Hichem Karoui

Ariadne Thread


A political journal

From the eve of September 11 to the fall of Saddam Hussein.






Contents:
_____________

Foreword.
- Introduction: From 9/11 to the fall of Saddam.
PART ONE :

1- In search for peace : Who is the neutral party ?
2- The Israelis have already decided: Arafat is not seeking peace.
3- Tenet plan challenged.
4- Iran: The rules of the game.
5- Powell’s blunder.
6- Sharon’s dilemma: Gulliver and the dwarfs.
7- Israel, the West and the Arabs: misunderstanding and duplicity.
8- Re-inventing Sharon?
9- How the Arabs manage the crisis.
10- Jews and Arabs, media and conflict.
11- What role for America in Arafat’s kitchen?
12- What’s wrong with Bush administration?
13- A second wall in Berlin?
14- When the military perception prevails.
15- WCAR: Babylon or the carnival?
16- Arab failure in Durban.


PART TWO:
1- Terrific days for the world.
2- Afghanistan: the unholy war.
3- The British connection.
4- Equivocal questions. Ambiguous answers.
5- Convenient to Israel.
6- Questions to Mr. Rumsfeld
7- The aborted initiative.
8- Hunting the faceless man.
9- Don’t placate the Arabs…
10- The French in the coalition (1).
11- Dissents between the US and Pakistan.
12- Where would America stop?
13- Pressure on the House of Saud.
14- The French in the coalition (2).
15- Hawks hawking strategy.
16- Facts, not just talk.
17- The gap between the allies.
18- Clash of civilizations: Israeli version.
19- Iranian worries.
20- Profile of the ordinary citizen in the lost places of this world.

PART THREE:

1- Sharon does not make the difference.
2- Popular wars.
3- The last round (1): Fighting for survival.
4- Dare to answer.
5- Sharon reverses Bush principle.
6- Iranian-American courtship.
7- What is Peres initiative?
8- The need for a new vision.
9- Fuzzy situation.
10- Hard choice for Bush.
11- Better late than never.
12- An eye on Kabul, another on Islamabad.
13- People of Kabul.
14- Terrorism as a problem of communication.
15- Can they still remain allies?
16- Lebanon and terrorism.
17- The last round (2): American double message.
18- The last round (3): Who cares?
19- Ambiguities between Beirut and Damascus.
PART FOUR:
1- American new vision in the Middle East.
2- The Lebanese quagmire.
3- Shaon’s final plan
4- A matter of perspective
5- Between Arafat and Sharon.
6- Reactions (1).
7- Reactions (2).
8- Catch.
9- Haunted.
10- American groping.
11- Arafat promoted.
12- Guilty of what?
13- Sharon’s syndrome.
14- History.
15- God “bless” the Arab dictators!
16- A dangerous game.
17- The spokesman and the novice.
18- Israel troubles with Europe.
19- Europe, America and the Middle East.
20- The argument between Europe and the USA.
PART FIVE:
1- About the deadlock and the Saudi plan.
2- Would they reject the compromise.
3- Why Israel is so frail when it is so powerful?
4- Six statements.
5- Powell’s mission.
6- Alice in the wonderland.
7- Peace Conference as a cover.
8- America Hijacked.
9- Forget Jenin.
10- Cynicism and passion.
11- Ha’aretz lies.
12- Bush-Arafat’s wrestling.
13- What is he waiting for?
14- Between deceit and confusion.
15- American dilemma: facing the Iraqi question.
16- Investigation.
17- A secret plan to supplant Arafat.
18- Saddam’s choice.
19- Double murder in Beirut.
20- September 11 viewed from France.
21- Opposition to Arafat.
PART SIX:

1- The US and its allies: reading through French and American positions.
2- US-Saudi Arabia: towards an appeasement?
3- Iraq and the Arab states: what they will never tell you.
4- The last days of Saddam Hussein.
5- Why they hate us?
6- In the name of Islam.
7- Lucky luck like Bush.
8- State produced terrorism in Indonesia and other countries.
9- The truth behind…French business network in Iraq.
10- About the Arab summit and the rule of the zombie.
11- Manipulation.
12- At the heart of the new desert storm, the “mother of the problems”.
13- Chronicle of an agonizing world.
14- The battle of Baghdad.
15- Forgotten truths.
16- Double standards: Double vision.
17- Twenty one days that changed the Middle East.














Foreword
_____________

The following is a political journal I have kept since June 8, 2001, to July 9, 2003. If I publish it, it is not because it is in any manner related to my life in Paris, but rather because it is focused on the political events in connection with the greatest troubles of our time. All the entries of this journal have been published in time on varied sites and magazines. I have noticed the link with the date when the story was still available online, and just pointed out to the concerned site or newspaper when the story was no longer referred to online. However, I hasten to add that these are not all the stories I have published in the same period. For this work is not intended to be my personal archives, but well a political journal especially dedicated to the events, I, – as an observer- think related directly or indirectly to the American policy in the Middle East, and the tragic circumstances of September 11, and nothing more.
I have thus collected what was scattered hither and thither, with the main objective of forming a whole within a framework determined in time, and guided in the background by the idea that 9/11 did not stem out of nothing. The fact that young people from Muslim Middle East countries planned and executed these terrorist operations was not a simple detail in the affair. I believe such a profile was not a coincidence. As I am an Arab myself, it was normal that I wonder why 9/11? Those terrorists might very well have been living in my neighbourhood. I could have known some of them. I could have been one of them. But that did not happen. In my own belief I am lucky. But from their point of view, they were the lucky ones, not me. This is the limit that separates two worlds from each other in Islam. May be not only in Islam. After all, terrorism struck Europe well before America. And it was not a religious terrorism, but an atheistic Marxist-Leninist brand.
The entries of this journal are thus connected to the events of these last times, in a kaleidoscopic view of some sort. I mean that I was mainly concerned with questions raised by the situation as it was: in the Middle East, in Europe, and in the USA. I tried to give sometimes different views of the same topic from varied positions. It was not always easy, for politics are often distorted expressions of some very hidden economic interests…which reminds me of the Freudian analyze of the dream. This is just to emphasize the importance and the gravity of misinformation in the world affairs. As a journalist, I deal daily with this problem. If I want to stay credible for my readers, I must always keep the “filter” over the information I receive from different sources.
Finally, I want to express my gratefulness to all those who supported my work and encouraged me. I name: Mr. Ali Khan (editor of Media Monitors Network) and the staff of MMN; Mr. Ramzy Baroud (editor of Palestine Chronicle) and the staff; Mr. Fadi Chaheen (editor of Middle East News Online, which has to my regret ended its service online); the staff of the Arabic Media Internet Network (AMIN); and of course the staff of Arab News with at its head Mr. Khaled al Maeena.
Hichem Karoui.
Paris. Wednesday, 06 August 2003.








Introduction
From 9/11 to the fall of Saddam
Paris, July 9, 2003. Arab News. (MMN). AMIN.
Even if nobody has so far succeeded in showing evidence of a direct link between the 9 /11 terrorist operation and the regime of Saddam Hussein...A link, which the Bush administration might exploit in its Iraqi projects, as well as in its ongoing attempt to set up a new regional order in the Middle-East, many doubts would still remain in the background of the picture concerning a possible connexion between the events preceding 9/11 on the one hand, and the events following it on the other.
We hardly need to remind the reader that 9/11 was not born out of the nothingness, but rather out of the chaos: regional and international chaos following the destruction of the fragile balances in the Middle-East. While delivering Kuwait from the brutal and mortal “fraternal” embrace of the Iraqi “Big Brother”, “Desert Storm” – when it calmed down- not only left all the thorny questions raised by the invasion of Kuwait, without answers, but even –somehow- heightened the tensions to an unprecedented level. If Kuwait was liberated, the 23 million Iraqis were actually hijacked, because they have been taken between Saddam’s unyielding anvil, and the hammer of the UN sanctions.
On another side of the picture, the two most important accords between Arabs and Israelis – after Sadate/Begin/Carter’s Camp David’s peace- reached an unsaid –because unacknowledged - deadlock. Neither Jordan nor the Palestinian Authority succeeded in selling their peace with Israel to the other Arabs. How would they? Peace actually resembled to anything but peace. President Clinton, who probably was attracted by the perspective of entering American and world history as the man who achieved peace between Arabs and Israelis, did not hide his bitterness when and after the negotiations failed. He will not outdo Carter’s achievement. He certainly passed by so close to the Nobel Prize. He would not fill his golden retirement with the souvenirs of such a glory. Instead of that, he would pass in history as the Don Juan of the White House, which is not really a thin achievement.
Anyway, when his successor came to the White House, almost everything in the Middle East was to be re-settled.
The Israelis and the Palestinians resumed their interminable war. The Iraqis were suffering a thousand pains under the embargo. The Syrians were still recalcitrant and doubtful. The Lebaneses found another reason to continue the struggle in Shabaa. The Jordanians and the Egyptians were jammed with their peace accords: on the one hand they could not deny them, and on the other their hearts were bleeding because Israel has not changed. And all those people along with their Arab and Muslim brethren, from the mountains of Afghanistan eastward, to the confines of the Great African Sahara westward, were living “the time of the assassins”, to use a well known expression of Henry Miller.
In effect, never before that time the Islamic radicalism attained such an authority in those surroundings. The New Assassins were not the direct descendants of Hassan al Sabbah’s middle-aged sect, albeit they use similar techniques of terror against their enemies. They are not doped with Hashish as their Ismaelite predecessors, but rather with modern brainwashing techniques, that have been used – and even gained credit and fame- by the CIA. The Manchurian candidate of the Cold War has become a remote souvenir, although his “fathers” have – unwarily - begotten the new robots of the suicide-bombing mania. A proof – if any- that even in the terrorism business, there is also a lot of work and a lot of progress.
It was 9/11 operations that will make an evidence of these episodes. Since then, everything would sound different.
The friends and the allies are no longer the friends and the allies we know. It has become necessary thus to raise the right questions: Who are our allies and friends in this world? Asked the Americans. Out of the blue, they woke up in a hostile environment, like someone who after wreckage finds himself alone in a little island in the ocean. And the questions followed up: Why do they hate us? Are we then so alone? Whenever they look around them, the Americans saw little sympathy, a lot of hypocrisy and hate and envy. Whereas they thought of themselves as the nicest people on earth, they were dismayed by the fact that this very earth did not send them back the genuine reflect of their image. So, what’s wrong?
The new president who had to tackle the crisis found it easier to resort to the good old Manichean precepts of good and evil. Henceforth, we are the good people, and they are the evil. And like in the cartoons, the cinema, and the comic strips, the good hero would have to fight the evil and prevail. That’s –very simplified- the strategy of nowadays’ superpower.
Once the strategy settled and adopted, the new administration had to find the enemy. It was not hard. If Saddam was self-designated, it was Usama bin Laden who would take on his back the blow. However, to strike at Saddam’s door first would seem nonsense. Everything happened henceforth as if while cleansing the Afghan caves and destroying the Taliban and al-Qaeda’s bases, the Bush administration was all that time long preparing the true, the delicious, and the much attractive, much succulent meal. It was not the stony Afghanistan that concerned America, but well the wealthy Iraq. And it was not the shadowy Bin Laden who represented the real weight in the international balance, but the ruthless Saddam Hussein.
After all, even if there is not the least connexion between al-Qaeda and Saddam... Even if 9/11 has nothing to do with the embargo imposed on Iraq, what could the Americans take from Bin Laden? His life? It is worthless now. His $300 millions? It is a drop in the ocean. Then, compared to the real fortunes of American wealthy people, what is Bin Laden? Afghanistan? That’s easy, but it never belonged to Bin Laden. He was just a refugee out there. Yet, if Bin Laden seemed so worthless, it was Saddam who appealed – almost naturally- to the American Vendetta.
Why a vendetta? Because 9/11 happened. And behind 9/11, there was a dark conspiracy where anybody in the Arab-Islamic world could be involved to some level or another. Maybe this sounds a little paranoid, but there is no other way the CIA and the folks of the Secret Service think. After all, what is al-Qaeda if not the international Islamic terrorist network? Somehow like the International Communist in the Cold War, but with a different ideology.
Saddam appealed to the American anger – that had anyway to focus on some party – not only because he was the model of “evil” decried by president Bush (so numerous other models continue to live unharmed, though), but most of all because something valuable could be snatched from him, and if achieved, such a project could be as rewarding to the USA as punishing to its enemies.
It is obvious that the award is Iraq itself.
Snatched from the hands of Saddam, Iraq would help America in settling the old accounts with its enemies, on the one hand, and in opening the way to the new regional order so wished by Washington, and so waited by Israel, on the other hand.
This is not to mean that Saddam Hussein was an obstacle to America’s plans in the Middle East. Anybody with a little présence d’esprit knows that Saddam actually helped Bush father and son. He helped the father entering in force in the Gulf, when he invaded Kuwait, just because ambassador April Glaspie did not object anything to his plans. He thought that the Americans were encouraging him to overthrow Al Sabbah House, which would enable him to control more than 50% of the Middle East’s oil. It goes without saying that the previous American assistance to Saddam during the war against Iran made him believe that Washington would comply with his wishes if he invaded Kuwait, in order to pay back the billions he owed to almost everybody. Such foolishness was unmatchable. Besides, Saddam was ready to sell Iraq and his own mother to the Bush administration if he was allowed to stay in power. He would have stayed twenty or thirty other years over the hearts of the Iraqis, because their pains meant nothing to him. The collective graves the world is discovering in Iraq would have been nothing compared to the dark future the sinister dictator was preparing for his people. Today the veritable question is not whether Bush was right to attack Iraq or not, but rather whether Saddam was right to cling to the power or not.
As to the pretension of Saddam to lead the “resistance” against the American occupation, this is merely a joke. A bad joke indeed. And his “letters” to the Americans or to the Iraqis or to everybody, relayed by Al Jazeera, sound to be the concern of the same low brand of humour. We know that the dictator is –like many of his kind- a humourless person. Yet, who –among the rational Iraqis – could take him seriously?
Saddam a resistant? Sure, that was in the fifties of the last century. We are in 2003. And the majority of the Iraqi people cannot be assumed to be so foolish, so masochistic, and so stupid as to wish the return of a Tyrant.
Finally, there is certainly a link between all those events, if we read them thoroughly. Neither America is a model of nicety and goodness, nor the rest of the world is all evil and conspiring against it. From the period preceding 9/11, we can probably find a lot of indirect reasons for hatred. After 9/11, the Americans should wonder whether their policy helped to make the world a better place or not. Some of the questions they raised are still unanswered. For the true answers are not to be found in the books and the press, but rather on the field... in all those regions of the world that have been plagued by varied sicknesses, and that are still waiting for the good to come, for their peoples experienced nothing in their lives but evil.
To be faithful to their creed, the Americans are not expected to play the good Samaritans, but just to follow the Ariadne thread, in order to understand and make themselves understood.












PART ONE



-1-


IN SEARCH FOR PEACE
WHO IS THE NEUTRAL PARTY?

June 8, 2001…MMN

It is not obvious how security and political problems are to be practically parted when we come to talk of the Mideast dossier, neither it is more obvious to say why policy and security become distinguished topics precisely when the situation explodes and grows unbearable, whereas the common-sense assumes we just acknowledge that security loses strength only when policy collapses in absurd, ineffectual nonsense. And since this is the case- if ever acknowledged-, it would have been much more useful that the American government helps to understanding and handling the reasons which caused the present deadlock. For it is not that difficult to announce a one- sided cease-fire, particularly when it concerns State apparatus - : army, police forces, etc...-, but the real difficulty is about how to transform it into a status-quo and to build upon that. Some commentators have actually talked about a " one-sided cease-fire" - the Israeli of course- since a few days, as if in the front of Israel on the other side there is an army whose commandment is refusing any advise to cease fire too! Now, people world-wide knows that no such an army exists on the Palestinian side, and what Arafat has announced concerns only his "special forces" and "Fatah"... who - as a matter of fact - have never penetrated Israel or led an offensive over there. So, these organizations are not those who are really concerned with the cease-fire, but rather "Hamas" and the "Islamic Jihad" and alike organizations who are actually opposing Yasser Arafat, and Israel, and the whole Oslo process. The point is however that these people do not recognize Arafat authority or at least are not obedient to the PA. We know, for example, that during the marches commemorating the 1967 war, they raised slogans asking Arafat not to join the security negotiations with Israel and America, and appealing to continuing the Intifada and the suicide operations inside Israel, until its army withdrawal from the occupied territories and the freeze on settlement. These are in fact what the Israelis call "the political conditions" which blocked the former security negotiations.
On June 6, - the day of the CIA chief George Tenet's arrival to the region- Mr. Abdelaziz Alrentissi - Hamas spokesman - declared to an Israeli radio that at the last meeting with Yasser Arafat, the latter did not order them to stop the military operations.
Would he have done so, he added, Hamas was under no obligation to carry on his orders, for it is an independent movement , with its own strategy and goals. On the same day, the "Washington Post" reported about " divisions among Palestinians " that " may undermine peace efforts." If a group of supporters were still loyal to the chief of the PA, the islamists were shouting in the streets against the cease-fire. Another Hamas spokesman - Mahmud Zahhar - told reporters in Gaza: " We are not changing our policy. Resistance means to attack the Israelis everywhere by all means."
That is why it is convenient to remind ourselves of this framework in order to insure some relativity in our analyses and appreciations. It is noticeable that some commentators did not hesitate to compare Tenet's mission to the dove from Noah's ark : " he is being sent to see if there is any dry land , any place to start"! But this kind of talk is, at the present time, more resembling to a delirium than to anything else. And this is not only because it is hard - if not merely impossible - to figure out that at the head of the CIA there is a "dove", but also because the" Agency" is not innocent as regards the tragedy that unfolded since months. For it has been actually associated to the three cornered game that led Israel and the PA - under Washington supervision first, then after its apparent withdrawal - to the current deadlock. Mr. Tenet has accomplished at least ten alike missions in the Middle East during Clinton's administration, and when President Bush decided to distance the policy of his predecessor, he froze the role of the CIA, as it was rumored . Yet, under the pressure of the events, it seems that he decided not only to maintain Tenet in his post - against the wishes of his own party hard-liners- but also to send him out again in what sounds to be " an impossible mission" in the Middle East.
Now - if we exclude the fools - nobody doubts that Mr. Tenet holds in his hands enough assets enabling him to give an important boost to the former process. For he has data and connections, and he is thus as influent in Washington as in the Mideast, albeit the kind of influence he is able to exert cannot be precise or even compared to the influence of the State Department , or the Pentagon, or even the White House, at the same time that all these institutions and others cooperate with his "Agency" and need some of its varied services. Yet, once again the question is still unanswered : What is the point of trying to separate policy from security?
Everybody knows though that the real problem between Israelis and Palestinians does not consist in violence or counter-violence. These are only the results. The true problem is the political deadlock that issued from The Israeli refusal of withdrawing from the occupied territories and freezing the settlements. And the conflict is , despite its complication, quite simple if we want to sum it up : For the Arabs, changing the current Israeli policy is the way that insures security, stability, and peace. But for the Israelis, granting security, stability, and peace is the way that insures changing the Israeli policy towards the Arabs.
Obviously, there is no exit from this maze. But here is the need to extern, neutral parties that can mediate and exert a moral influence in order to soften the extremist positions and wipe out the sclerotic paranoia. But let's ask now: who are these neutral parties? Is it the CIA ? Or the White House ? Is it the European Union ? Or the United Nations?...




