolutions, and having recognition of rights in principle even without actual power to support it, or having neither recognition nor implementation," the ambassador explained.
" But wasn't that the case in the latest resolution on the issue of atrocities in Jenin?" I asked. " Yes," he replied. "But the story is a little more complicated. When news about calamity of Jenin started to leak, the Arab diplomatic group in the UN drafted a very strong resolution to be advanced on the Council floor. At the outset, the Americans as usual said that they would not stand for any more resolutions. The same was said by a number of European countries, such as Norway and Bulgaria. But a new factor came into play when the Americans learned that the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan had, acting alone, made up his mind to send a fact- finding mission to Jenin."
"They know that this was in his power without having to have mandate from the Security Council. They also considered the fact that it would have been very difficult for them to veto a resolution based on international humanitarian law. Hence, they came to us and asked: why don't you focus on the humanitarian aspect instead of a political resolution? We then had to go with the resolution framed within the framework provided by the secretary-general, which calls not only for fact- finding but also for lifting (Israeli) restrictions and impediments against humanitarian assistance to the distressed people of the occupied territories. It also calls on Israel to respect international humanitarian law. It was the Americans who proposed this resolution themselves."
The implicit analysis in Ambassador Abu El- Gheit's narrative is clear. The Americans provided an almost complete political cover-up for the savage Israeli operation in the West Bank. The way in which Colin Powell's visit to the region was planned betrays this purpose.
The latest speech made by the former Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in an AIPAC conference in a Washington hotel last Sunday claimed that there was never an American president more friendly and committed to Israel than President Bush. The Israelis have obviously convinced the American administration that a complete re-structuring of the Palestinian politics in essential to quell the resistance movement in Palestine. They have managed to formulate their objectives within the American "war on terrorism" jargon.
One major hurdle remains, however. The barbarism with which the Israeli military operation was conducted can only generate more anger, which will fuel the struggle against Israel and America in the Arab world for decades to come. The style of the American cover-up can only aggravate the extremely negative image of the US in the eyes of Arab youth from the Gulf to the Atlantic Ocean.
America will surely pay a heavy toll for its complicity. The Bush administration, known for its total ignorance of the region and lack of professionalism in foreign policy generally, may have been self-indulgent in playing out its fantasies. But still, it is in a position to predict what is to come.
Everybody in this region has warned the US of the consequences of its inaction. In fact, an adequate number of "experts" made the point clear even in American media. The administration was no doubt aware of Arab anger but went along with its policies regardless. What this administration was striving to do through the United Nations is to reduce this public relations catastrophe, now and in the future. More precisely, the present American administration hoped to reduce the political cost of what is evidently the most destructive and insane piece of policy implemented against Palestinians and Arabs since the 1948 disaster.
The American policy in the region was far from confused. It only reflected a deep-seated anti-Arab and Anti-Palestinian fixation and bias within the United States generally, and within ultra-right- wing circles more specifically.
Recommend this page
FULL COVERAGE: INVASION
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
Send a letter to the Editor