- 2 -


The Israelis have already decided:
ARAFAT IS NOT SEEKING PEACE!
June 11 ,2001 …MMN
As it was expected, the answer given by the Palestinian Authority (PA) to the Israeli request asking for the arrest of some Islamic activists was: NO. Mr. Nabil Shaath explained to the reporters that " it is illegal to say arrest 300 people and then come talk to us"; and he added: " if we have any information from Israel, or from our own security, that there might be something planned in Israel, we will go after them." So, this is not a " carte blanche" given to the Islamists as the Israelis fancied. The PA made it sure that it would arrest people only if they are guilty or - at least- suspected of fomenting trouble. We know it did it in the past, and there is no reason to think Arafat would refrain from arresting those who oppose him again, sometimes in spite of the Human Rights organizations' critics. What happened once would happen again. Nevertheless, it would be a great mistake to think that nothing changed in the political landscape. The PA has understood - as it sounds- the lessons of the past. It knows for instance that a compromise with Israel that would not reward its people with a real hope for freedom and dignity, not only would not work, but would be discrediting and thus harmful for peace. This is the ground of the current position. More simply put: Arafat is not refusing cooperation, but rather trying not to discredit himself in his own people's eyes. Let's remember that some factions from "FATH" - his organization- have claimed that they would not accept to be disarmed. In 1983, in the Lebanese Bekaa, a revolt burst out against his authority in the same organization. So, nothing really could hamper that to happen again in case he is judged too soft on some issues.
Needless to say that the situation is still highly explosive, in spite of the declared cease- fire, and in spite of the shuttle diplomacy and the presence of senior representatives of important institutions, who dropped in the region or are expected, such as: MM. William Burns, Miguel Moratinos, Javier Solana, Joschka Fischer, Terje Rod-Larsen, George Tenet, and Goran Persson. Either on the Palestinian or on the Israeli side - not to talk of the neighbors- the violence is not quite ruled out. And this is not only a physical and a material violence, but also a moral one. It is noticeable for example that a day before Mr. Tenet's arrival, the Israeli Prime Minister declared to a Russian television channel (NTV) that Mr. Arafat is " a murderer and a pathological liar ", adding that " he is not a head of state», for he behaves as the head of terrorists and murderers»! It is tempting to say thereupon: Well! If these words are pronounced by the man who allowed the shameful and inhuman tragic slaughter of Sabra and Chatila, as it has been proved by an Israeli investigation commission, we can say nothing but: He is perhaps speaking of himself! The phenomenon is known in psychology as " projection". And if Sharon was speaking as a Prime Minister, then the Israelis are in deep trouble, for this is not the way the chief of a government address another political official, with whom he intends to start or to resume - negotiations. But there is worse: for it sounds that this is not an isolated behavior in Israel these days. Most Israeli newspapers seem to agree upon a recently propagated prototype of Arafat and the PA. Here are some examples: On June 6, "Jerusalem Post" reported the above quotation from Sharon's interview with NTV, and specified that " these comments come just three days after the security cabinet issued a statement saying that the Palestinian Authority and Arafat are involved in terror, encourage terror, and incite to hatred and violence." On May 31, the same newspaper reported the following declaration of Housing Minister Nathan Sharansky:" I think that for many years we have made great efforts to turn Arafat into a partner... I think now we are at the end of the road..." And Sharansky did not hide that he had no great hope, which means that in case Arafat is found not responding to Israel's conditions, he would be considered as a foe. The Israeli Minister put it more clearly when he said that the purpose of a war with the Palestinians would be " to destroy the military and terrorist infrastructure in the PA..." Otherwise the same scenario than the one led by Sharon in 1982 when he invaded Lebanon and besieged Beirut proclaiming these goals as a justification for his war. On June 7, "Ha'aretz" reported a declaration of the head of the Intelligence Department, Major General Amos Malka, who said that as long as " he does not have any strategic victory to point to vindicate the past eight months of violence", Arafat would prefer the continuation of the conflict with Israel to an internal conflict with the Islamic opposition groups. Amos Malka considered the cease-fire proclaimed by Arafat as " a tactical step, a pause that may continue for several days or several months», but would eventually end. "After this pause he added, Arafat " will crawl back to terrorism". Understandably, these words mean that for the head of the Intelligence Department, Arafat's file is already classified, so to say; and for the Israeli establishment there is no compromise looping at the horizon, but terrorism and war. "Ha'aretz" has by the way already reported the declarations of Nabil Shaath and Jibril Rajoub about the PA response to the Israeli request (the list of 34 names), and observed that this is actually " an essential component of the cease-fire, without which it would be meaningless". At this point, it is important to emphasize that the Palestinian position is so far trying to stick to the norms of world wide legality: nobody can be held responsible for a crime if his culpability is not proved. Now, what about those who resist occupation and are thus allowed by the United Nations' charter to fight their enemies by all means? Israel has first to prove that the people it is asking for their arrest are guilty. And since this is a war situation, and as long as it continues, it would be a very complicated matter to handle this case if the law is to be taken in consideration. The point is that some years ago, varied mass media and Human Rights organizations, found Arafat guilty of dictatorship, and his management of the self-rule finances far from being flawless. The Islamist activists were considered by numerous analysts and commentators in the West as victims of oppression as long as they were held in custody. It is not an exaggeration thus to say that their release by the PA has been a result of these precedent critical comments as well as a result of the internal pressure after the failure of the peace process. Now, is it fair to ask Arafat to do exactly what everybody reproached him to do some time ago? Observe that for the Israelis there is already at least a guilty person, and this is Arafat himself. He is condemned without further trial. His cease- fire is considered as a joke. He is " now playing games", said an adviser to Prime Minister Sharon, who added:» He’s looking for a reduction in the hostilities, and thinks that will get him off the hook"! But what's the "hook" here? And who is actually playing games and hunting down people? The same Israeli official- quoted by the» Jerusalem Post"(June 7)- says: "Arafat wants to keep the violence on a flame low enough to make possible some kind of international conference"...! This is actually the point. This is exactly what Israel is hardly trying to avoid, for an international conference means the intervention of several players, and subsequently more pressure on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories, to freeze settlements, and to recognize the Palestinian rights De facto. And this why propagating an image of Arafat as " a terrorist" - which is not new anyway - has become a goal of the Israeli policy, for if everybody in the West come to agreeing with the Israeli viewpoint, all the pressure would be put on Arafat to play the game wished by the Zionist establishment in order to masquerade the peace, so that no international conference would be held and no more concessions would be allowed to the Arabs. Yet, who among the Palestinian leaders would be foolish enough to accept a masquerade of peace as peace and to mistake the very diminished self-rule for independence?








- 3 -

TENET PLAN CHALLENGED BY BOTH SIDES

June 15, 2001. (MMN).
If the Palestinians were expecting a viable political solution to their pains from the CIA, maybe it is time for them to wake up. Mr. George Tenet was not sent to the Mideast in order to achieve what his former boss - Mr. Clinton- was unable to do; nor Mr. Bush- by the way - held him in office and resumed his mission in order to put all the pressure on the Israeli side and to scare Sharon or to make him swallow up his former positions and give them up. Suffices it to remind the skeptics that it is well Israel who declared its early agreement on Tenet plan, when the Palestinian Authority (PA) was opposing some of its contents. That is to mean at least that if Sharon found his account in the suggestions made by the Agency chief, Arafat found in it nothing but injustice and bitterness. Now as to what happened between the early agreement of Sharon, and the belated contrived OK given by Arafat, there is matter to speculating, for it is actually the whole summary of the occult CIA intervention. On Tuesday, June 12, when it appeared that Sharon was agreeing on Tenet plan, all the Israeli media network sang in almost a single voice, pushing Arafat to feel guilty for embarrassing Mr. Tenet to the point that the latter was no longer wishing to stay anymore. Throughout the day, Israeli news reports predicted that the Palestinians would reject the plan. It appeared that the CIA chief was testing Arafat. As Israeli Cabinet Secretary, Gideon Saar, put it: " Arafat will be tested in his actions. If he stops terrorism and prevents incitement then the program can make progress. If not, we will stay in the same situation we have been in for months." So, obviously the main strain was being exerted upon the PA chief executive, by the simple fact that the Israeli Prime Minister had already accepted the American plan, although he never wished that intervention as it has been rumored. That was very bad for Arafat who has never hidden his bitterness, caused by the American recalcitrance at, on the one hand sending him an invitation to the White House- where Sharon and Katsav have already been received-, and on the other hand intervening if not to support him - he was no longer expecting that perhaps-, then at least to stop the Israeli violence. The Israeli media network was hammering all the daylong that Israel has accepted the Cease-fire and the American plan although it was not favorable to them. The following scenario evolved rapidly and was being widely echoed: Mr. Tenet, it was said, was already packing and preparing to leave. Would he go back to Washington or join Mr. Bush in Europe? Anyway, what he would report to his President would not only definitively convince the latter that his first reflex -: holding back from intervening - was sound, but it would also determine, in the worse way possible, the common position expected to be issued after the US-EU summit, as regards the Israeli Palestinian conflict. That was not exactly the purpose Arafat was seeking after eight months of uprising and political deadlock. It was not the violence that was scaring the PA - that was something they got used to it since the beginning of their national tragedy -, but rather the political discredit. Here a question rises: Political discredit outside the Palestinian territories or inside them? No doubt that the Palestinian leaders felt all the consequences hidden behind the way they were to answer that question. For if they were going to respond positively to the outside pressure- mainly the American - they would face the anger of their compatriots and eventually the erosion of their own legitimacy. Otherwise, the question that would be inevitably put to them is: What Tenet and Sharon gave you in return for your acceptance of the CIA plan? Anyway, what decided Arafat to accept the CIA plan has much more to do with the regional and international political configuration than with his own wishes. The diplomatic ballet that started with the arrival of the Mitchell's committee on the scene, and continued with the appointment of Mr. Burns as Assistant Secretary for the Middle East, and the interfering of several political players from the international scene - European Union and Russia included-, was expected to reach a climax with a joint declaration at the US-EU summit of Gothenburg on the Middle East. We know that if some hot topics still divide Americans and Europeans, they would resort to the same language when they come to talk about the peace process. This is at least the official position lately emphasized by two men as different as Mr. Vedrine - French Foreign Minister-and Mr. Bush. We have to observe that before the PA acceptance of Tenet plan was made public, the diplomacy was not being dismissed: Shimon Perez and Nabil Shaath thus were invited to the Luxembourg European reunion (June 11 and 12) that preceded and prepared Gothenburg. Meanwhile, Mr. William Burns did not cross his arms to watch what Tenet was able to achieve. We know that he shuttled between the Israeli and the Palestinian leaders, not really in order " to secure their approval of the Mitchell report's recommendations"- that was already done-, but rather to suggest that the political process was not to be overshadowed by the security matters. It was quite important to link between the two sides of the appeasing process if the Americans and the Europeans wanted to convince Arafat that he has nothing to fear in stepping forward; and to make all this ballet acceptable, they had to push him to the dance floor. A compromise was to be found. Pressure was maintained to the latest moment. By 5 p.m., the Israeli news reports announced Mr. Tenet's impending departure and the failure of his mission, saying that he was about to lay the blame on the Palestinians. Whether that was true or part of the play, remains obscure. But we know that in a letter addressed to the CIA director by Arafat, the latter acceptance of the blueprint was already acquired, albeit he rejected the buffer zone clause and said the timetable for lifting Israeli closures of Palestinian territories should follow the Sharm el-Sheikh agreement. (That deal called for closures to be lifted 48 hours after a cessation of hostilities agreement was reached). We know too that on the issue of arresting Hamas and Islamic Jihad leaders - as enlisted by Israel - Arafat said he would arrest only people who broke the law. Here two remarks deserve to be noted: 1- On the Palestinian side, it is not only the Islamists who reacted against the agreement, but also some of Arafat's own people: Thus, speaking to the Israeli radio, Fath General Secretary Marwan Barghouthi said on the day the agreement was to be carried on, (June 13): " The Palestinians are not convinced and of course we refuse any agreement, any understanding which will not guarantee the Israelis' full withdrawal from the occupied territories"; and he added: " the intifada will continue and it will represent the will of the Palestinian people". Moreover, although Arafat has declared to Tenet that he had a promise from Hamas and Islamic Jihad to halt all terror attacks, we hardly need to say that the leaders of these organizations reacted almost immediately against the Tenet paper, rejecting it and challenging Arafat authority: " The deal is born dead", said Abdel Aziz Rantissi - Hamas-; " the 450 killed in eight months of intifada are not going to be dust in the air because the people are not going to end the resistance". 2- On the Israeli side, the scene is not much better. The early acceptance of the Tenet paper by Sharon did not mean that he is definitively acquired to the appeasing process even if he has never ceased to claim that security cooperation precedes any political negotiations. As a matter of fact, Sharon clings to a tight vision of that cooperation. For him, it would be everything or nothing, which means that violence has to be completely uprooted before undertaking any steps towards the peace process negotiations. Otherwise, the Palestinians - according to Sharon - have to accept the "fait accompli" of the occupation and to show obedience to the Israeli security priorities prior to discuss any political matter with them. Yet, nobody reminded him, as it seems that even with the labor governments that preceded him, things did not work that way. In fact, violence has never ceased completely, and what was actually maintaining the apparent " quietness" in the period that preceded the uprising, was merely the hope that those negotiations would lead the Palestinian people to a positive result. One does not need Einstein brains though to understand that since the negotiations stopped, nothing could hold people anymore from expressing their anger. At last, it seems obvious that Sharon's strategy would not work. Anyway, he too has a big problem with his own people: we know for example, that Jewish leaders and the Council of Jewish Communities in the west bank declared that the agreement meant " the abandonment of Jewish residents to Arafat's terrorists»!!! They warned that the settlers would take over every army post vacated by soldiers! Here are then the real stakes, not in any other diplomatic game. It is on the field that the current program would be tested. And this is not to mean that the security problem does not matter. Of course it does, but why should it be exclusively an Israeli issue, based on Sharon views and conditions? The Israelis were not alone to be killed and injured. What about comparing their losses with the Palestinians'? So, granting security is also a Palestinian problem, perhaps even much more complicated on this side. On the other hand, in the present situation, to ask for a complete quietness is not only utopian but also dangerous. Those who are required to implement the cease- fire and to stabilize the shaky scene, are supposed to know that the current process is not going to work unless it is supported by another -: the political negotiations- without waiting anymore. For it is only that latter process which is able to give hope to the population, and thus to maintain some quietness, or at least to limit violence. This is also the opinion of Mr. Kofi Annan who lately agreed with Mr. Hosni Mubarak in Cairo on the fact that if any Middle East security agreement is to endure, it has to be embedded in a political process. Mr. Annan said precisely:" there should be an effort to move on to the diplomatic process in order to ensure that the ceasefire holds for the longer term". Translated into more a simple language, this is to mean: Do not wait anymore before resuming the negotiations process. Now, we know that this is not to happen soon, not only because Sharon opposes it, but also because the two plans agreed upon - The Mitchell report and the Tenet paper - schedule more or less a long period of appeasement and confidence building steps, before any real negotiations can start. The question is thereupon: What would happen meanwhile?


- 4 -

Iran: The Rules of The Game

June 22, 2001. (MMN).
Now that Mr. Mohammad Khatami is in post for another four years mandate, after an overwhelming victory on his rivals and opponents, his task may be even harder than by the past. However, he has immediately given the tone of the next partition he was going to play when he advised " patience, moderation, and prudence" to his supporters, and he added: " Now the honourable Iranian nation, as winner of this context, is determined in its just demands and expects the government and the system to take bigger steps to fulfil them... Freedom of speech, criticism and even protest within the law, is the precondition for quicker victory". Indubitably, followers as well as enemies would never dismiss these words as "euphoric rubbish" until they see the end of his era. This is not to say he is not serious or does not mean exactly what he promised. On the contrary, he might very well be the man Iran needs right now for many qualities bestowed to him. Yet, he is far from being the only "king" on the Iranian chessboard, not just because there are several other leaders, but above all because he is since the departure disabled by the system he is trying to rule or to reform, and the key word is here: the constitution!
An official biography of President Khatami introduces him as a well-educated son of a respected cleric - actually an Ayatollah, which is the highest title in the Shi'i religious hierarchy. In a region where the rulers, if they are not kings and princes, come to power either from the barracks - generally without even the certificate of a secondary school-, or from the streets, carried by a populist dusty wave, which once vanished would let them plaguing the country for a quarter of a century, Khatami is certainly more a brilliant leader. He has attended Qom theology school -: a reference for the Shi'ites matched only by the Al Azhar mosque in Cairo which displays the same kind of lectures for the Sunnites-, and he got his B.A in philosophy from Isfahan University, and lately he completed his studies at Teheran University where he attended courses in educational sciences, before returning to Qom for the Ijtihad seminary. This is to make him already a man of an interesting profile for the Iranian intelligentsia which was by then struggling against the ruthless power of the Savac-: Mohammad Ridha Shah dreadful police. That's how he got involved in the political activities against the Shah. That's how he became a disciple of Ayatollah Khomeini and worked closely with his son Ahmed and some other religious leaders. That's how also he has been appointed twice as Minister of culture, first during the premiership of Mirhossein Mousavi (1982), then a second time by President Hashemi Rafsanjani (1989), not to speak of his responsibilities as head of the Joint Command of the Armed Forces and chairman of the War Propaganda Headquarters. Otherwise, the man we are talking about is really an "insider». He is a pure product of the Iranian political- religious establishment. The fact that he is acquainted with three foreign languages - English, German, and Arabic - and that he studied philosophy, while not disadvantaging him, does not make him a liberal in the western acceptance of this term, although he is deemed to be more open- minded than any of his rivals who run for presidency.
This is a man of culture, and an author who has written a number of books and articles in different fields. All right! How can we explain then that during his presidency, writers and journalists and other liberal opponents and intellectuals have been hunted down and arrested and molested and dragged in mud? What did he do for them? He shed tears! That was great if he was sincere, and would have been greater if he has retired, said his critics. Let's remind the reader that if some irreducible opponents to the Islamic Republic- such as the National Council of the Iranian Resistance, led by Massaoud Rajawi - consider him responsible for the murder of hundreds of people - among them writers and artists and varied intellectuals-, even before he was elected president, what occurred in his first term might have completely shattered his image as a "democratic" or a " reformist" ruler. It is known that hard-line judges closed some 40 pro reform newspapers, and jailed prominent allies of the president, and arrested dozens of liberal Islamist dissidents in a pre election crackdown. Yet, as bizarre as that may sound to the Western mind, 21.7 million or 76.9 percent of the total of 28.2 million votes went to this man, and he was neither the single nor the second candidate, since there were nine others running for the post! Indeed, there might have been some fraud, as it has been pointed out by the observers of the dissident NCIR of Mr. Rajawi who even talked of" wide boycott" of the election by the majority of the people. But as there is no evidence, these allegations have not been taken in consideration by foreign observers. How then can we explain the mystery of that victory?
To answer that question we have to put it in its real context and to assume that if Iran is not currently and rapidly changing, then its people is so craving for change that it is ready even to the more incongruous compromises with the political- religious class. Otherwise, if Khatami is not the man by whom the change may happen, at least he is the hope of it. Yet, far from answering the above question, this is perhaps to complicate it, for we admit - if at all - that Iranian people haven't got any choice while making their choice. The paradox cannot be understood if we do not step forward to make another hypothetical statement: thanks to the constitution the game is over even before starting. Otherwise, the voters as well as their candidates are being held within the limits of a system set up to maintaining them as hostages of a single man, who is neither their elect president nor a person subject to their will. This man is the "Imam" or the "Faquih", the spiritual leader of the Republic whose function much resembles to the great inquisitor in the Christian middle age history. And to make the picture more understandable to the Westerners, some observers summed it up in these simplified terms: the struggle is between reformists and hard-liners, they say, and it happens that the "Faquih"- Ayatollah Ali Khameini - is at the head of the forces opposing resistance to any change. The basis of such statements is the fact that the repression that has undermined the reformist program occurred with the full support of both Ayatollah Khameini and the former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. As a matter of fact, they have used a variety of non elected institutions - the judiciary sections of the Revolutionary guards, the state controlled radio and television, and the Guardian Council - to relentlessly block proposals that would facilitate political competition and open discourse. And this is likely what happened really. However our question was not about who did everything to undermine the reforms, but rather about who did nothing to oppose it and is still at the top of the state! That's the point.
While pointing out to the 1979 post revolutionary constitution (amended in 1989) which gives both reformists and hard-liners enough ammunition to advance their own versions of how the Islamic Republic should be run, some observers locate the tensions not only between people of different options, but also between democratic and undemocratic elements in the Iranian constitution, or to put it plainly, between popular and Divine sovereignties. Thus, since the constitution contains a number of clauses running implicitly or explicitly counter to the principles of popular sovereignty, no matter what any reformist president, any democratic parliament, would do, there would be always important forces able to counter them in all legitimacy. Ultimately, the "Faquih" can even depose the president of the Republic even if had been elected by 100,100 % of the voters. Such a system - we must acknowledge it - has no equal! This is to make of Khatami at the one hand, a responsible as a key player, and on the other hand, he would always find an excuse for not fulfilling his promises. And much more important in respect of the foreign policy which involves regional and international issues, the rules of the game are almost the same.
A 1998, May 14 Congressional statement about Iran under Khatami (: Weapons of Mass Destruction, Terrorism, and the Arab Israeli conflict) concluded that if it is " now possible to discern a new vocabulary (emphasizing: détente, stability, and the dialogue of civilizations), while the new government has launched a diplomatic charm offensive to mend fences with its Arab Gulf neighbors most notably manifested by its recent rapprochement with Saudi Arabia", however other aspects of Iran's foreign and defense policy " show more continuity than change". The American statement alleged that "Tehran could probably acquire a nuclear capability within a few years " if it were to obtain fissile material and help from abroad; but " without such help, it could take Iran 5 or 10 years". Now, if this estimation is valuable, two questions rise to the mind: 1- Where is Iran nuclear capability right now? And 2- Why in the light of this data the USA are just closing their eyes about Iran - deemed not only to be in possession of nuclear capability but also of chemical and biological weapons -, and opening them widely on a barren Iraq unable even to give food to its people? Moreover, in the light of what happened since 1998, it is almost amazing to notice that after four years, the Congressional statement we quoted is still valuable. In fact, if we remove the year 1998 and put 2001 instead, nobody would notice anything!
Some people however may not agree on this point. For them Iran has considerably changed. Admittedly, it has, what then did not change? For if we try to make two lists, one for the things that changed and the second for the others that remained as they were before Khatami, are we sure that the first list would be longer? The fact is that Khatami in his first term had either to put up with the political configuration or merely to go away. He made the first choice, which led him to sacrifice some of his allies in order to get a second term. That was a pure political act, even advised by Machiavelli in his famous Prince. Nevertheless, nobody here is dupe as to the other party's strategy. We know for example that the second front - which sustained the re-election of Khatami- is composed of no less than 18 organizations with disparate interests and ideological orientations. Among them, we find The Association of Combatant Clerics, of which the President is a member; the Islamic Revolution Mojahedeen Organization; the Islamic Iran Solidarity Party; the Servants of Construction; the Freedom Movement of Iran (founded by former Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan)...etc. Among these people, there are factions that while criticizing the impotency of the President, preferred to follow him in hope that something would happen in his second term.
Needless to say that the hard-liners identified as " the followers of the Imam" are no less ordered. Their coalition is composed of 16 organizations, and the link between them - excluding the Imam or the Faquih- is the mere belief that the concept of democracy is a Western import that has nothing to do with Islam. Here are gathered the ingredients of any eventual civil conflict: on the one hand, the reformists and the democrats struggling for a popular sovereignty, and on the other hand the "followers of the Imam". So far, the system is working and some are even satisfied with it. But this is not going without repression, violence, injustice, and misery. The system even allows to a Minister in the Cabinet of the President to run against him! Thus, Defence Minister Ali Shamkhani and Vice President Mustafa Hashemi-Taba were candidates against their own boss: Khatami! Of course, this is to raise a delicate question not only about their loyalty, but most of all about the meaning of the reforms to them. For if they think that Khatami is unable to carry out his program, just what were they doing in HIS Cabinet? And if they think that he is a good president, so why run against him? Some observers suggest that this was a strategy monitored by the hard-liners who would have eventually supported any candidate - including reformists- to divert votes from Khatami. If this is to reveal accurate, it is even much more dangerous to the reformist camp that would be weakened by such dividing manipulations.
Here appears the necessity - maybe even the urgency - of a step that Khatami, although empowered by his recent plebiscite, seems- so far- unable to accomplish, to the despair of his supporters: an amendment of the Constitution in order to give the President the legal tools to make the real changes the country needs. Something like the act of Charles De Gaulle in 1958 when he resorted to the referendum and asked the French: would you like to change the constitution, yes or no? And the French said: Yes. And that was the birth of the fifth Republic.
Now, is Khatami willing to move forward? And where to? That's the question!


_______________________
- 5 -
____________________

POWELL’S BLUNDER
June 29, 2001. (MMN)
Before meeting President Bush for the second time since the beginning of his current mandate, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon made some conspicuous declarations to "Newsweek's" reporter Lally Weymouth, which if they were not a scoop for those who know the general and his recent past lately refreshed by the well informed BBC's Panorama, proved one more time to what extent the man is determined in his heinous dealings with the Palestinians. First, Sharon repeated tirelessly his old refrain about Arafat playing with terror", ruling " a coalition of terror", " coordinating with Hezbollah", " getting used to negotiating under terror"... etc, before ending up with " I think Arafat is an obstacle to peace". Secondly, when he was asked whether he accepts Oslo- the peace process launched in 1993- or is it dead, Sharon said simply: " Oslo didn't bring peace. It didn't bring security." So what? Sharon did not hesitate to tell Weymouth what was really on his mind: He was not going to make a deal with someone he despises and hates and considers as the head of a "terrorist organization"! There is more of this stuff in the complete story, but here one must only underline that when Sharon talks this way, he is not forcing his nature or giving some hawkish hard-line hefty portrait of himself. The man is really made that way, and at his age he is not going to change in order to meet the American or the world expectations. Even the European attitude - which never was really hard on Israel- seems to him "unbalanced"- sic! - as long as it is not servile, since he is expecting everybody to be at his orders. Perhaps even Secretary of State Colin Powell! The latter made an "unforgivable "mistake - a lese majeste crime- that earned him to be snubbed by Sharon who merely canceled a scheduled meeting with him on Friday. The Secretary of State headed to Amman, but not before pulling back from his initial position. No reason was given for the change, but an Israeli official said, "Powell and Sharon completed their discussions"! What was actually reproached to the American Minister concerned a declaration he had made after a meeting with Arafat, which was immediately reported and published by the press. Thus, the damage - if any - was done, so to say. Powell said: " I think there is clear understanding of the need for monitors and observers to see what is happening". Those monitors would go to points of friction between Palestinians and Israelis and serve as go-betweens to resolve disputes and make independent reports. That has always been an Arab request supported by the European Union. But Washington had twice blocked a UN resolution about sending such a mission to the great bitterness of the Arabs. The Saudis reacted particularly angrily: The heir to the throne, Prince Abdullah rejected an invitation to the White House. The Saudi news network habitually moderate and never keen on shaking or molesting the good relationship with the American ally, felt utterly provoked by the American incomprehensible attitude which was - and so far still is - harshly attacked and dissected in the kingdom: No matter what are the Arabs saying, Washington seems unable to listen to them! However, Sharon's answer was not long to come. He merely dismissed as "mostly" unnecessary the idea of observers overseeing the steps Israel and the Palestinians would take. " I think it is much simpler than that", said he. " For example, when a school is attacked the action is seen clearly"! Of course, but what is he afraid of then? Anyway, it was not much glorious of Powell to deny what everybody heard him saying as soon as Sharon's murderous eyes went blood-shot with furor. He succeeded only to lose the little confidence he had gathered from his meeting with Arafat. Otherwise, he undermined his own chance of success and brought the case back to the zero. Either in Washington or in the Israeli government, the bells went ringing the alert! It was "worse " than any declaration a Secretary of State could make: it was an assessment of a new foreign policy... a policy that was going to give fair balance to both parties in implementing an impartial structure of independent observers as a first step to holding the cease fire. What then? Was Powell oblivious of the "basics" in dealing with the Arabs? Was he going to play against his own camp? An op-ed of the Israeli newspaper "Ha'aretz" published on June 28- the day he left for Amman - pretended to reminding him of these " basics" under the resounding and pompous title: Ten recommendations for a new Secretary of State! An article full of pretension and quite " well in the line» of Israeli self-sufficiency. Meanwhile, Powell had already abdicated and said: "there was no intention of my part to surprise" Sharon. So, no US policy shift. No independent observers that would not be accepted by "both" parties: e.g. by Israel! For Sharon made it clear: " We never supported UN observers», and more to the point: " We never accepted European observers. I don't think they are needed"! They aren't, indeed! This said, one does not know who is the most foolish: a Secretary of State going rashly against the double veto of his government and promising what after a quarter of an hour - a difficult one doubtless! - He would merely deny, or a Prime Minister expecting the whole world to be at his orders- Americans, Europeans, and -to be sure- stone throwing children in the Palestinian streets included! There is an Arab proverb saying: " a single madman is able to drive mad a whole group"! Here is the illustration of the case: Whether in the chaotic Middle East, or in the cold minded Europe, or even in the Bush administration that is pushing forward the shaky crinkled old peace carriage, on those rude unpaved paths, nobody knows exactly what is going on or where Sharon is heading to and driving everybody with him. To L. Weymouth, he said such contradictory things that it is almost impossible to tell whether they emanated from a single person or from several! Look at these examples: - He (: Arafat) has full control. -He (: Arafat) accepted Tenet document. -He (: Arafat) is playing with terror. - It is impossible to continue this way. -There is not going to be a war. - There is no cease-fire. - There should be a combination of political and military steps. An Israeli analyst wrote in Ha'aretz that the "Prime Minister is a split man "! For he is struggling between his "military past "- either as a palmach terrorist or a supervisor of Sabra and Chatila slaughter - and his responsibility as head of the Israeli Cabinet! Yet, if the Israelis think that a schizo- paranoiac is worth leading their state, nobody then can do anything for them: Neither the US, despite their willingness to act on their behalf, nor the UN whom they despise, nor the Europeans whom they deem enemies! Then what? It is no secret that some analysts in Israel itself believe that Sharon went to Washington with the ill hidden purpose of gaining understanding from the Bush administration ahead of a possible harsh Israeli action against the Palestinian Authority should it become clear that a total cease-fire has not taken effect. Nothing can actually more resemble to Sharon who acknowledged that he has not changed and that he held Arafat as an obstacle to peace. And nothing can convince the PA of the incredibility of such an endeavor more than an invitation for its Chairman to visit the White House. But the American administration is reluctant, and such reluctance empowers the conspiracy scenario. Let's not be fooled by Arafat non-acceptance of the Israeli conditions concerning the eventual arrest of Hamas and Jihad activists. Should Israel give him what he asked for, he would jail even the old and disabled Sheikh Yassine, the spiritual leader of the Islamist organization. But for the time being, he has no interest to do so. Thus, if Sharon cannot bear the sight of Arafat " playing between the Jews", as he put it, what makes him think that the latter would allow him " to play between the Palestinians»? For he made it clear that he would not " look for Hamas or for Islamic Jihad or any other parties because we respect these parties and there is a union between all of us ", as it was reported by Reuters. And if this acknowledgment means for the Israelis or the Americans that he has accepted his responsibility as to the suicide operations and other terrorist acts, he would not mind. This is the point, and this is the deadlock in spite of the rumors about cease-fire and successful diplomatic meddling. Can Bush administration admit these facts? For a real will to reach an agreement has to stick to the reality in order to be effective, instead of jumping above or ignoring it. When Bill Clinton invited the Israeli and the Palestinian leaders to a garden party in the White House making a worldwide publicized feast of the event on the day the Oslo agreement was signed, the Palestinians did not bathe their leader in some chemical product able to wipe out his past in order to be acceptable to the Establishment. They sent him as he was, or as he had always liked to introduce himself: an olive branch in one hand, and a gun in the other. Thus, we have to acknowledge that neither Arafat nor Sharon has changed. This is to make the task a bit more complicated to the peace mediators. Recently, Denis Ross, Clinton's special envoy to the Middle East, said: " You can't require the Palestinians to do more than they're capable of doing ... You can't look at the number of incidents per day and say they're there yet. If they're allowed to slide, you're going to see a continuation of past behavior, where they didn't perform on their commitments." This is only to show how ridiculous is the Israeli condition of total calm, were it even for twenty four hours not to speak of ten days. Some observers in the USA underlined the rift between the American and the Israeli positions. " Washington's emphasis on (100 percent effort) in reducing violence, compared to Israel's more demanding emphasis on (100 percent results) by the Palestinians, seemed to be more than diplomatic niceties", wrote New York Time's Jane Perlez. Yet, on the ground the American position wants clear translation, which was not helped by the surprising shift of Colin Powell, and was even far more less so by Mr. Fleischer, White House spokesman, pretending that Powell's comment was a restatement of long-standing US policy and was in no way an endorsement of Palestinian demands! Here the situation is no longer ridiculous, but even hilarious! For if that was a "long standing US policy», why on earth did Powell deny it after his first declaration? And if it was not, what pushed Fleischer to assuring that it was? Blunders of that sort and size, if they do not make a sound and credible foreign policy, at least succeeds in earning more suspicion about it. That is may be what Mr. Powell would find out alone on his way home. And if he succeeds while stopping in Paris to make another angry -: e.g. Prince Abdallah Ibn Abdelaziz- instead of allaying him, then he would be The Champion!

_____________________
- 6 -
____________________

SHARON'S DILEMMA:
Gulliver and the Dwarfs!


July 6,2001. (MMN)
Whereas under secretary of state William J. Burns headed again to Beirut, in an attempt to manage the looming crisis between Israel and Syria via Lebanon, due to Hizbullah renewed activity in Shabaa farms and Israel harsh retaliation in the Bekaa, where a raid against a Syrian radar has aggravated a confused situation, the Israeli Prime Minister contrived what was thought to be a quite difficult mission to Europe. Many observers agree on the gravity of the situation in the Lebanon where Syria is held responsible for all Hizbullah operations. The last Israeli raid -: July 1- occurred after less than three months of another, which also had targeted Syrian radar and killed three soldiers. The Israelis think that in acting this way they put the new and young Syrian President Bachar Al Assad under high pressure from inside his own camp: for if he does not react, he would be perceived as weak, on the one hand. And if he chooses the escalation, he would face the reality of the Syrian backwardness vis-à-vis the IDF, on the other hand. What are actually the chances of any confrontation with Israel for Syria? None, everybody knows it; and Al Assad more than anyone else. It is obvious then that Damascus is not seeking a traditional war with Israel, albeit with General Sharon as Prime Minister, such a probability cannot be really ruled out. Israel has repeatedly emphasized that it could not afford an attrition war, which is exactly what Hizbullah along with other Islamist Palestinian organizations are leading. There is a feeling in Israel that the Arabs are somehow behaving like the dwarfs with the little giant that is not Gulliver but Israel! Since they are as backward as powerless and are quite frightful of a war that could toss the shaky and dictatorial regimes, they try the old tactics of guerilla, which have not been vain during the French and British ruling period. The point is that the Israelis themselves had experimented these methods against the British. The last developments show anyway that against this kind of terror, the Israelis are not defenseless. For every Israeli, there are at least six Arabs killed. The bloodshed could thus continue endlessly. Besides, with the recurring suicide bombings, Israel is being pushed to the edge of the psychosis. Here too the high pressure put Ariel Sharon in a no-win situation much similar to what Bachar Al Assad is contrived to endure: for if he does not react he would be deemed weak, and if he does he would be faced with the over stretching - maybe uncontrolled- lethal power of his army. Otherwise, it is a very slippery ground, where any step could go far beyond it was initially intended to be. It is thus a vicious circle, where both camps are being held as hostages by the extremists. In this quagmire, some truths emerge however:
1- Nobody in the Western world - not to speak of the Arabs- can really admit as credible Sharon's pretensions that Arafat is heading a power of terror and not willing to negotiate. Arafat is a moderate leader, everybody knows it, and the Israeli press itself has reported about turmoil in the government over toppling the chief of the PLO. And it appears that Israeli Foreign Minister, Shimon Perez, took the defense of Arafat in the Cabinet reunion and threatened to leave the government, for his colleagues - he acknowledged it- were speaking of "how the uprising can be ended at the drop of a hat", to use his own terms. That was indeed an euphemism, but the real meaning cannot be hidden: they were actually speaking of assassinating Arafat, and if it was not in these crude words, then with a covert: e.g. While launching a massive military strike against the PA. Whether the option is still holding or no longer after Perez threats, remains ambiguous. Yet, Sharon is said to be in favor if there is a further Palestinian "outrage". The point is that Perez opinion would not really matter for the Israeli Prime Minister if, to break the vicious circle, he tries a spectacular maneuver and launches his troops against Arafat headquarters. 2- This scenario is not as fictive as it may sound. Sharon is an extremist, everybody knows it and he knows that they do too. That is why he tried two public relations maneuvers; the first towards the USA, and the second towards Europe: - With the USA, the relationship is being really tested to the utmost degree. Sharon's image is actually hard to sell to the public opinion, while the Human Rights Watch organization and other alike institutions in the Western world such as Amnesty, and the French "Association Des Droits de l'Homme", are bugling everywhere that he should face the International Criminal Tribunal for his responsibility in Sabra and Chatila slaughter. Would the USA, who have not yet recovered from the blow the vote for the committee of the Human Rights in the UN directed to them, still stand for the unconditional defense of any Israeli Prime Minister, whatever his background and aims, some observers in the Arab world are presently wondering? Although Benjamin Netanyahu - former rightist Prime Minister- they say, was miles away from Sharon as regards his political and military profile, he had had some difficulties to meeting President Clinton at the time. The relationship was by then strained, though nobody in the Western World accused Netanyahu of war crimes. This is not the case for Sharon. Some Arab observers note that the rumors about an American pull out from the Peace Process may be explained by some reserve not much as regards the Clinton administration policy than as regards Sharon himself. They think that many repeated failures are perceived by the Bush administration in its very beginning as frustrating and undermining the future. But this is perhaps not the American feeling. For if the cease-fire brokered by Tenet and emphasized by Powell as a necessary step to further commitment, does not hold, the visit of Mr. Burns to Beirut makes the rumors about the so-called American discouragement meaningless. Better: Mr. Edward Walker, a former assistant secretary of state, said recently in an interview to an Israeli newspaper: "The Arab leaders love to bash us... They constantly bash us in public because that's what they think their people want to hear, and they constantly are saying: ' why aren't you more active? Why aren't you more engaged? It's a split personality... I can't think of anything that hurts the peace process more". - With Europe, the relationship is more complicated, for it has never been clear from suspicion in both ways: The Israelis were always prone to think that the Europeans want to make their way to more an important role in the Middle East through political maneuvers, such as gambling on the contradictions between the Arabs themselves, then between Arabs and Israelis, then between the Israelis themselves, then between Israelis and Americans... and so on, trying to fool everybody and to fill the gapes with weapons sails and other alike stuff. On the other end, the Europeans are inclined to think that since the Israelis have not a real weight in Europe comparable to the powerful AIPAC in the USA, they would not trust Europe as a "credible" player, nor would they allow a role to Europe upon which they would not have any control. Thus, the relationship in its recent evolution is somewhat resembling to what happens in a Mideast market: traders and clients discuss during three hours about a contract or an accord or a price they know it would be taken at the last minute! Negotiations of carpets' merchants, one would say! But this is not surprising in the Middle East affairs. It is noticeable that Sharon's visit to Berlin and Paris was preceded and succeeded by a great tumult in the press, focusing mainly on two topics: on the one hand, the Brussels' judiciary investigation about Sharon's responsibility in Sabra and Shatilla, and on the other hand his ability or inability to go forward with the peace process. As regards the first subject, it seems that Sharon's visit to Berlin opened a breach in the wall: The Belgian Foreign Minister, Louis Michel, who tripped to Berlin to meet him - since Sharon could not go to Brussels himself where he is sought by the prosecutor! - declared that his government would suspend the admissibility of a complaint filed against a head of state, or amend the law. In return, Sharon invited the EU's Belgian presidency to visit Israel. Thus, a bargain was made; and both Paris and Berlin declared that they are against the assassination of the political leaders as it had been decided by an Israeli security cabinet. Yet, a European role is still rejected by Sharon if it has to be translated on the ground by an international force of observers. So, the Prime Minister would go home victor: he did not give up to the European pressure, and he even earned a promise from the Belgian Minister that the case would not have further negative effects. This done, it is up to the Americans now to play. How are they going to tackle the situation, remains the question? In his last visit to Washington, Israeli Chief of General Staff, Shaul Mofaz, was faced with the American refusal of condoning the killing of suspected Palestinian militants. Furthermore, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice told him: " We cannot afford a second front right now", referring to Israel's northern border, and urged him to refrain from attacking the Syrians. But if the Americans are committed to defending their interests and their Arab allies, the picture is different seen from Israel. The risk of slipping from a low graduated retaliation to a highly one is still great. In the absence of any real control, Sharon can still be attracted by the idea of a surprise offensive against the PA or even against the Syrians, for anyway at his age, he is not going to last indefinitely on the political scene. Moreover, once reassured that no court is seeking him, shouldn't he find a military operation well planned more rewarding than waiting until the end of the crisis?


________________________
-7-
___________________
Israel, the West, and the Arabs
Between misunderstanding and duplicity

July 9 , 2001 (MMN)

You do not need to be fluent in Arabic or in Hebrew these days to know that the Middle East is thousands of miles away from the late peace process. Peace, precisely, is no longer alive even in the official and pro governmental Arabic newspapers. Take a look at any Arabic news bulletin, and you see to what extent of anger and distrust and disgust and disappointment, a single man - consequently, Ariel Sharon - could boost the Arabs and unify them. The latter are not keen though to agreeing on any regional or international topic, so important are the contradictions dividing them since the Gulf war. But since Sharon's election as Prime Minister, it sounds as if the Arabs retrieved the taste of fighting and resisting. Beyond their divisions, a lot of their analysts and observers see not only Israel as embodying all the evil, but also those who are held responsible for the Israeli military and hi-tech sound progress and the crumbling disappointing state of twenty two Arab governments, detaining oil, gas, and other richness, but unable to match Israel on this ground: The Western States! Nothing could be more significant to the mindful observer perhaps than to take two newspapers as different as the Saudi Arryadh and the Iraqi Al Thawra, for instance, and to compare what their columnists are writing about the Israeli-Arab conflict. Indeed, the Western public opinion, convinced that the Saudis are the "allies" and the Iraqis the "enemies", is far from imagining that on some subjects - such as the current Israeli policy precisely- both Saudis and Iraqis forget their dramatic contrast and join in to condemn what is going on the hands of Sharon and his army, and especially to accuse the West - America in first rank- for its indifference to the Palestinian pains. The serious Al Ahram weekly - one of the most influent paper not only in Egypt but also in the Middle East- headlined one of its latest stories " Sharon's Guerilla War", while reporting that "faced with such inaction, the absolute conviction of the Palestinian leadership is that it is now no longer a question of if Sharon will deliver his crushing blow against them but when "! The no less influent Lebanese Annahar, was wondering whether the Israeli Prime Minister did not intend to get some sort of green light from his Western interlocutors on his last visit to Berlin and Paris, in order to launch an offensive! Furthermore, these rumors of war are not a pure fantasy of the columnists in the Arab world, for they are dispatched also by the official news agencies. And it is not only the journalists who are speculating: The Syrian President Bachar Al Assad declared to the German Deer Schpiegel before a visit to Berlin scheduled for Tuesday July 10, that Sharon is actually planning for a war, and he added that Syria is ready to face any belligerence. The interview was published on the same day Mr. William Burns ended his visit to Damascus! It was just a coincidence, to be sure. Yet, the paradox makes sense! Peace is never so badly needed than when people feel in their flesh and their proprieties that the conflict has gone that far; and this is exactly the way they feel it in the Middle East. But there is no peace looming at the horizon! The anger about the Western duplicity has reached alarming heights: it is not the ordinary street man who is turning his own resentment against the West, but the officials. The peace envoys are often deemed to be sympathizing with Israel. That was exactly the image sticking up to Mr. Denis Ross, who, unaware of it perhaps wrote recently in the Washington Post calling for creating a structure of accountability, the lack of which was, in his eyes, the real cause of Mr. Clinton failure to implement peace. Yet, the question remains: What is the difference between this proposition and what the Palestinians were suggesting about the international observers? At the time, some Arabs did not trust Mr. Ross; but they have to deal with him. Today, they would wonder why did he fail to make any step in this direction when he was in post and could really make things happen, whereas he is now "playing " the impartial adviser? Why the American leaders have a discourse when they are in post and another when they are off? As to Mr. Colin Powell, he is even deemed to push that " illogical logic" to its utmost extremity. Palestinian Authority Cabinet Secretary Ahmed Abderrahman is reported to have said: "Mr. Powell played a strange role. When he met with us he spoke one language and when he met with the Israelis he spoke another. And when he left the region he spoke a third language"!!! This at least to show that the Palestinians have not lost their sense of humor. We must not think however that the Arab anger is exclusively against the USA. For although the Europeans pretend to more a balanced position as regards the Mideast conflict, they are no less criticized. Their responsibility might be even heavier than the American. The British, for instance, are still reminded that they were the very cause of the Palestinian tragedy since the day they issued the famous Balfour promise. As to the French, it is well known that without their assistance, the Israelis would not have progressed in the nuclear technology to the extent they have reached. So, their duplicity in all what concerns this question is established since a long time. And if they shifted their positions to be more adaptable and flexible, it is not out of sympathy for the Arabs, but rather out of guilt and because of their interests. It is not haphazard that the famous Venice declaration, which recognized the PLO as the main representative of the Palestinian people and appealed for the execution of the UN decisions about Israel withdrawal from the 1967's occupied territories, occurred just after the great shock of the oil embargo in 1973. For the Arabs, that was a great step forward. Yet, the Europeans did never let down Israel, whatever the latter or the Arabs may think. The facts are speaking for themselves. Take France as an example. There is a wide diffused idea that the French are siding with the Arabs! Even the Israelis themselves believe it, for they see France as the "protector" of Bachar Al Assad as a columnist wrote recently in an Israeli newspaper; and besides, albeit they do not say it, the Israelis are quite embarrassed by what they figure out to be a French interventionism in their "backyard": Lebanon and Syria. But especially Lebanon, when Sharon had been able once to appoint himself the president of the republic after the 1982 invasion: Bechir Gemayel, who was killed a few days after his "election»! But despite that, the French have never considered serious the mere thought that they could be bypassed by Israel in an area they traditionally deem theirs. For them, the rules inherited from the early post colonization period are still holding. Whether in Africa or in the Middle East, the French influence has never been eliminated: the scandal of Elf’s adventures revealed in successive judiciary and press investigations, prove it. An important personage like David de Rothschild, the well known businessman, heir of a wealthy French Jewish family, declared lately to an Israeli newspaper: " France has its constraints and obligations. Sometimes as a citizen I would agree with what they do and sometimes as a Jew I might not." Then pursuing his analyze of the French Israeli relationship, Rothschild said that since there is a perception in the West that the Palestinians are weak and the Israelis strong, " it is for the strong one to find solutions". In his view, this acknowledgment makes the Jews of Europe suffering because Israel is part of their lives. Nevertheless, he could envision a scenario where the balance of opinion in Europe would shift in Israel's favor: " If there is a perception- he says- that the Palestinian leaders are not for the moment showing signs that they want peace, and there is a spreading out of regional hostilities which leads to a major confrontation here, you may then see a complete swing towards supporting Israel". Yet, what Rothschild missed in his analyze concerns the criterion upon which the Europeans repose their evaluation of the peaceful or unpeaceful behavior. For if we take the two present leaders in confrontation: Sharon and Arafat, for instance, who can really say who among them is really working for peace? And what is the basis of such an appreciation in the absence of what Mr. Denis Ross calls a "structure of accountability", and what the Palestinians label as "international observers"? But let's not miss the point. The above declaration of Mr. Rothschild was made in May of this year in Jerusalem, during the Palestinian uprising, where the French Jewish businessman was visiting, as part of a solidarity mission of 20 French business leaders, as it was reported. And of course, it is useless to naively wonder: solidarity with whom? With what Mr. Rothschild called " the strong", or "the weak"? For obviously, it was well "the strong" who needed solidarity!!! But who can blame the Jews of Europe for showing sympathy with General Ariel Sharon? After all, whatever his past or his future or his present, he has been elected by his people. And the French - and the other Europeans- who received him lately with an honor guard at the airport, an official dinner, and presidential accompaniment to the limousine on the red carpet, have no better explanation to give to those who criticized them. Yet, well before these honors, the French who never missed an occasion to object about the American "shameless" involvement in Israel's arming and logistic assistance - without which the F16 fighters could hardly have bombed the PA headquarters in Gaza! -, have been secretly working for a well rewarding bargain with the Israelis. The "solidarity" mission of Mr. Rothschild aimed actually at making a deal worth between $ 40 and $50 million and involving the joint production of the next generation UAV by European consortium EADS and IAI. France had actually selected Israel Aircraft Industries' "Eagle-1" drone over the General Atomics "Predator". French Ambassador in Tel Aviv, Jacques Huntzinger, pointed out that "French Israeli ties are marked by a new dynamism independent of the ups and downs of Middle East politics". A" new dynamism" that has been translated in "cash" terms: according to some reports the French Defense Ministry's procurement department will purchase the Eagle-1 airframe from IAI. The electronics and payload will be assembled by EADS, a consortium made up of Aerospatiale Matra and Dassault. The Eagle-1 is the European name for the "Heron", which was tested over Lebanon last year and actually broke an endurance record of 51 hours in the air. The point is that the deal was made in full Palestinian uprising. Maybe that would not have been of any importance in other circumstances; but at such hard times for the Palestinians, it could not go unnoticed. These are a few examples about how the Westerners deal with the crisis and how the Arabs perceive it. There are many others, to be sure. Yet, some positions underline the ambiguity of the situation and the misunderstanding it causes more than a veritable duplicity. How can one omit for instance the recent revelations about Halliburton Co. dealings with Iraq that are said to be greater than what Mr. Cheney - former chairman- acknowledged? And in which category can we really class them: misunderstanding, ambiguity of the situation, or duplicity? But this is perhaps a different problem? No matter! There is still a lot to say about related topics. Here is another example: " There's a conflict between what Arafat wants to be and what he wants to do", said a senior State Department lately to Los Angeles Times (: July 8), and he added: " He wants to be defender of the Arab cause, particularly in defending Jerusalem, but he also wants to be the founder of a Palestinian state, which may entail relinquishing long- cherished Arab goals." But why should the Palestinian state be denied the right to Jerusalem? And where is the contradiction between defending the "Arab cause" - defined as Jerusalem- and defending the right to a state? Are we here facing a position based on misunderstanding or on duplicity?

______________________________
- 8 -
______________________
RE-INVENTING SHARON?
-NO, BUT JUST PRESSURING HIM.

July 16 ,2001 (MMN)

Whereas in Cairo, Israeli Foreign Minister was talking about " the need to change rhetoric", and telling reporters that» the greatest mistake, the mother of mistakes is war", the Israeli government was taking a new step to show that no flexible position would be allowed. It is noteworthy that the decision to build several new towns in the Halutza sands region - a part of the Negev near the Gaza strip and along the border with Egypt-, was taken on the same day Shimon Perez arrived to Egypt for a short meeting with President Mubarak and Chairman Arafat. But would it be too excessive to say that the Cabinet decision was intended to put Perez on the "wrong side", albeit he did not spare his energy reserves to convince his Arab interlocutors of Sharon's tight and stiff point of view about keeping absolute calm for at least seven days, before starting to implement the Mitchell Committee recommendations? It is not amazing to state that as for Perez last visit to Cairo, even the Israeli press was suspicious, since it is not sure that he believes himself in the operational effect of the message he just delivered, unless in getting older he has grown credulous, as well! But this is perhaps the style of Sharon's management that has not been tested yet, neither by the Arabs nor by the Israelis themselves, although everybody knows who is actually Sharon and what he is aiming at. He did nothing to hide it anyway: "No Zionist government will decide to transfer state land to a foreign element", is he reported as saying on July 15's Yediot Ahronot! There you are, peace seekers! Your "land for peace" principle is being merely thrashed and sent out to the trashcan! Those who protest that anyway Arafat had already rejected the deal once proposed by Barak -: taking control of Halutza sands in return for Israel's annexation of parts of the West Bank that contains the heaviest concentrations of Jewish settlers -, omit that it is not so much the Halutza future that matters to Sharon, for no Israeli Prime Minister would ever have dared propose this land to the Palestinians if it was really worth keeping for the Israelis, and this is also the reason of Arafat's rejection. What actually motivated Sharon was rather the will to veto any future negotiations involving the right of return to the Palestinian refugees of 1967 and 1948's wars. Otherwise, the obstacle upon which the American led Camp David negotiations fell apart. That is the new style of Sharon's government: keeping the pressure outside, while wedging the nail in the coffin of the peace process inside! Whether Foreign Minister Perez is aware of the game his boss is playing on his back or not, is matter of speculation. For some Arab observers, the two men are as "united" as Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hide. Anyway, when Perez landed in Cairo, President Mubarak asked him whether he came to get things ahead or to play time, reports say. And to make clear to what extent Perez Opinion is really worth for the Israeli Prime Minister, His spokesman was saying that he " made no secret that he doesn't intend to allow the right of return of Palestinians to sovereign Israel". And since these are the facts, apart from demolishing homes, firing tank shells against civilians, penetrating the Palestinian territories for a ten thousand time and taking people in custody or even assassinating them, and repeating every day the same scenario ruthlessly and tirelessly, while still complaining that the Palestinians are a violent people that wants to force its "state" upon Israel and the whole world, what is the point of sending out a former Nobel prized Minister if not to ridicule the mere idea of working for peace with the Arabs? So, if Ariel Sharon have never existed, would it have been necessary to create him? It is up to the Israelis to answer such a question. Yet, it is not only the person of Perez that is targeted, and it is not even his party who anyway failed to reach any compromise with the Arabs, and this is why - don't forget it- it is right now represented in Sharon Cabinet. What is actually being targeted is the American involvement in the Peace Process. This is something Sharon would be much happier if it never happened. For it is obvious that the American refusal to back and condone all his acts is so far what held him back from launching an all-out military invasion of the Palestinian territories, - an option that is still on all the newspapers, and on the Israelis' in first rank. No later than July 12, Raanan Gissin, spokesman of Ariel Sharon declared: " the army has plans to cover all the possibilities", and he explained: "There are three options: surrender to Arafat, to go ahead with this plan - to occupy - or to continue the current course of restraint and self-defense. The government has said it's committed to peace but this situation can't last forever." Yet, we know by some well-dosed leaks that when the hard-line Ministers clamored for an assault on the Palestinians, it is Sharon himself who, playing the doves, opposed it! What then? Has the big old man grown soft and flexible? What a great disappointment for his admirers! Yet even if this is to add a strain to an already black picture, one cannot omit the fact that by the most fateful coincidence-!! - it is well since his ascension to power that the whole region grew steaming and boiling with rumors about a looming war! These are not the Arab journalists trumpeting for the Apocalypse, but well the Westerners and the Israelis as well. All those who read the press know what the headlines were about so far, and at last, some Israeli officials joined the chorus. Here you have Reuven Rivlin, Israeli Communications Minister, declaring:" Our patience is coming to an end, and we can't bear every day another casualty"! And there you have his colleague, Dalia Itzik, Industry Minister replying as an echo: "The scent of war is in the air»! One day Perez says: " War is the mother of mistakes"! And another day - or even another hour! - his colleague in the Cabinet, the same Rivlin, warns: " If everyone in Israel comes to a conclusion that the elimination of Arafat is the only way to stop violence, then we will be forced to do so"! Worst: we do not know whether Perez represents the Government or no longer though he is still part of it! Leaks still well dosed let us think that between Sharon and his Foreign Affairs Minister there may be an important, though not a grave, dispute. For when Sharon referring in a Cabinet reunion to the makers of the Oslo accords, said: "Anyone who thought we could place our security in Arafat's hands was mistaken", he was immediately replicated by Perez: "Without Arafat the situation will only be more difficult". And since we know how high Arafat is placed in Sharon's mind -: e.g. a "murderer", and a "pathological liar"! - and vice versa, no wonder if some Arab influent observers or advisers to the PA Chairman or to Mr. Mubarak, see Perez as an isolated actor performing a "one-man-show" on the stage, in a theater deserted by the spectators! For one thing is clear: Whatever his intentions, Perez is not going to re-invent Sharon and to sell him to the recalcitrant neighbors. He has to deal with realities. That is the only way for peace. In return, it is no less obvious that he thinks that Arafat had been bypassed by his own people upon which he could not get complete control, for according to July 16's Ha'aretz, he told him in Cairo:" ...The Tanzim (paramilitary) operatives in Hebron, who are subordinate to you and under your responsibility, carry out these terrorist attacks"! And since this is his own statement, how could he back Sharon's tight and stiff view and ask Arafat for an absolute calm during seven days? And what is this "absolute calm" anyway, which does not exist even in Paris or London? This is exactly the "counterproductive" kind of conditions that would only inflame the situation, for they are perceived as provocations by the Palestinians, who undergo the daily humiliating plight of the occupation. The need " to change the rhetoric" is thus applicable to the Israelis themselves, but would they do? Is it not odd that those who officially make of the murder of their opponents a policy of the State, ask the others to "change the rhetoric"? And if we make the effort of reading what is printed black on white in the Israeli papers, we would not miss to note that there is even worse than the Israelis acknowledge. For example, Maariv published recently excerpts of what it called a top-secret document prepared last fall by the Shin Bet and presented to then-Prime Minister Barak: " Arafat, it says, is a severe threat to the security of Israel. The damage from his disappearance is less compared to the damage from his continued survival". The document has been authentified, and even presented to Sharon, as it seems. So, when exactly did that talk about murder start? With Sharon or with Barak? Maybe it is pointless to argue now about who started what, but it is quite evident that if rumors are part of the show and that they are wanted for their effects, some acts and facts cannot be denied: on June 2, following a suicide operation that killed 21 people outside a Tel Aviv disco, a large-scale attack on Palestinian territories has been put off by Arafat's announcement of a cease-fire. The point is that a great number of observers have been wondering since then: For when was that assault postponed? The American envoys- it is true - are keeping the pressure on Sharon, as well as on Arafat. Tenet, Powell, Burns, Satterfield did their job, undoubtedly. Yet, they can do more than what it has been done, so far: this is a widespread opinion among the Arabs and the Europeans as well. Mr. Richard Boucher, State Department spokesman, explained lately that the travel of Mr. Satterfield following up on the discussions that Mr. Burns and Mr. Powell held in the region, aimed at " improving security cooperation, the restoration of calm and progress towards the implementation of the Mitchell Committee recommendations in all their aspects ". He made sure that the Administration is "troubled" by the Israeli entry into the Palestinian territories and the demolition of homes in Jerusalem and Rafah... Yet, if one must acknowledge that without this American "presence", the situation would have been worse, it is obvious though that the Americans are not putting even 1/10 of their weight in the balance, which is precisely what they are reproached. As a matter of fact, it sounds as if the Americans have no alternatives. Mr. Boucher said: " it is important to stop the violence, it is important that the parties themselves bear down and stop the violence through their own efforts", and this is also what everybody says, either in the Bush Administration or in Europe, or even in the inflamed region. Yet, on the ground it seems sometimes lunatic! And the reason for that failure is well known: there is a difference between discourses and concepts and operational plans. And it is precisely that difference which makes a policy sound or unsound, realistic or fanciful. And it is odd, above all, that the Americans who have been dealing with the region for as much years as the Israeli state may afford, are still so "shy" and hesitant in their dealing! "The US has not given a green light for any Israeli military action", said Susan Pittman, speaking for the State Department recently; and this may be okay and "almost" true! " Almost" because Sharon would not need it to send his tanks into the Palestinian territories, a thing - you would observe- he did not refrain from doing, despite the presence of The American envoy in the region. That is also Sharon's new style of managing. He would not go to Washington in order to get a " green light». What for, if he can profit of the presence of an American envoy and send out his tanks to break the Palestinian bones? Indeed, no American diplomat would ever say to Sharon: " Yes, go ahead! Crush them!" But did he really need that? Had he asked the Americans for their "green light" when he invaded Lebanon in June 1982 or - better - when he supervised the butchery in Sabra and Chatila? What? Are the Americans so naive or amnesiac?
Let's proceed in order. Upon which country the Israelis are relying for their military equipment? That same equipment that allows them to behave just as they do. Uncle Sam could not have lost the sense of the realities, since this is a matter of public records. We know that since 1950, the United States has provided more than $46 billion dollars in grant military aid to Israel. Besides, Israel has also received many billions more in grant 'economic aid', loans for military purchases and used American armaments. Would anyone pretend then that the US couldn’t do more to bring peace to the Middle East? Who knows Israel more than the US, and who better than those who know can pressure and ask for concrete steps? To say that the US has not accorded a green light for Sharon is perhaps true. Yet, it is inaccurate in the light of what has been happening since years. For while the Israeli defense industrial complex that the United States helped to build was becoming one of the world's most competitive arms exporters, Washington could not ignore that some of Israel deals were not only unlawful but also harmful for the American State itself. What did the former administrations to stop Israeli cooperation with countries such as Cambodia, Colombia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, China, Burma, and Zambia etc. who are all either under embargoes or severe restrictions? And what about helping China build its current F-10 fighter jet, thanks to American technology or transferring a Patriot Missile as it has been rumored to the Chinese? And who has forgotten the quite recent affair of the Awacs? It took more than half a year of intense pressure, including unofficial sanctions and threats to further withhold certain types of US technology, before Israel was forced to abandon the sale! That shows at least that when Washington wants to pressure really, it gets things done or undone. Yet, Israel was not hindered in 1999 from selling Phalcon airborne radar to China worth $250 million. And though Israel pretended that the Phalcon does not contain US technology, the American officials said " the system is closely related to the Awacs"! Did the Israelis ask for the American green light when they transferred US technology to countries under restrictions thus abusing their own allies and helpers? And what about the section 4 of the Arms Export Act, that stresses that weapons may only be used for the purposes of "legitimate self-defense"? Were the F-16 fighter jets "self defending" when they unleashed their laser-guided bombs on the civilians who took refuge in a UN asylum in 1997, in Lebanon, or even more recently on the Palestinian territories? Of course, the Arabs can understand that the US wants to keep the alliance with Israel strong and sound. This is a matter of sovereignty. It is not even to be discussed. But what seems irrational for the Arabs is the fact that although pretending to have a word in the future of the region and really shifting their policy to be more credible - especially since the collapse of the former Soviet Union and the end of the cold war-, Washington is not actually pressuring in order to get things done, as they know it can do. So many keys are in the American hands, but they are not playing them: weapons, technology, economic and financial assistance, and so much other items, and still, nothing has been done since the arrival of Mr. Bush to the White House. So, it is quite understandable that there is matter for worrying. Now, was it to hinder these worries from growing into disappointment and bewilderment that ex-President George Bush called Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah last month, as it has been reported on July 16's Washington Post issue, to "assure him of his son's good intentions toward the Middle East»? Anyway, the call did not go unnoticed, and though un-useful in a country like the USA, it is sure that in the present context it makes sense.

_________________
- 9 -
_______________
How the Arabs manage the crisis.

July 24, 2001. (MMN)

The naivety of the Arabs is appalling. For days and weeks they were waiting for the G8 summit’s declaration about the Middle-East, as if - by a magical spell- it was going to allay all their pains and give the right remedy to the chronic illness of their region. Just a declaration! That’s all what they were striving for, albeit the archives of the United Nations are full of such good intentioned declarations that never have helped changing anything in the sad story of the conflict. And now that the G8 summit gave them what they asked for, they grew aware that they are as powerless as they were before it, since Israel made clear that it would not accept outside monitors.
So what? For those who observe the reactions of the varied parties in the present context of crisis, the incongruity of the Arab attitudes is not only plain, but also blinding. Nothing is easier today than to put all the responsibility of the ongoing bloodshed on the Israeli back, since it is definitely clear that Sharon is blocking any progress. Indeed, the man never pretended that he would take on the charge of granting the best results out of the Oslo process. He rejected it, everybody knows that, and if he has been brought up to the top, it is indubitable that he was being carried by the wave of bitterness and anger that shook the Israelis after the failure of Camp David II. Were the Arabs unaware of this? Unless, they were fooling themselves, they could not be so out of touch as to the real prospects at stake. They understood very well the « message » given to them by the victory of Sharon in the last Israeli elections. They did not miss the point, for a little time after that event, they sent an answer to the Israelis through the Arab summit of Amman, calling for the freeze of any contacts with Israel, and even the necessity of bringing the Israeli Prime Minister before a law-court as a war criminal! That was an event without precedent. Such boldness was not to pass unnoticed, although nobody accorded it much importance. Yet, one of its results consisted in putting the biddings very high. This is to say that there was a shared responsibility for the next evolvements, although it is understood that Israel remains mainly accountable for the Al-Aqsa provocation.
And since these are the known facts, what were the Arabs expecting from the G8 summit and removing earth and heaven to obtaining it? An intervention of the great powers of the planet in order to put an end at the bloodshed? Something like what happened in Bosnia-Herzegovina or lately in the Kosovo?
Far from them were these thoughts. The Arabs- it is well known- have always rejected any armed intervention in their region, unless it aims at saving one of their regimes from the belligerent greed of another. Such interventions have not been inaugurated by the alliance that ousted the Iraqis from Kuwait. Many years before that, Habib Bourguiba allowed France to intervene in South Tunisia against the rebels who came from Libya, as it was rumoured. Then the two countries were on the edge of war, and France was having the best part in arming the Tunisian troops, who few months before have not hesitated to kill at least 400 people who were just demonstrating. The example is full edifying: When the French were siding with the Tunisian regime against Libya, they were considered « our best friends », but since they began to point out to the dark situation of the human rights and their repeated violation by the new dictator of Tunisia, they became « nostalgic of the colonisation »! The example shows that the Western interventions were not always what an official Arab view deemed them to be: i.e. motivated only by the greed for the Arab riches! Where are the riches in the Balkans, or in Somalia or Rwanda? These are poor countries that needed only to be helped for the sake of humanity. Nobody pretends that the Western governments are more inclined to be philanthropic than realistic. Yet, in the Middle East they can still do much more than they have so far. But nobody in the Arab world seems to care! All what they were asking for concerned a declaration about outside monitors! Then once issued, everybody would go home with the feeling of the accomplished duty, while the violence would go on and on endlessly.
What would people facing the tanks and the helicopters and the bombs do with a declaration that as soon as it was issued the Israeli government rejected it? The Arab governments in return seemed almost euphoric! What a joy to get at last an « acknowledgment » of the US? What? Didn’t Mr. Bush give up « under the Arab pressure »? The hell he did! So it is not far away the day he would kick Sharon and Perez outside the White House! Anyway, since Sharon has » been indicted and judged and condemned » by the BBC, the Arabs consider that they are done with him: they have prevailed! That’s why the last meeting of the Arab Foreign Ministers in Cairo was very careful not to bring again that « rant » about Sharon’s crimes on the timetable. The extremely moderate tone of their last finding contrasted plainly with the precedent. No wonder, they wanted to convey a message to the G8 summit: « We claim nothing more than an acknowledgment that we need your monitors »! Otherwise: an acknowledgment of the sorrowful inability of 22 Arab States to manage this crisis!
What do you want? These are the facts! The editorial of « The Jordan Times » for instance, was saying on July 22: « ... The least the summit could do is to unconditionally endorse King Abdullah’s repeated calls for international observers in Palestine, without allowing Israel any veto power in such regard ».
You would notice by the way that the « calls for international observers » are neither King Abdullah own prerogative nor Arafat’s, since this is also what Mr. Chirac or Mr. Ross may claim.
What is most striking in the current crisis however, beyond the incompetence of the Arab governments, is their ability to hold on with an attitude and its contrast at once! On the one hand, the last reunion of the Foreign Ministers in Cairo kept the profile low and did not show much boldness in its statement about the situation. But on the other hand, its host, the Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak let his anger burst out freely against Sharon when he declared to the reporters last week that the Israeli Premier « is quite unable to achieve peace, for he knows nothing but war and killing... »
For those who think that Mubarak was merely exasperated and that his unprecedented anger would not have further effects on the Egyptian policy, there is another declaration of his Foreign Minister they should read and well understand. Mr. Ahmed Maher said on Saturday July 21: « The current government in Israel led by Ariel Sharon is a government that is not capable of establishing peace ». Furthermore, Mr Maher added: « There is no doubt that among Sharon’s plans is liquidating the Palestinian Authority, politically and physically... »
One must notice however that since that plan about the « all out offensive » has been revealed by the British Foreign Report, then by the Israelis themselves, it has become the main object of commentaries in the Arab media, before getting more « credibility » to the point of being thus « confirmed » by the Egyptian Foreign Affairs Minister. Meanwhile, nobody in the Arab media- political world seemed to care about its trustworthiness. Even if that was only an Israeli intoxication, it sounds as if from the simple citizen to the Minister everybody is taking it seriously! It is true that Sharon is not reassuring. But really, who among the Israeli former Premiers was? Rabin ? Netanyahu ? Shamir ? Barak? Or even the « dove » Peres? Who among those men has never ordered to shoot at the Arabs?
What the Arab media miss is the fact that Sharon likely relishes his frightening image. This is exactly the purpose he had been elected to fulfil. It is his mission to appear terrifying to the Arabs. And this is just what they are helping him to achieve.



___________________

-10 -
_________________

JEWS AND ARABS:
MEDIA AND CONFLICT


July 25, 2001 (MMN)
Nothing may be more harmful to the cause of peace, these days, than the pretension to control most of what the media are dealing with, as regards the Middle East conflict. The problem is already enough complicated within its military dimensions, assuming that in the origin of the present outgrowing explosion of violence, there is essentially a military "fait accompli" of one people (Israeli) on the account of another (Palestinian). We cannot hide the fact that there is on the disputed lands, since 1948, an invader and an invaded. For in the overwhelming flow of information and pseudo information covering that dispute, people forget sometimes the basics, which might remind them that without the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian land, nobody among the Arabs would ever have fought against the Jews. Until recent times - most likely up to 1967- there was not a single Arab capital that did not contain more or less an important proportion of Jewish citizens. From the shores of the Atlantic in Morocco to the Arab Persian Gulf, the Jews were living with the Muslims and the Christians in the Arab world, and enjoying like them the rights of the citizenship. Although the statistics of that period are not entirely reliable, there is no doubt that the Arab Jews of that time outnumbered those of New York and other American cities. Thus, to think that the Arabs and the Jews do not know each other or refuse to know each other is probably one of those widespread unfounded ideas that intoxicate people's minds since the beginning of this conflict. In fact, the history of the Jews and the Arabs is the history of a long, thorny, horny, tragically revealing passion about power, and money, and glory, the whole mixed up with religious creeds and deeply soaked in the deepest mysticism. If you do not understand this, you would not understand why youngsters of 18 to 20 years old are willing to sacrifice their lives, neither you would understand why the most powerful Israeli leader - i.e. Isaac Rabin - has been so unexpectedly killed by one of his compatriots in the street, and so many other dramatic events. Some Westerners, who barely know the history of the Middle East, do not even suspect what the Arab schoolboys learn since their primary courses about the Muslims and the Jews. The fact that Mohammed - the Prophet of Islam- sought refuge among the Jews of Medina, when he fled Mecca hounded by his fellow citizens who wanted him dead, and that the Jews- and the Christians- welcomed him and his companions and helped him settle in their town, which would be transformed in few years into the Headquarters of the new conquering religion, passes almost unnoticed, although this is the very nucleus of the initial relationship between the Jews and the Muslims. In the same context of blurred and biased historical data, nobody seems to care about rising the question related to the timing of the recent events: how come actually that about fifty years of blood shedding and reciprocal violence can cause such an amnesia among people of that region, so that they forget completely that they have lived together for more than 14 centuries - since the advent of Islam- without that kind of violence we see today? How did the Arabs and the Jews forget 14 centuries of coexistence just to recall their recent dispute of some fifty years? What are 50 and 100 years in the prospect of History? Everybody must know the answer, though. It is so elementary. Even a boy school would say: these years of struggle are nothing compared to centuries of coexistence. Before the arrival of Sharon, Netanyahu, and alike vultures, Arabs and Jews used to live peacefully on those lands. How can we forget that if the Arabs have been able to carry the light of civilization until the heart of the middle-aged Europe, at a remote epoch, it was also thanks to their Jewish compatriots who worked as translators and copyists and physicians and chemists and musicians and traders, etc? Those famous Jews are known to the Arab scholars- as well as to the orientalists- by the label:"Ahl addhimma", which distinguishes them - along with the Christians- from the "kefir"(i.e. the atheists). Not only they were respected by the Muslims, but also some of them were even able to make their way up to the Caliphs and thus to hold important posts in their administration. Thus, those who claim nowadays that Muslims and Jews cannot live peacefully together, or that peace in the Middle East is just impossible, do a lot of damage not only to the populations of that region, but also to its history which they likely ignore. In fact, in the wide prospect of global History, what is the weight of Sharon or Arafat? Thus, whether they reach peace or not does not really matter if they are unable to proceed with it for a long time. Maybe the two men, after all, are the real obstacles to peace, not the contrary. Maybe their peoples need to acknowledge that they have been just hijacked, while they were thinking they have chosen! Obviously, the media are part of the bidding. All the parties are trying to use them, which is not bad in itself. Yet, there is a difference between using the media and subduing them, by threats, bribery, blackmailing, and other kinds of pressure. The point is that those who are almost sure to lose the fight on the ground - I mean in the streets, with people- are precisely those who use these dishonest means to impress the journalists and the writers. For one thing is clear: You would not act as intellectual terrorists if you know that you can convince us just in arguing.
___________________
-11 -
_________________
WHAT ROLE FOR AMERICA
IN ARAFAT'S KITCHEN?

August 10, 2001 (MMN)
If the suicide bombing that killed 14 people and injured more than a hundred in downtown Jerusalem, and other similar operations, would not force Israel to withdrawing from the occupied territories, it is unlikely that the Israeli retaliation whatever its intensity would compel the Palestinians to accept the occupation as a " fait accompli". About half a hundred years of this tragic struggle shows that if both parties are reluctant to put down their weapons and come back to negotiations, nothing can then stop the bloodshed, and the same dangerous and vain game may protract for another half a century or more. Indeed, if the concerned parties take in consideration the whole history of this conflict from its very beginning up to the present day, they would not miss to state that what they are living right now is not unprecedented. Many examples drawn from the past may persuade them that this is actually a non-winning situation, where both of them are struggling with their own demons without even being aware of it. Of course, neither of them has the time to make an analytical retrospective that may show them their own mistakes so that they could thereby break the vicious circle. But those who are outside the struggle can certainly do that, and most of all those who have the moral and political responsibility vis-à-vis the regional order - or rather: the regional disorder! -, not to say the defunct peace process. Unfortunately, those who are willing to do something are either unable or unacceptable (: mainly the Arabs and the Europeans); and those who are able and acceptable for everybody, are either unwilling or recalcitrant (i.e. The USA). For the Palestinians, the fact that their national leader Yasser Arafat has not been able to meet President Bush so far, whereas the Israeli Prime Minister is always welcome in the White House whatever his deeds and misdeeds, and despite he has been condemned several times by the American officials for his political assassinations as by the media, could not seem anything else but humiliating. How come, some of them ask, that Washington treat us Monday as equal to the Israelis, and Tuesday as unequal? Between the time when Mr. Arafat could land in Washington to have a talk with the American President, and the time when such an eventuality does not dawn on Mr. Bush, there are only the few days that separate a mandate from another. It is true that Mr. Bush announced since the start that he was not to pursue the Clinton policy, which he deems as failing, yet, may Washington afford to have such an inconstant endeavor as concerns the delicate matters of peace and war without expecting bad consequences? Does America need to be reminded that the whole peace process meant for the Palestinian people mainly one thing: Dignity? Was it not the first time that the American officials ceased to label Arafat as a terrorist and accepted him as a representative of a political cause that aims at liberating his people from the Zionist yoke? Was he not received in the White House with the honors the protocol used to reserve to the heads of State? Was he not then considered as equal to Prime Minister Rabin? What were the Oslo accords if they were not to lead the Palestinian people - with the full agreement of the international community- to independence? So, why when the change occurred in Israel and in the United States, those who took over - i.e. MM Sharon and Bush- behaved as if nothing ever happened, wonder the Palestinians? It is true that the negotiations failed at Camp David, and true that in Taba they had to be stopped because of Israeli internal pressure over the elections stakes. Yet, was that enough to consider that Mr. Arafat is no longer a partner in peace? For this is what actually occurred. When the White House ignored Arafat's " appels du pied" to be honored by an American invitation to meet the new President, the Israeli Prime Minister could afford the luxury of labeling publicly the President of the P.A. as " a murderer" and a leader of a " terrorist gang" and a " pathological liar", etc!.. And as there was more and more talk in the media about a possible American withdrawal from the ailing peace process, these rumors - though denied by the officials- added to the Palestinian distress a new strain and widened their anxiety about being forsaken by the "international community"! The International community has been actually the preferred expression in Arafat's lexicon, since the very day he signed up the Oslo Agreements. Anytime he felt he was being attacked by his opponents or by those who criticized his haste to making peace with Israel (what was depicted in the Arab press by the word: harwala, meaning marathon!)-among them the ex-President of Syria, Hafiz Assad, and he was not the less powerful-, he resorted to that expression as if it was a magic wand! He would say proudly and confidently: " This is an agreement brokered by the International Community, not a local accord"! In his mind, that expression means that he was confident he would not be let down by those who encouraged him to break the psychological wall between him and the Israelis, in order to make what he used to call- following the example of his French friends- la paix des braves. Of course, the International Community includes the Arabs, the Europeans, the Russians, the Asians and everybody who cares about peace in the Mideast. But on the top of it, there is no doubt that Arafat puts the Americans, even if he does not acknowledge it. Thus, when he called for International Monitors, it was with that perception. Hence, his utmost disappointment when, after a little hope that the new American President would perhaps act more firmly than Bill Clinton, he stated that not only Mr. Bush did not intend to be involved as deeply as the former President had been in the Middle East, but that he - as head of the P.A.- has ceased to be attractive to the new tenant of the White House! It may be retorted that all this is nothing but the Palestinian own paranoia, since the Bush administration has sent many envoys to the region, among them the Secretary of State and the Director of the C.I.A., and that it is still pursuing the same efforts towards implementing the truce and the Mitchell Committee's recommendations upon which both parties have sensibly agreed. Moreover, even during his month long stay at his ranch, Mr. Bush remains in touch with the Arab leaders, we are told! He announced that he had replied to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who sent him an urgent letter last week warning about the possible consequences of violence, and that he told him that " peace in the Middle East is a top foreign policy priority"... A July 31 communication with Abdullah of Jordan is also mentioned: " I spoke to the king the other day, king of Jordan... I told him that we're very much involved", said Bush. Fine! Nobody doubts the President's word, but this is not the point. The point is that apparently, between Bush and his Arab interlocutors there is a deep and serious misunderstanding, which is enough grave to threaten the relationship. It is not a secret that despite the intervention of his father - former President Bush- on his behalf to reassure the Crown Prince of Saudi Kingdom about the good intentions of the new administration, the relations are still suffering from a cold. Last week, White House spokesman Scott McClellan acknowledged that the President had received a letter from Yasser Arafat, but we do not know whether he answered it or not. Anyway, the answer would not be a problem, for there is now a pattern well established upon which the American officials seem to model their speeches. It may be summed up as follows: We are very concerned about the bloodshed, and we call both parties to stop it, so that we can act to implement the Mitchell committee recommendations! Which is very good, undoubtedly, but in the present situation, inoperative. When it is the Europeans who say that- and they do most of the time-, nobody perceives the message as negative. Quite the contrary. As Israel is still rejecting the European involvement, the E.U. is considered as neutral, because in fact, it seems powerless. Yet, when the Americans themselves convey such a message, although it seems neutral too, the Arabs do not consider it as innocuous. Why? Because of many reasons, the least of them consists in reminding the forgetful that America spends at least $ 3 to 4 billion yearly in aid to Israel besides a broad range of varied assistance. So, if America who knows that Israel is the occupier cannot rein in Sharon - or whoever is in charge- and pressure him, who can? While calling for both parties to share responsibility, the Bush administration seeks to appear neutral, but it fools nobody among the Arabs who do believe that you cannot divide responsibility between an occupying force that detains F-16s, and missiles, and heavy weaponry, not to speak of nuclear power, and a people that has been spoiled of its land and given the" choice" between living crushed and besieged or exiled. Otherwise, it becomes obvious that if this were going to be the sole policy of Mr. Bush (i.e." we will wait until they calm down and decide to resume negotiations"!), it would be very counter-productive as regards the prospects of peace in the Middle East. Maybe the Arab leaders with whom the American President is in contact have not been able to convey to him the real worries of the people of that region! For when they ask him to intervene, he answers: that's just what we are doing! Of course, but doing what? Sending Mr. Tenet or Mr. Powell to keep in touch with the diplomatic ballet is not enough, as it sounds. To be convincing, Washington needs to show the Israelis that its condemnation of their political assassinations for example, is not meant to be heard only by the State Department's walls. More to the point, why not asking the Congress to vote for retention of the aid to Israel if its government does not comply with the former agreements concerning the peace process? Why should America do so? Because, this is what the Arabs and the Israelis who want to live in peace expect, since they are all agreeing that there is no military issue to the conflict. No military issue, means to acknowledge -in the least- that all what Ariel Sharon has been doing since his election, is wrong, wrong, wrong. No military issue means also to acknowledge that Yasser Arafat cannot be held responsible for the suicide bombings, and that he should not be pushed to putting his own people in prison, as Sharon is still expecting. The non-sense of such a demand is quite obvious, though. Even Mr. Martin Indyk - who cannot be suspected of antipathy towards Israel- has noticed in an op-ed recently published in The New York Times (Aug. 8), that " it is typical of Mr. Arafat" not to confront Hamas and Islamic Jihad: " He has always preferred consensus building to confrontation with these opposition elements, and this is even more so today because of their popularity with Palestinians angered by Israel's attacks". The same Indyk remarked that " Hamas's strength is growing and the Palestinian Authority's institutions are beginning to crumble", and he was not the single observer who noticed these facts. Some days ago, it was a mere rumor that crossed the world media like a meteor: the P.A. it was said, is nearly collapsing. And though nobody hinted to the Israeli policy as a possible cause of that singular evolution, it was also because the Israelis themselves could very well be behind it. Today, there is a growing worry as to Arafat's possible entente with the militants of Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, who may be asked to join his government. The "national dialogue", as it is called by the Palestinian media can actually lead Arafat- possibly the region- towards a turn: What would be the prospects of peace, may some wonder, if the extremists are brought to the government? Of course! But who is in charge in Israel, right now, reply the others? Arafat seeks control over his troops. In order to gain popular support and to be more influent, does he need really to bring the Islamists to his authority? The answer is mitigated: On the one hand, if this maneuver is well led, it would less bring the Islamists to power than him to full control of the situation. On the other hand, the Islamists are no fools. They know what he is aiming at, and that is why they are not eager to join him. One of their leaders, Mahmud Zahhar, said: "When we receive a proposal we will study it"! That means indeed that they have their own appreciation of the situation and therefore, their conditions. After all, who pretends that if the current P.A. collapses they would not be the winners, as the - de facto -successors? They have acquired popularity and legitimacy in the eyes of a growing part of the Palestinian people. According to a recent opinion poll conducted jointly by Palestinian and Israeli research institutes, 70 percent of the Palestinians surveyed believe that armed confrontations have so far achieved Palestinian rights in ways that negotiations could not. In the last days of July, clashes between Palestinian gunmen and Palestinian Authority forces over a cease-fire order have revealed the Authority's weakness and the growing influence of the Hamas group, which actually emerges as a parallel authority. That means also that any crackdown against the Islamists in the present situation would put Arafat in a very bad position. Thus, instead of confronting them, he chose the dialogue. If this were to end up in a unity government, as some are already rumoring, Sharon would have no other choice but to lead an all-out offensive, or to retire.
______________
-12 -
_______________
WHAT'S WRONG WITH BUSH ADMINISTRATION?

August 20, 2001 (MMN)

The numbers speak for themselves: an overwhelming majority in four European countries - at least 73 percent of the public - believe that President Bush makes decisions based entirely on U.S interests without any consideration for his European allies. Whether the Americans like it or not, their president seems in loss of popularity. The results of the polls, conducted by the International Herald Tribune and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press in Washington, have not really surprised the observers of the political scene in Europe. It is not a secret that an important part of the media in the surveyed countries
(France, Great Britain, Germany, and Italy), have never been acquired to Mr. Bush's known ideas concerning sensitive matters, such as the Kyoto environmental treaty, and the eventual withdrawal from the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, not to speak of the death penalty or the Middle East non- intervention policy. But as long as the " antipathetic" trend remained confined to some leftist and/or nationalistic journalists and intellectuals, Mr. Antony Blinken - a National Security Council official in the Clinton administration- could afford the luxury of thinking loudly that "the United States and Europe are actually converging". Thus " the crisis in US-European relations is largely a myth manufactured by elites", he wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine.
Yet, if the recently published results of the polls show us something, it is well that the growing estrangement does no longer concern the sole elites. The European public is actually quite supporting the wave. More and more people disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling international policy. A lot of them, quite forgetful that Clinton also was a strong proponent of the death penalty, particularly when he was governor of Arkansas, and that he failed to submit the Kyoto accord for Senate ratification, declared that his policies were more convincing than Bush's. A majority of the surveyed said that Mr. Bush understands less about Europe than other American Presidents, and that factors like the growing power of the European Union, the resentment created by the American multinational corporations, the increasingly different social and cultural values, and the end of the Cold War, are rather pushing Europe and the U.S. towards growing further apart.
Unilateralism, values gap, negative stereotypes, are the key words in the commentaries. How would the American administration deal with the poll results? That is the question, which deserves to be answered, for it concerns the next evolution of the relations. It is noteworthy that some observers in Europe, think that this is the first time since 1947 that " a mutual decoupling of the United States from Europe is truly possible". The end of the Cold War, the evolution of the European Union build up towards more a homogeneous defense and security system, and globalization, are necessarily causing a shift in the nature of the half-century relationship.
If these changes are to worry the " atlantists", they are likely to serve the Russian nostalgia to the lost grandeur under the ambitious President Putin. But let's not quickly give up to the paranoia: the present state of the crumbly ex-empire does not indicate any ability to recovering soon from its chronic sickness, despite the pompous rhetoric that has flourished of late. China is indeed another problem, as well as the "rogues's clubhouse", as it has been labeled by Jeffrey W.Legro and Andrew Moravcsik, in Foreign Policy (: issue July-August 01/ Faux Realism). Yet, what rang the alert in the minds of these two American scholars, has more to do with the recent concerns about the increasing gap between Europe and the U.S., than it sounds. For them, the doctrine propagated by the Bush administration and known as "new realism" is neither new nor realist, if we may say. And the most tangible result it may lead to - either by the choice of the adversaries or by the absence of a global balance of power- can only unite " the current administration and its predecessor against the only remaining pure 'realists' in America, who huddle around publications like The Weekly Standard and the National
Review fearing that the United States will find itself militarily unprepared for a coming battle for global hegemony with great powers such as China and a united Europe "!
Indubitably, it is well the allies that any State needs to convince first, and that is why any observer must not fail to note that it is with its own allies that the U.S.A. is actually wrestling. However, the Europeans are not alone in their disapproval of Mr. Bush's policies. If we are to believe the Christian Science Monitor (August 16), the US assistant secretary of State for the Middle East, William Burns, found in a recent swing through the Gulf region that many US friends were virtually obsessed with the Palestinian problem. " My discussions with Gulf leaders focused almost exclusively on the Palestinian-Israeli situation",
Mr. Burns told a House panel last month. The reluctance to cooperate with the USA for more an active involvement in alternative policies as regards Iraq is the result of a growing popular pressure on these governments. The US is perceived more as the friend of the Israelis than as the "liberator" of Kuwait. Worse: there is a growing feeling among the Arabs that the Palestinians, the Iraqis, the Libyans, the Sudanese, the Syrians, the Iranians are all victims of the American musculated policy, and that they are serving as scapegoats to the broad objectives of Uncle Sam in the region.
On this ground precisely, there is much to say about the US-European divergence. Some examples may highlight the differences in the positions held by Washington and Brussels:
1) On July 31 of this year, Mr. Chris Patten issued a statement saying that the European Commission regrets the congressional decision on 27 July to extend the Iran and Libya Sanctions (ILSA) for another five years. The document reminds us that at the EU-US Göteborg summit in June the European Union and the United States affirmed their commitment to pursue shared aims under the New Transatlantic Agenda. In particular, they agreed to work together to promote international security, peace and stability, and to pursue the fight against international terrorism and proliferation of weapons. Then the document emphasizes that the EU is concerned that this important joint effort could be damaged by continuing US attempts to promote the goal through unilateral extraterritorial laws.
More to the point, the precedent rhetoric means that the Europeans perceive the congressional decision as a threat against the open international trading system.
2) To understand what are the stakes, we ought to keep in mind that the European Union has extensive trade relations with Libya. Italy, Germany, the United Kingdom and France ( the same countries surveyed by the poll) are Libya's leading four suppliers of manufactures, energy and food products and raw materials, roughly 50% of its total imports. Italy, Germany, Spain, France and Greece are Libya's top five export markets, absorbing about 70% of its manufactures, energy and food products and raw materials. Moreover, the European Union accounts for nine-tenths of Libya's oil exports. Italy,Germany,Spain,
France and Belgium are the leading five importers of Libyan oil; this oil covers 51% of Italy's requirements, 13% of Germany's and 5% of France's.
As to Iran, the situation is a little different, but the importance accorded to the future cooperation is obvious. Following the election of Mr. Khatami as President in May 1997 and positive moves by Iran over a number of issues, a Comprehensive Dialogue in the form of semestrial troika meetings at the level of Under-secretary of State/Deputy Minister was established in 1998. The EU also decided to explore the possibilities for co-operation with Iran in the areas of energy, trade and investment, refugees and drugs control. Thus, on 7 February 2001, the Commission adopted a communication, setting out the perspectives and conditions for developing closer relations with Iran. This could lead to the conclusion of a Trade and Co-operation Agreement.
It must be noticed that EU is Iran's main trading partner concerning both imports (around 40%) and exports (around 36%). Whereas more than 75% of EU imports from Iran consist of oil products, the exports to Iran are more diversified, with power generation plants, large machinery and electrical and mechanical appliances making-up about 45 percent of the total exports.
This is to show that on these two dossiers, the European reluctance to follow the USA is neither a matter of ideology or tight political maneuver, but really concerning economic interests and important assets of survival.
Hence, the misunderstanding that settled down between the two shores of the Atlantic. Besides, what the Europeans are unable to admit concerns that American propensity to handle international issues only on the ground of National Proud, which is quite costing even to the American companies suffering from some political decisions. What are actually the real threats of countries like Libya or Iran ? As J.W.Legro and A. Moravcsik put it , " these picayune foes are targeted not because they are the most powerful- or even minimally powerful - but because they are the least democratic and propagate the most hostile ideologies".
The least democratic? This is not sure. As a matter of fact, the last elections in Iran for instance, have not been denunciated as such by any competent international organism. And though we cannot say the same thing about Cuba or North Korea, it is noticeable however that the US keep a very cool relationship with some regimes that have never hidden their sinister umpopularity.
The factor that remains concerns the hostile ideologies. But here also the objection is important. Washington has always been able to put up with regimes like the former Soviet Union or the present China. So why does it seem unable to cope with Libya or Iran?
So, is it rather because of their position as regards the Arab- Israeli conflict? If this were the case, as many observers are prone to believe, then the United States would be sacrificing some of its interests with the Arabs and the Europeans only for the sake of the AIPAC's views?
3) What remains incomprehensible as a source of continual distrust and polemic between Americans, Europeans, Arabs and Israelis, concern the incomplete role of the EU in the Middle East ; that role that has never been fully satisfying for any of the parties.
The Europeans claim that they are the largest donor of non-military aid to the Middle East peace process, and the first donor of financial and technical assistance to the Palestinian authority. Besides, they are the first trading partner and major economic, scientific and research partner of Israel. They are also well involved in economic and political partnership with Lebanon,Syria, Jordan, and Egypt...
So, the minimum expected is that their role in the conflict or in the peace process does not be limited to sponsoring the negotiations from behind the curtains. The Arabs wish a more active intervention, but such a prospect has never pleased the Israelis. The reasons of such a stubborn rejection are known: The European Union's basic position on the Middle East - which earned them the Israeli furor- was expressed in its Venice Declaration at the June 1980 European Council and was repeatedly reaffirmed by subsequent European Councils of Heads of State and Government (Berlin,Cologne and Helsinki in 1999; Feira; Biarritz and Nice in 2000) as well as by General Affairs Councils of Foreign Ministers. It is essentially based on the acceptation of the UN resolutions asking for Israel withdrawal from the 1967's occupied territories.
In the present situation, neither the Americans nor the Europeans seem to agree about a common intervention able to put an end to the bloodshed. The deadlock is partly caused by this "inability" to cope over a regional issue whose stakes are the concerns of all the parties involved.
Hence, the disappointment of the Arabs. For if the sponsors of the peace process fail to save it - or what remains of its hopes- who is to blame for that failure?

______________________
-13 -
________________________

A Second Wall in Berlin?



August 24, 2001 (MMN)


Evoking the last Egyptian peacemaking attempt led by presidential adviser Osama el-Baz in Washington as lining up with the US- Israeli stance about international observers, a recent editorial of the Jerusalem Post (August 21) quoted President Hosni Mubarak as declaring: " If there aren't genuine intentions to stop the violence, the international observers will not make a difference." The Israeli paper considered that this is a "new positive tone".

So, if it is not Cairo that is blocking the evolvement towards the implementation of the Mitchell plan, as it has been rumored by the Israelis themselves angered by the withdrawal of the Egyptian ambassador to Tell Aviv, who does? We have here a situation where the Israelis recognize that Cairo is not outbidding over peace and war issues. Better: two days later, the same newspaper, reporting about the Arab Foreign Affairs' emergency summit in Cairo, went to the extent of announcing that they are " reluctant to back Arafat"! (That was the headline!) Thereupon, the reader should choose between two possible interpretations: either the Arabs are washing their hands from Arafat's " costly cause", or at last they have understood that Sharon is a better investment for peace!

These are some of the ways the Israeli media use to cheat their own people. The expected result would be an increasing popular belief that Sharon is well applying the right policy! More from his miraculous expeditious medicines would lead the Israeli people to peace!

Yet, although these are not complete lies, they are not the truth either. To take a sentence from its context, and to display it with a hundred percent zoom, is just dishonest. The frame you would thus obtain would not include the whole picture. Some important details would go blind, and that is exactly the point: Some Israelis do not wish to see the mess. They prefer to fight the windmills, like Don Quixote, pretending to see and hear anything but the tragic reality.

What the Israelis omit is the fact that whether the Arab States want it or not, they are not the real makers of the Palestinian decision. How many times the Arab leaders met in emergency summits since the outburst of the Intifada? The answer is: five times at least! Does that fact change anything on the ground? The Israelis know the answer. There is a lot of talk, and little action. This Arab official failure to deal with the conflict otherwise than by giving the Palestinians promises, should have shown the way to the people seeking a real peace: straightforward negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, the Syrians, the Lebaneses, as was the case with the Egyptians or the Jordanians.

Instead of that, the Israelis believe that if Sharon cannot make the Palestinians kneel, nobody can! So what happened? When Sharon started his plan of political assassinations, the Palestinians retaliated with more suicide bombing operations. The Saudi Arab News reported recently that Israel Minister of the Interior himself experienced the horror of being threatened." He was a visiting member of a political party in a hotel. While there, he received an anonymous telephone call that he would be assassinated. The police and the full panoply of the Israeli security apparatus were quickly mobilized and the minister was evacuated from the hotel by a helicopter".

Obviously, the violence may be blind. Those who use it as a political means may not always have time to distinguish their target. An error can occur. Whether the victim is an innocent child or a Minister in the Israeli or the Palestinian governments is matter of conjunction and chance, when it is not actually planned. Marwan Barghouthi - a senior official in Fath- like the Israeli Minister, know something about that. Other Palestinians and Israelis who escaped death miraculously - Arafat included- know also that this is an eye for eye equation. The PA head is reported to have already prepared his underground refuge, with the latest French equipment for command, control and communications, in case the Israelis decide to go ahead with their all-out offensive plan. Then, he would flee either to Cairo or to Baghdad. Some Israeli reports say that he has been building a chain of command centers, ammunition depots and weapons-storage areas below the earth of Gaza, even before the election of Sharon. Whether these are facts or mere conjecture is another question. The point is that the mistrust between the two parties has been increasing since the period preceding Sharon's election. The gravity of the situation caused the failure of the peace process, prior to the outburst of the Intifada. Yet, what was at stake since then - and is still on the agenda of any serious talks to come- concerns mainly the future of the Palestinian people, that can neither bear the occupation, nor accept a diminished statehood.

Now, it is no less obvious that the Israelis who accuse Arafat of playing a double game are blind as regards the behavior of their own government. On the one hand, they reject any intervention of the Europeans if it must be translated on the ground in sending international observers. And on the other hand, they accept Mr. Fischer's European backed initiative, without whispering a word about its real conjunction.

One cannot miss though how the Germans themselves pictured the whole thing. The Frankfurter Allgemeine (Aug. 23) wrote for example that when Mr. Fischer found himself meddling for the first time between Palestinians and Israelis- after the disco incident in Tell Aviv - last June, it was by mere chance. He had not planned to be there at that precise time. But now, it is a different matter, " symptomatic (...) of a sense of reality and respect for European attempts to create a common foreign policy."

Would Sharon pretend that he is not aware of the possibility of a long- range European commitment? The same German newspaper would then remind him that " Mr. Fischer, who claims to speak and act on behalf of Europe and not in competition with America, is occupying the area that President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell are obviously leaving vacant in conceptual and diplomatic terms."

The day before -(: 22)- the New York Times reported that the USA endorse Mr. Fischer’s efforts to ease the crisis, and that Mr. Powell has spoken to his German counterpart. A State Department spokesman, Philip Reeker - according to the N.Y.Times- said: " the Germans of course are trusted friends and close NATO allies, and we welcome their constructive efforts with the parties."

Oddly enough, Ha’aretz reports the same spokesman as saying that he " was not aware of any particular meeting that is scheduled"! The same newspaper went on: " Asked whether Fischer, who has just wound up a visit to the Middle East, did in fact get Israeli and Palestinian agreement for a Perez-Arafat meeting, spokesman Philip Reeker replied:" I have not seen anything to that effect"!

Who was lying then? And- above all - for what reason?

One thing is sure: For the Arabs, all these little games between Europeans and Israelis and Americans, are not fun. Whether there is competition or not is none of their business. It may even seem as tragic as stupid as a game, since so many lives are suspended to that process. The Arabs remark however that despite the rhetoric they are displaying, the Europeans are not of much help to the Palestinians. Many doubts arise as to the real objectives of the expected meeting between Peres and Arafat, albeit it is said almost everywhere in the Western media that it was the latter who asked for it.

Did Arafat ask for it really?

If he did, then he was merely responding positively to an initiative that was not unknown to Peres. The latter could not actually ignore that some days before Osama el-Baz' visit to Washington, former Justice Minister Yossi Belin (Israeli Labor) met Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher in Cairo. Belin's trip to Egypt was seemingly intended to sound out the ground for two proposals: the first concerns what is currently named "Gaza first", and the second aimed at obtaining agreement for another "Madrid Conference" this October, on the tenth anniversary of the 1991 conference that kicked off the peace process.

Almost at the same time, it was reported that Sharon gave Peres a conditional "green light" to negotiate with Palestinian leaders for a cease- fire. According to some sources, Peres discussions with the Palestinians had continued secretly for some time, and had already been approved by Sharon after Peres met Arafat in Lisbon at the end of June. Has Peres tried to sell his plan about "Gaza first" to Sharon, and has the latter tried to convince him to sell it out first to the Arabs? Anyway, President Hosni Mubarak made it sure that this plan could not be accepted, as it has been reported by the London based AL ARAB. Let's notice by the way that according to this plan, Israel should unilaterally withdraw from the Gaza strip, dismantle Jewish settlements and enable Arafat to declare Palestinian independence there. The move would be conditional on a general cease-fire, renewal of security cooperation, the arrest of "wanted" activists and other confidence-building moves.

Assuming Belin's failure to convince his Arab interlocutors, has Peres tried to launch another "offensive" consisting in what is currently called "the rolling cease-fire"? And most of all, is that what he is going to sell to Arafat in Berlin if they meet?

If this is the case, the game is already limited and the maneuver's margin for the Europeans quite tight. Under such auspices, Berlin meeting would be just a station, where the "travelers" would have a little drink, not really a buffet even if they were starved to death!

Anyway, Arafat cannot ignore the fact that if negotiations there are in Berlin or anywhere else, with the benediction of the Europeans and the Americans or with their sub-plots, all the same, he would be actually negotiating namely with Peres, but in fact with Sharon, for he is the man in charge. He must know also that there is no European plan, as it has been rumored of late. The position of the Europeans was enough clear during the discussion of the situation in the Security Council. Nobody would oppose the American veto: there is on the one hand, the rhetoric, and on the other, the facts. The Quai d'Orsay spokesman made sure that there is an agreement between the Europeans not to cause any division in the Security Council. According to the same source, since returning from Africa, Mr. Vedrine has talked with Mr. Fischer, with his Belgian counterpart at the European Union presidency, with Mr. Piqué and Mr. Ruggiero. The same message will be expressed to the parties." It is Mr. Fischer who is defending the EU positions to the parties"... which are - one is attempted to add -: no plan! Do whatever you are doing so far. We will watch!

Now, if something else results from the expected Berlin meeting, such as a more practical and more responsible and positive approach to the conflict, would it sadden the Americans - because it is a European initiative? Or the Israelis because it would bring some peace? Or the Arabs because it would end the Palestinian ordeal?

Could anyone imagine the collapse of a second wall in Berlin? Think it over.

_______________
-14 -
____________

WHEN THE MILITARY PERCEPTION PREVAILS


August 30, 2001 (MMN)

The first question aroused by the Israeli assassination of the PFLP leader, Abu Ali Mustapha, is certainly a Palestinian security concern: How could that happen? In a context of violence and continued bloodshed, and after the Israeli government declared the "targeted murders" as a political line, why the Palestinian security forces did not take the necessary precautions in order to protect the national leaders of the PLO? Indeed, there is little to do against missiles fired by helicopters, as it was the case. But why should that happen at all, when the Palestinians know that Abu Ali Mustapha precisely was wanted by the Israelis, as Arafat himself may be? No matter what the PFLP did or did not to "deserve" that execution from the Israeli point of view, the fact is that since the Dolphinarium attack his name was on the list of the "targets". The Israelis hold him responsible for directing some operations in Jerusalem, especially a car bomb discovered on Horkanus Street, and another in Mea Shearim neighborhood, it was said. Yet, nothing is more abject than carrying on such killings on the grounds of a simple suspicion. But the Palestinian security forces are also to blame. The office of the murdered leader is only at a little distance away from the office of the chief of the PLO, himself, and Mustapha Zibri - the murdered- was not a "second-rank" leader- as some Israelis believed- but one of the most important in the Palestinian scene, since the sixteenths. His movement - Popular Front - has been with Mr. Hawatmeh's Democratic Front, the main hub on the left of Fatah, Arafat's own movement. As a matter of fact, the PLO has been essentially based on the understanding between these three components. That's why it is inexact to pretend that the Israeli showed "restraint", since they did not attack Arafat or one of his ministers, but an "opponent" to the Oslo process! The incongruity of such a pretension is obvious: the first opponent to Oslo is the Israeli Prime Minister himself, as he declared it at several occasions. Therefore, it is pointless to try to justify the murder on this ground.
The Palestinians are to blame because they know that with Sharon in power, there is not the least doubt about his intentions. Lately, Newsweek reported that a proposal to kill Arafat came up in the Israeli Cabinet following a suicide bomber's August 9 attack on a pizzeria in occupied Jerusalem. Thus, if they focused on Arafat's protection, they omitted that any national leader involved in the Intifada is also undergoing the same risks. The Israelis, at the highest level of responsibility, do not hide that they consider the PLO leaders as foes. And if Arafat himself is dubbed as " our cruelest enemy" by the Defense Minister, Ben Eliezer, as by Ihud Barak who launched a violent attack against Shimon Peres when the latter announced his intention of meeting the PA head, what would they expect as regards the other leaders? Whether they opposed the Oslo process or not is nowadays pointless, for those who are in charge in Israel right now are also against that process. And so far, there is no indication whatever that Sharon is going to change his " restrained policy" that earned him the support of Mr. Bush administration!
The expression "restrained policy" has been used many times by Israeli officials to show that they have been actually "rewarded" by the USA indefectible support to their government. In their eyes, Sharon is thus encouraged by the Bush administration to continuing the same policy, also called " gradual retaliation". The Israelis have then well listened to Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney: when they use F-16 and F-15 warplanes and all the panoply of the American weaponry in their hands against the Palestinians, they do nothing but self-defense! Killing the leaders of the PLO is also self-defense! Besieging three million people and cutting them off the world, is also self-defense! Maintaining the occupation of their territories by force, is indubitably, self-defense! And it is well America, the leader of the free world, that gives them all the support and the assistance they need to pursuing that "restrained policy" based on murder and transgression of the most elementary human rights.
In such a context, Mr. Boucher called on Syria to " exercise restraint over groups that it allows on Syrian territory", apparently a reference to members of the PFLP who threatened to attack Israelis and American interests. But what would the Syrians do? Would they launch their security forces after the Palestinian refugees, whereas their own land - Golan - is still occupied by the Israelis? True, the Americans have a reputation of being pragmatic, but here, it is obvious that they are going the other way around. No, they are not idealistic, for there is no idealism in supporting colonization and injustice. They are either naive or blind. For Mr. Boucher did not even ask himself: What did we actually give to Syria in order to obtain its cooperation? Did we support its legitimate claims as regards the Golan? Did we make a single step towards its new leader to gain him on our side? Why are we still imagining that the Arabs would merely bow to the Israelis, despite we know that they bowed neither to the British nor to the French colonisations?
If Mr. Boucher asks himself this kind of questions, he would know that nothing is more painful to the Arabs than to see the American leaders turn a blind eye on the plight of the Palestinian people, and pretend that they can do nothing. For if a Super-power on which assistance Israel depends for its survival, can do nothing, then who can?
Is it Arafat, threatened by the "targeted murders", like his former colleagues in the PLO, Abu Iyad, and Abu Jihad, and lately Abu Ali Mustapha? Is it Bashar Al Assad, whose land is still occupied? Is it Abdullah of Jordan, whose hands are tied up by the peace agreement his father had signed? Is it Hosni Mubarak, whose delegation conduced by his senior adviser Al Baz, has been lately turned down by the mammoth position of Mr. Bush administration? Where exactly are the moderate friends who used to relay America these days in the Arab world? What did they do of them?
As to the Israelis themselves, they cannot be in a better state, albeit some of them think that the American position is doing them good.
The New York Times reported on 29 August, that Dan Ayalon, the senior foreign policy adviser to Sharon, told a gathering of Middle East experts at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy that the Bush administration had voiced little disagreement with how Israel was acting. And Mr.Ayalon also praised the administration for its posture, saying the Israeli government did not believe that Washington should be more heavily involved.
But in fact, the Israelis are the hostages of their own army. It is well the generals Maufaz and Sharon who are leading the country today, not a so-called elect government. And it is the military law, and the military perception of political assets and economical interests, the military ambitions that are prevailing over all other considerations. That's why all the diplomatic proposals, all the attempts to find an honorable issue to the deadlock, failed so far.





_________________
-15 -
_____________

WCAR: BABYLON OR THE CARNIVAL?



September 4, 2001 (MMN)

The Oxford dictionary gives of the word Babylon two definitions:
1- the capital of Babylonia. 2- (scornful) (among blacks, especially Rastafarians) White society or its representatives, especially the police.
As the World Conference against Racism, Racial
Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (WCAR), has opened its gates to 10.000 official delegates from 181 countries, since last Friday, in an atmosphere of thorny controversy over issues and final declaration draft, it is almost inevitable to think of one of the above definitions as probably applicable to the case.
1) On the one hand, the first definition sounds the most appropriate, because there is a huge controversy about language.
All those peoples, like in the old legend of Babylon, seem unable to use a common language in order to communicate. Thus, the first problem of the conference is the conference itself: How are we going to understand each other if we talk so many languages?
2) On the other hand, the second definition seems no less
appropriate, if we take in consideration the grievance of some black
people complaining from the US and the European pressure as regards the apology and financial reparations for African slavery.
3) There may be however a third analogy well picturing the international gathering, which is the Carnival. For the seriousness and the inconsistency of such an international gathering, has been a subject of polemic in the world media since the first leaks about the problem of the final declaration's draft. This analogy is mainly suggested by the decision of the State Department secretary, Colin Powell, to stay at home.
Such analogies may seem excessive, but this is exactly the best definition of the ambience prevailing in the ongoing conference. Passion is the adequate term, and passion cannot go without verbal - or physical- violence and excess. Let's take these three analogies one by one.
1- The equation between Zionism and racism seemed to block any agreement between Israel allies and the Arab and Muslim countries. Including such a wording in the Durban declaration is merely unacceptable to the West. Mrs. Mary Robinson, the United Nations' Commissioner for Human Rights, was unequivocal on the issue. She said that it would not be on the agenda, and she considered even that "it has been one very progressive step" made during the preparatory WCAR committee meetings in Geneva. That is to suggest that the Arab and Muslim countries have given up on the whole issue, for Mrs. Robinson added: "There is no confirmed language in the (draft) text that in any way refers to or relates to the Zionism and racism issue, and what is there, in brackets, has the tendency to be changed. The commitment has been given to do that."
We know that the Israel-US camp rejected a position paper that had been prepared by Arab and Muslim countries offering a compromise on the bracketed Middle East paragraphs in the Durban Declaration and the Program of Action. The Americans made sure that they would not sign the final declaration if it includes any condemnation of Israel.
Now, it is obvious that all those who are making a fuss of that subject, miss a good occasion to be useful to this Conference. The Arabs first, because as usual they start by asking for the moon and end up accepting the "unacceptable"! Thus, it seems that they have already given up the claim equating between Zionism and racism! Would they give up the rest of what they have been so intent on claiming? If it reveals to be the case, then they would have missed a very good opportunity to be wise, in staying at home, like Mr. Powell! After all, the latter's attitude is perhaps the most interesting, perhaps the smarter! For the secretary of state, the Conference just seemed a trap. And that is not only because of the " too much offensive language " as he put it. That could not have been possibly what frightened him, but rather because of the weird position in which he would be put, as the first black secretary of state.
Anyway, what was all that dispute about? Zionist ideology and racism? Everybody knows that the issue is just a "compensation" for the Arabs unable to reach victory or peace. It is out of offense and humiliation that they are acting. As to the Israelis, Zionism is no longer a valid ideology, and the Americans know it. Here is an example:
On August 12, the Israeli columnist and author Tom Segev, writes in the New York Times that until last September, " many Israelis seemed willing to re-examine fundamental issues of identity, including even the validity of the Zionist ideology itself". For them, a "post-national" stage of development called " post-Zionism" has led to support the 1993 Oslo accords, " including the withdrawal from the Palestinian towns occupied in 1967". T. Segev acknowledges that the Jews born after that date no longer believe in the Zionist ideology. This is also the case of an increasing number of ultra-Orthodox Jews, as well as for the Jews - about a million - who left the former Soviet Union: " Most of them came for economic reasons, not in response to Zionist ideals..."
Thus, all that hysterical Western hotchpotch was about protecting an ideology that the Israelis themselves intended to send to the antique where it really belongs, just like the Marxism and a lot of other old myths. Otherwise, there was a lot of rant about nothing.
2- So in staying at home, Mr. Powell just avoids to be trapped or even pilloried, as he thinks. Maybe! Yet, despite that remarked absence the influence of the US is deeply felt, and resented. Some people believe that Washington is behind a massive campaign to keep the conference from dealing with the question of reparations. Meanwhile, new expressions have emerged, such as: " African Diaspora", " the right of return" for the African Americans, " the motherland and the Diaspora" for the blacks, etc... In the wake of the conference, we are reminded that the first Pan-African Conference on Reparations to Africa and Africans in the Diaspora, held in April 1993 in Abuja (Nigeria) never reached the American people. Few of them know also about the International Conference of the African World Reparations and Repatriation Truth Commission, meeting On 17 August 1999 in Accra (Ghana), which issued a demand for $ 777 trillion for the enslavement of Africans.
But a lot of this talk about " reparations" seems unrealistic. First, because the Westerners were not the sole slavers. It is known that all the races have been involved in that trade at one stage or another of their development. The blacks were not the sole victims either. Besides, it is well the Western democracies of Britain and America " who first outlawed and suppressed the slave trade», and America even underwent a civil war to that end. So, who is going to pay if everybody - this is a historic fact- has been involved in that business? Moreover, If the White Westerners are targeted, they may also ask for reparations: France, Spain, Italia, Greece, and other European countries have been victims of the Arab privateer activity in the Mediterranean sea for centuries. Why should they not ask for reparations? Until recent times, slavery has been an admitted trade in many Arab countries, although silence was kept about it. So, what should they reply if they are told: If you have really nothing on the conscience about that slavery business, go and ask for reparations with the blacks? Then, if we are to believe George Kerevan writing for the Scotsman (Aug.31), the President of Senegal Abdoulaye Wade is one of the fierce opponents of reparations. He noted: " If one claims reparations for slavery, the slaves of my ancestors, or their descendants, can also claim money from me. Because slavery has been practiced by all people in the world".
Yet, some delegates do not see the point behind organizing such a conference, if it is just to exchange polite and void verbiage! It would be a waste of time and money, they say. South Foreign Affairs Minister Dlamini-Zuma said it was unrealistic to expect delegates not to discuss these issues: " Whatever forms of discrimination, particularly as they relate to racism, will be discussed".
3- Apparently understanding these needs, the organizers thought of opening a forum, which is viewed by many attendees as more important than the conference itself. As regards the Middle East, the NGO forum has not balked from taking a stand on the issue and a final version of its draft declaration condemns the actions of the Israeli state for imposing an unjustifiable war against the people of Palestine. The declaration also says the case of Palestine is one of the most serious cases of foreign occupation.
The forum is also easily transformed into a bleeding arena. That is what disappointed one of its rapporteurs, who bitterly depicted it as " a vehicle for racism rather than to combat racism!"(Daily Mail & Guardian, Aug.31).
People are relaying to make sententious assertions and grandiloquent declarations about issues they deem sensitive, among an incredible display of national and identity symbols, from clothes to hair dress, whence the feeling of African feast or carnival: The Untouchables of India lobbying against the caste system. The bleeding hearts - white activists- still acting as quasi-handlers for the minority and indigenous people. Tibetan monks asking for the liberation of their people from the Chinese yoke. Muslim representatives of Europe warning about Islam phobia. Nuns talking about the role of the church in ending racism. Griquas from the Northern Cape. Romany Gypsies of Europe. Jewish Caucus and Palestinians. Afro-Americans...etc. And above all, 15 heads of state, mostly African.
It is almost comprehensible in this context of passion and conflicting interests that those who feel the wind blowing against them choose to set back and watch. This conference cannot be a success if it does not prevail over its own demons. In Seattle and in Genoa, the industrial world was triumphant inside, while violent protests were transforming the neighborhood into an inflamed scene of street fighting. In Durban, the great majority of the offended and humiliated that feel they have been excluded from progress and welfare, seemingly intends to make its voice louder. However, it would be unfair to omit that the most incisive critic of Mr. Powell's attitude perhaps came from the USA itself. Civil rights groups have actually demanded that the Secretary of state lead any US delegation sent to Durban. For him not to go would be "a tragedy... a travesty", says Barbara Arnwine, executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. That was also the position of Jess Jackson as well as other black personalities who wanted the US government to account publicly for the past misdeeds. Some of them likened between two issues including Jews and blacks: " The US applauded the decision by German corporations to pay compensation to slave laborers in Nazi concentration camps," wrote Earl Ofari Hutchinson in the Black Press USA.Com (Aug.20), " and helped broker a deal in which Swiss bankers agreed to pay billions to holocaust victims for pillaging their bank accounts".
The conclusion is not hard to guess: like it or not, the Zionism and the reparations' issues seem linked. The argument goes this way: if the Jews - engineered by the Zionist organizations- have been able to convince the banks that they owe them money, why the descendants of the slaves cannot do the same thing? Furthermore, if they have documents proving their assertions, like the Jews, why should they be denied compensation?


______________
-16 -
_____________

ARAB FAILURE IN DURBAN




September 10, 2001 (MMN)

What would remain of the World Conference against racism for a while, concerns the conflict that opposed the Muslim and the African nations to the West and Israel, and the means intended to resolve it, perhaps more than the result of all these maneuvers. For it is obvious, that despite all their efforts to bringing the Conference to openly adopt their views about the Middle East problem, the Arabs failed to reach their goal. The Conference was not a success for the Israelis either, since its statement expressed concern over "the plight of the Palestinian people under foreign occupation ". But in the light of what has been happening in the occupied territories since years, such a statement, albeit it recognizes Israel (without even naming it!) as the force of occupation, sounds almost naive. Who does not know yet that the Palestinians are suffering from Zionist occupation? Thus, the aforementioned statement adds nothing, but one more time it supports the "right" of the Israelis to a secure state, a thing that nobody among the Arab delegates ever thought of raising any doubt about it. So, where is the compromise in such a declaration? All what the Arabs asked for initially has not appeared in the final statement. The Palestinians were not even named when an allusion was made to the right of refugees to "freely return to their homes". The whole thing seems now as a tempest in a glass of water! If we look back at the initial Arab expectations, it is obvious that from this point of view, the Conference is a perfect failure.
A wind of panic and anger has crossed some Western States when they believed that the Arabs were targeting the foundations of the Israeli State, in asking for the equalization between Zionism and racism, a thing that the UN had once acknowledged, then under the pressure of Israel's allies and because of the incompetence of the Arab diplomacy to hold such an asset, it has been abrogated. It did not even occur to them - and that was also the failure of the Arab diplomacy to explain it - that what was at stake in Durban concerned the policy of Israel more than the State itself. The Arabs wanted actually to have the current Israeli policy towards the Palestinians, condemned. They wanted to say to the whole world that what Israel is doing in the occupied territories has nothing to do with the moral values of our modern and democratic world, and that it is very much resembling to the apartheid system, a fact that had been recognized even by the Israelis themselves, when they were enough courageous and fair to acknowledge it. Unfortunately, the Arab diplomacy missed the point and was never able to find the right argument. Finally, it has been muted by Israel and its European allies who were the sole " stars" of that international meeting. Otherwise, despite all the babbling and the displayed rhetoric, the Arabs were out of touch!
Before that inaptitude of the Arabs to adapt their discourses to the circumstances, instead of clinging to a slogan that everybody in the West had already ruled out and condemned as obsolete, the Europeans found their way to the issue. They relayed the Americans who, faithful to the wishes of their President concerning the US non-intervention policy in the Middle-East, withdrew: Thus, far from being a compromise between the Muslim nations - Arabs included-, the Africans, and the West, the final statement bears merely the sovereign stamp of the victorious Europe, which is perhaps not so unsatisfying to the Bush administration, able to make Europe carry out its most secret plans, as it sounds.
But before going further, let's remind the reader that what the Arabs were so badly wanting to reach in Durban, what they actually failed to explain, and what has apparently caused the withdrawal of the American and the Israeli delegations, and what threatened to topple the whole Conference, was something fully recognized by Dr.Ron Pundak and some other Israeli militants of the left and the peace movements. True, they do not use a hard language to describe the situation, but what they say would logically lead to the same statements made by the Arabs about the current policies of Israel. Here is an example:
Well before anybody raised the least protestation about what would be stated or not in Durban, one of the makers of the Oslo accords- e.g. Mr. Ron Pundak- wrote in an article headlined " from Oslo to Taba: What went wrong", describing these very objectionable policies that they have not started after the Intifada, and thus they could not be considered as a reaction against it. For Pundak, the Palestinians were humiliated by Barak as by Netanyahu or Sharon. All the restrictions were interpreted as collective punishment, he said, and particularly: "The establishment of Bantustan-like areas, controlled according to the whim of Israeli military rule and on occasion dictated by its symbiotic relationship with the settlers' movement."
What would the zealous Europeans and the Bush administration object to this talk? Here is a man who had been a main pillar in the Oslo build-up, and he is recognizing plainly that the Israeli policy carried on under Netanyahu and Barak was already racist! True, he did not use this term to depict it, but what is then " Bantustan-like areas" if it does not remind us of the hateful Apartheid system? Yet, whereas nobody can oppose Pundak's testimony on sound grounds, because it is hard to accuse him of anti-Semitism, some zealous Westerners jump to the walls if ever an Arab makes such a statement.
That's exactly what happened at Durban.
The incompetence of the Arab diplomacy was clear since the start. Whereas the Americans played it smoothly and preferred to make their voice louder by a mere absence, the Arabs thought they were going to prevail just in clinging to the same position. They underestimated the Europeans, and most of all the French.
How could anybody omit the important influence exerted by Paris in Africa? Of course, the sub-Saharan African states were claiming a clear condemnation of slavery as a crime against humanity and some compensation for the peoples that suffered from it. That could be reached, indeed. But how? Those among the Arabs who were still sticking to the same position, did not even see how the wind was quickly changing of direction in the late days of the Conference: Europe, led by France undoubtedly, threatened to leave Durban. Was that to cause its failure? This is a matter of discussion, but the Africans seemed all of a sudden convinced of it! Why? Was that Conference unable to reach some great decisions despite the opposition of the big states who dominate the world? Was it really unable to make the link with some historic events, which led the Third World, from Bandoeng - in 1955- to the 77's movement, and the most recent activism against globalization? Were all those states of Africa, Asia, and South America, and all those militants from the whole world, so powerless that they needed the support of the industrialized world even to write two sentences about their own torments?
Indeed, they were not. But either they were misled, or they abused themselves. Anyway, they acknowledged their limits. And Paris was there - on behalf of Europe- to make the deal: A wanted position on the Middle East, against a wanted position about slavery! That was it, and that made all the difference with the initial draft. Would the African states satisfy Europe and the US, or the Arabs? What if the promise of some compensation related to the acknowledged crime of slavery was made to persuade the recalcitrant? Where is the African State, which would refuse such an offer? Really! Diplomacy is not always about the great and nice ideals. It is also, and most times about very matter-of-fact affairs? Thus, It is not difficult to imagine that the French diplomacy, which owns many important assets in Africa through its monstrous Elf Company, played its best cards to bring the reluctant states to its side. Meanwhile, it is hard to imagine that the Arab states were unaware of this game. But apparently, they did not react. And since they let it go, without even trying to adapt their discourse to an evolving situation, they lost control.
That is why the final statement was so far from the Arab positions, and that is why it is wrong to believe that the Arabs accepted a compromise.
If compromise there was, it concerned mainly the Europeans and the Africans, about slavery as a crime against humanity. The Middle East was not a part of that compromise, for there is not the least condemnation of the Israeli policies as discriminating against the Palestinians. And since this was the main Arab claim, it is easy to state that if the Americans and the Israelis deliberately withdrew, it was well the Arabs who paid the price, for they have been merely ousted.




____________________
PART TWO
_____________

-1-


TERRIFIC DAYS FOR THE WORLD


September 18, 2001 (MMN)
America has been mortally wounded, challenged, humiliated, as never it had been since Pearl Harbor. Those who perpetrated the horrid crime, killing thousands of innocent people, notwithstanding their sex, their age, their race, their religious creeds, nor their social class, have been lost in that great collective suicide they had planned and executed. And since they are already dead and buried under the rubble, along with their victims, it is superfluous and misleading to pretend to find and punish them. We know exactly where they are. And since no one of them survived, it would be hard to ascertain evidence or to grant a sound testimony. Yet, despite this obvious shortage of fact-findings, America is going to war. And when America declares war, we know that the whole world would be involved.
The foe has been designated a few hours after the attacks. It is the international terrorism. 50.000 reservists have been called up. A $ 40 billion anti-terrorism bill has been agreed on by White House and Congressional negotiators. The Justice Department already knew the names of the terrorists. They have been backtracked to the Middle East, it was said, and directly linked to Osama Bin Laden, who, from his secret refuge hastened to deny any involvement with the terrorists: "I am residing in Afghanistan ", said he. " I have taken an oath of allegiance (to Afghanistan Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar) which does not allow me to do such things from Afghanistan". But, the American government would have none of this talk, as it is convinced that if there is a hand behind this unprecedented disaster, it has to be that of Bin Laden. He is to respond for the operation that diverted two planes, which destroyed the World Trade Center in New York, a third that smashed into the Pentagon, and a fourth that crashed in Pennsylvania! And if one can hardly figure out how a man hunted down since years by the world most powerful intelligence services, may cold-bloodedly plan such an attack, from his mountain cave, there would be still the remembrances of other terrorist attacks to back the same man into the limelight. Such a sinister fame has been pursuing Bin Laden like damnation since long years in the West, albeit in Afghanistan, Pakistan and in some other countries he has acquired a quite different reputation making of him a hero. The Americans - his former allies in the fight against the Soviet Union- charge him of several attacks against them, beginning with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and continuing with the 1996 killing of 19 US soldiers in Saudi Arabia, and last - but not least- the 1998 bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.
Obviously, Bin Laden was not well inspired on that fateful day of 1998 when, carried up by his intense fervor, he issued a fatwa that seemed a kind of straightforward threat as well as an overriding mission to the observers. For even if he never carried out his threat, for the reasons he has explained in the aforementioned quotation, he would be still reproached to have advised " to kill Americans and their allies... civilians and military..." which is in his view " an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it."
Thus, he not only sealed his fate, condemning himself to be the most wanted target by the Western intelligence services, but somehow, he dragged his hosts and protectors - the Taliban- to sharing with him the dark glory of the pariah and the rogue!
However, we can hardly say that the Islam led by the Taliban regime is a model of justice and freedom as to inspire admiration, concern, and faithfulness to the millions of Muslims throughout the world. A lot of them have been shocked by the harsh intolerance of Kabul regime, mainly towards women. A lot of them condemn what they deem to be an overriding and quite abusive interpretation of the Islamic precepts. The facts are talking for themselves: Apart from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, there is not a single Arab state that has diplomatic relations with Afghanistan. The reason is well known: most Arab countries have unrelenting problems with their "islamist" opposition, and some of them have suffered from the backlash of the Afghan war since the Red Army have been expelled.
In fact, two key elements have had a deep and longstanding impact on the Arab countries since about 1979: the Iranian revolution that ousted the Shah and implemented the clerical regime of the mullahs, on the one hand. And the violent "islamisation" of Afghanistan, on the other hand, which meant not only the exclusion of any liberal or laic vision of the politics and the society, but also the war between the factions that inherited the pro-Soviet regime.
It is obvious for any observer that when these two elements coupled, they bred a worldwide disturbance, starting from the region once labeled " the crisis bow", and stretching to North Africa westward, and to the former Muslim Soviet states eastward.
The Arab countries have been trapped since then in the intermittent and sometimes violent struggle against that kind of medieval Islam led by the Iranians and the ex-fighters (Mojahedeen) of Afghanistan. The latter were labeled " the Arab Afghans". Many of them turned their guns against their own countries, once the fight against the Soviets was over. They came back home, and tried to propagate their own conception of Islam, but they clashed with the Arab regimes, mainly in Syria, in Egypt, in Tunisia, and in Algeria. Some of their networks have been dismantled and their members are either in prison, or in exile. Some others succeeded to go underground, pursuing the same work of sabotage and terrorism. And many others constituted the current factions still fighting in Algeria.
Thus, the "islamist" terrorism has plagued the Arab countries even before spreading its tentacles towards other regions of the world. It has found a good ground to grow up and expand in the most authoritative Arab regimes. There, the officials played on the confusing combination between the terrorist networks and the moderate Islamist opponents claiming their right to participate to the political scene, to throw the baby with the bath water!
As a matter of fact, it is abusive to confound terrorism with Islamism, since some Arab countries are pro-western and islamists as well: All the Gulf states, Saudi Arabia included are ardent defenders of a fundamentalist Islam that is quite able to cope with the West, as everybody can easily state. Yet, some of those countries are targeted by another kind of " Islamic terrorism", that had shown its ugly face several times. Some other countries, like Jordan or Kuwait, have been able to manage the necessary balance between a militant Islamism and the other political trends, in opening their parliaments to opposition.
Besides, we have to understand that the Saudi and U.A. Emirate's involvement with the Taliban regime finds its source in the precedent struggle against the Red Army and the interests that hatched in its wake. The Saudi kingdom could not let the Iranians occupy the ground after the Soviets had been ousted. From this point of view, it is obvious that the ensuing civil war was an indirect wrestling between Iran and Saudi Arabia over the future of Afghanistan. But later on, the Saudi influence seemed to wean, as the fights grew out of control. Moreover, the occupation of Kuwait by Iraq, and the ensuing war displaced the center of interests to the heart of the Persian Gulf.
For these reasons, the American government would perhaps not find an important opposition from the Arab states, if it decides to launch an attack against the Kabul regime, sheltering Osama Bin Laden. Yet, the goals of the intervention have to be well defined, as not to overstep the just limits.

________________
- 2 -
____________


AFGHANISTAN: THE UNHOLY WAR!

September 19, 2001 (MMN)

Whereas the Pakistani President, General Pervez Musharraf, announced Monday (Sep.17) that a delegation of Pakistani officials flied to the Taliban's headquarters in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar to renew demands that the militia surrender Mr. Osama Bin Laden, a Pakistani newspaper (: The Dawn) reported that the Taliban border-guards have installed 12.7 mm anti-aircraft guns close to the border with Pakistan. Commenting this move, a Pakistani official says: " The light anti-aircraft guns may not mean much in military terms, but this is something very symbolic... The guns have been positioned in the direction of Pakistan and this means something."
For the external observers, expecting a result from the Pakistani meddling with the Taliban, the aforementioned move means only one thing: the militia will not yield. Moreover, Pakistan has already put its army on alert ahead of a possible US attack on neighboring Afghanistan. General Musharraf turned towards China, which has supplied Pakistan with military hardware and other support in recent years, in an attempt to obtain some backing for his decision to offer airspace and intelligence to the USA.
A regional configuration is thus to be set up, where we would find several players, with sometimes opposed interests, while the USA would have the main part. And while trying to find allies and support for its martial build-up, Washington would perhaps discover new priorities for its defense policy.
For example, while Iran is said to have sealed off its long border with Afghanistan, some American officials declared to the New York Times (Sep.17) that " they do not exclude cooperating with Iran, a supporter of the anti-Taliban insurgents". But this American opening has been quickly turned down by the religious Iranian leader Ali Khameini, who rejected any American intervention in Afghanistan. Nevertheless, the Iranian position means a lot to America, but it is unlikely that President Khatami could overstep the supreme spiritual leader of this country, as to allow some kind of help to the Americans. His Foreign minister, Kamal Kharazi told CNN: " We do not believe just in order to punish a bunch of terrorists it is legitimate to attack a country". And obviously, the Iranians are not alone to hold such a position.
Most amazing is the fact that Washington is today discovering - unfortunately over an impressive tragedy - that Iraq is perhaps not the most important of its enemies. Mr. Dick Cheney made sure that there is no indication of any Iraqi involvement in New York and Washington terrorist attacks: " Saddam Hussein's bottled up at this point ", he said. The same remarks were pointed out too by Mr. Colin Powel. Yet, the complexity of the terrorist problem is perhaps leading the Americans to the statement that there are more dangerous and less vulnerable enemies than the exhausted Iraq. The followers of Bin Laden are deemed to be among those obstreperous foes.
However, if the latter seem to the American officials more dangerous and less vulnerable, it is because of the volatile aspect of the terrorism. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld explained this point of view on the Fox News Channel, when he said: " The terrorist organizations themselves and the terrorists don't have targets of high value ". This may lead us to think that a modern army, like the US, can perhaps not be as efficient on this ground as it may be while fighting against another army. For what would the US army find in Afghanistan?
There are two kinds of answers to this question. The first was given by Nikolai Kovaliov, former head of the Russian Federal Security Service, a successor agency to the KGB, who declared in an interview in Moscow:
"We must learn from the lessons of history. We have not been able to solve the problems of terrorism by large-scale bombing". And he adds:
" The first mistake would be large scale land operations... In the mountains there, it is impossible to determine where or what to destroy." (The Washington Post. Sep.17).
The second answer may be found in an article written by an Afghan-American: Mr. Tamim Ansary, who says: " I've been hearing a lot of talk about bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age...Trouble is, that's been done. The Soviets took care of it already. Make the Afghans suffer? They're already suffering. Level their houses? Done. Turn their schools into piles of rubble? Done. Eradicate their hospitals? Done. Destroy their infrastructure? Cut them off from medicine and healthcare? Too late..." (Salon.com).
As to Bin Laden himself, reports say that he has already abandoned his main base near Kandahar and took refuge in the mountains. Worst: Mr. Cheney declared on Monday that the US was not even sure that Mr. Bin Laden is still in Afghanistan!
So, who are they going to bomb?
It is utterly astonishing to read these days such sentences as:" Terrorist organizations lack the intelligence-gathering capacity that nations possess"! For after the attacks in the heart of America, there are still people who believe in "Papa Noel!" They would be much more inspired if they ask themselves about that monstrous failure of the Nations' intelligence. I am not speaking only of the CIA, the FBI, and the rest of the American agencies, but also of the Europeans and the allies' intelligence institutions. Where were they? How come that they saw and hear nothing, despite all the means in their hands?
Now, it is said that the Pentagon is drawing up " high end" and "low end" options for military action.
The "high end" options include air strikes against countries that support terrorists, while "low end" plans include the use of Special Forces to capture or kill terrorist leaders, such as Osama Bin Laden.
About the "low end" plans, I have no comment. But for God's sake, just tell us which countries are meant by the "high end"!
What if Iran, for instance, changes its mind and at last accepts to help the US in Afghanistan? Would the Bush administration dismiss completely its grieves against Teheran? Would it wipe it out from the black list of the "terrorist" states?
Then, let's be more matter-of-fact. You know that it is well the CIA that armed and trained the fighters who have joined Osama Bin Laden, to drive the Russians out of Afghanistan. These are not dozens or hundreds, but likely thousands of militiamen who formed the organization called: Al-Qaeda (: The base). According to a Jane's Security report (: 26 July 2001), Al-Qaeda is a conglomerate of groups spread throughout the world operating as a network. It has a global reach, " with a presence in Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Turkey, Jordan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Syria, Xingjian in China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Myanmar, Indonesia, Mindanao in the Philippines, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Yemen, Libya, Tunisia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Dagestan, Kashmir, Sudan, Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania, Azerbaijan, Eritrea, Uganda, Ethiopia, and in the West Bank and Gaza."
If the information of this report is accurate, what would be point behind striking Afghanistan, if the head of the network is not located, and moreover, if the network itself is so spread? Would the US strike every country aforementioned, because of the presence of Bin Laden's followers? Or would it seek long-term cooperation to suppress - or at least to contain - this cancer of modern times, which is terrorism?
Whether the Taliban would surrender Bin Laden or not seems almost pointless, as we know two key- elements of the answer:
1) Giving him up could be military suicide for the Taliban. The latter still have several front lines north of Kabul, where thousands of their Arab allies and Islamic guerillas from countries such as Uzbekistan, Pakistan, and the breakaway republic of Chechnya are battling an anti-Taliban alliance. It is believed that the foreign militants might abandon their fight if the Taliban give in to the demands for Bin Laden's surrender.
2) The American administration may think that either way, the Talibans are condemned to cooperation or to suicide. And it is indubitable that even without the last blast in America, they are no longer tolerable. Apart from the destruction of the world's tallest standing statues of Buddha, the Taliban perpetrated another unforgivable outrage. Eight foreign employees - from international aid groups- including two Americans, are still held in custody under the charges of proselytizing.
Thus, if the Bush administration is going to wage war against Afghanistan, nobody can hinder it. Yet, one must not omit that the terrorism is not sheltered by a single country. Many others, among them allies of the USA, give the terrorists a ground for their criminal activity, without even knowing it. The failure of the entire Western intelligence network is merely shameful, because of all the money it pumps out of the taxpayers. And when we know that the terrorists have lived quietly among ordinary folk in Europe and in the USA, without being detected, we can't help but wonder about the utility of all the complicated security system in these countries. And more to the point, maybe it is time to ask the inevitable question:
What if the nations' intelligence agencies are infiltrated?



_________________
- 3 -
_____________



The British connection

Is there an Islamist conspiracy against the world run from London?



September 24, 2001 (MMN)

President Jacques Chirac has been the first foreign head of state to visit the USA in the aftermath of the 11 September tragedy. It was not only a visit of courtesy. A day before the tragic events of New York and Washington, a Judiciary information has been open in Paris about a group of Islamic extremists based in Belgium and Netherlands, which apparently had planned to blow up the American embassy, according to the confession of Jamal Beghal, a French-Algerian extremist, arrested last July in Dubai (United Arab Emirates). Jamal himself who has sojourned in the United Kingdom had been trained in an Afghani military camp as a member of "Attakfir wal hijra " - a radical extremist group to which belongs also another militant arrested on September 13 in Brussels: Nizar Trabelsi. The latter is originally from Tunisia. He was dwelling in Essonne - a Parisian suburb- and had also sojourned at least one time in Afghanistan. Whether the operation against the American embassy in Paris was scheduled to occur at the same time than the American operation or not, is not known. But it seems that the four persons arrested last Thursday in Netherlands (: two French, an Algerian and a Netherlander) are suspected to be linked to Jamal Beghal and Nizar Trabelsi. The Netherlands prosecutor has however declared that there is no evidence of their eventual implication in the terrorist operations in the USA. At the time this story is being posted, the French police have arrested seven other suspects belonging to the same network. Just after his return from America, President Chirac received British Prime Minister Tony Blair, for a short consultation in the Elysées Palace. Both leaders pledged to back any " effective U.S. action against the 'menace' of terrorism." After the breakfast meeting, Chirac said: " I believe that neither England nor France could fail to present if the response is... effective." Mr. Blair, recognizing the " need to take action" said: "I hope that in the next few days we demonstrate as a world our complete solidarity in this fight which is so important to us." The positions of London and Paris concerning the Islamic fundamentalism have never been close, though. The French have always reproached to the British their "laxity" in dealing with people considered in France as "dangerous". Even before the July-September 1995 string of blind terrorist acts in France, there has always been a great distrust towards the British handling of the Islamist network. According to the French daily Le Figaro - 3 Nov. 1995- " the trail of Bouallem Bensaid, GIA leader in Paris, leads to Great Britain. The British capital has served as logistical and financial base for the terrorists. " The next day, Le Parisien reported that the author of the GIA terror attack inside France was former Afghan Mojahedeen leader Abu Fares, who was given a residence visa in London, despite the fact that he was already wanted in connection with the bombing of the Algiers airport. Abu Fares's London- based organization, according to Le Parisien, recruits Islamic youth from the poor suburbs of Paris, and sends them to Afghanistan, where they are trained as terrorists. According to the French sources, the GIA (: Algerian Armed Islamic Group), which was responsible for the assassination of Algerian President Mohamed Boudiaf on June 29, 1992, has its international headquarters in London. Sheik Abu Qatada and Abu Musab communicate military orders to GIA terrorists operating in Algeria and France via the London-based party organ, Al Ansar. Sheik Abu Qatada was granted asylum in Britain in 1992, after he was condemned to death in Algeria for acknowledging responsibility for a bombing at Algiers airport. A third London-based GIA leader, Abu Fares, oversees operations targeted against France. He was granted asylum in Britain in 1992, after he was condemned to death in Algeria for acknowledging responsibility also for the same operation that killed nine people and wounded 125 in Algiers airport. He was also suspected of bombing three Paris train and subway stations and an open-air market. While asking for the extradition of some suspects from London, the French kept wondering whether the British intelligence had been actually outwitted by the terrorists. For an institution that has two hundred years history of exercising influence across the steppes of Central Asia, where Islam had been probed, prodded, and profiled by the British East India Company, and by its successor British India Office's Arab Bureau, since the times of James Mill and, later, Lawrence of Arabia, it was rather a shame not to know who exactly was living on its territory! France, to be sure, was not the sole country to complain to the British about this matter. Well before the Islamic terrorism struck at the heart of America, it was the Arab countries themselves that were hit. Here are some examples: - In July 1998, a former British MI5 officer, David Shayler, revealed that in February 1996, British security services financed and supported a London-based Islamic terrorist group, in an attempted assassination against Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi. Then-Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind, Shayler charged, in an interview with the British Daily Mail, sanctioned the action. Speaking to the BBC on 5 August 1998, the same Shayler said: " We paid £100,000 to carry out the murder of a foreign head of state. That is apart from the fact that the money was used to kill innocent people, because the bomb exploded at the wrong time. In fact, this is hideous funding of international terrorism." - The Saudis complained several times to the British authorities about the activity of the expatriate Mohammed al-Massari, who called for the overthrow of the House of Saud, and they asked for his extradition with particular insistence. A rumor wanted him allied to Osama Bin Laden, who apparently was maintaining a residence in the wealthy London suburb of Wembly. According to the same sources, London is also the headquarters of Bin Laden's Advise and Reform Commission, run by Khaled al-Fawwaz. But if the British Home Office granted al-Massari a four-year refugee permit to remain on British soil, the decision to seal off Bin Laden's account, seemingly managed by K. Fawwaz, was taken as late as September 20, 2001. - On November 17, 1997, the Gamaa-al-Islamiya (Islamic group) carried out a massacre of tourists in Luxor, Egypt, in which 62 people were killed. Since 1992, terrorist attacks led by this gang claimed at least 92 lives. Yet, according to the Egyptian authorities, the leaders of this organization have been provided with political asylum in Britain, and repeated efforts to have them extradited met with stern rebuffs. On December 14, 1997, British Ambassador to Egypt David Baltherwick was summoned by then Egypt's Foreign Minister Amr Moussa and handed an official note, demanding that Britain " stop providing a safe haven to terrorists, and cooperate with Egypt to counter terrorism." In an interview with the London Times the same day, Mr. Moussa called on Britain " to stop the flow of money from Islamic radicals in London to terrorist groups in Egypt, and to ban preachers in British mosques calling for the assassination of foreign leaders." The Times added that Moussa was "outraged by reports that £2.5 million had come from exiles in Britain to the outlawed Gamaa-al- islamiya". Some people believe that Britain has been caught in the American geostrategic game to the extent of believing; along with Zbegniew Brzezinski that Islamic fundamentalism could be played as a card to destabilize the Soviet Empire all across South Asia. The national security adviser of President Jimmy Carter was actually the man who coined the famous expression " arc of crisis", when in a Time magazine cover story published on Jan.15, 1979, he described Iran, Afghanistan, and the Indian subcontinent as posing a grave challenge to the West. Time's story on " The Crescent of Crisis" ended with the following observation: " In the long run there may even be targets of opportunity for the West created by ferment within the crescent. Islam is undoubtedly compatible with socialism, but it is inimical to atheistic Communism. The Soviet Union is already the world's fifth largest Muslim nation. By the year 2000, the huge Islamic populations in the border republics may outnumber Russia's now dominant Slavs. From Islamic democracies on Russia's southern tier, zealous Organic evangelism might sweep across the border into these politically repressed Soviet states, creating problems for the Kremlin... Whatever the solution, there is a clear need for the U.S. to recapture what Kissinger calls the 'geopolitical momentum'. That more than anything else will help maintain order in the crescent of crisis." Another thesis views the USA, Brzezinski included, as schooling in British geopolitics, in all what concerns the Islamic world. It is based on the following assumptions: - Rommy Fullerton set up Afghan Aid U.K. in Peshawar, Pakistan, in the early stages of the war. Her husband, John, has written a lot on Afghanistan. The main sponsor and funds supplier of the group was Viscount Cranbourne. - Radio Free Kabul was formed almost immediately after the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, by Lord Nicholas Bethell, a former lord-in-waiting to Queen Elizabeth II. Lord Bethell had served in the Mideast and Soviet sections of MI6. - In 1983, Radio Free Kabul sponsored the formation of Resistance International, which pulled together various "freedom movements" sponsored by the Thatcher and Reagan-Bush administrations, including the Afghan Mojahedeen, the Nicaraguan Contras, anti-Castro Cubans, and various anti-Communist eastern European and African movements. - The Committee for a Free Afghanistan - CFA- was founded in 1981 in the aftermath of a trip by Prime Minister Thatcher and Radio Free Kabul founder Lord Bethell to the United States, dedicated to building support for the Mojahedeen. It provided funds for almost all the "Peshawar Seven" groups of Mojahedeen. - Before shifting against the West, Osama Bin Laden was one of the financiers who played the " great game" in that region. Along with Abdullah Azzam, the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood leader he founded in the mid- 1980s the Services Office (Maktab al Khadamat: MAK), which established recruitment centers around the world. Azzam was killed by a car bomb in late 1989; the MAK split, with the extremist factions joining Bin Laden. - Bin Laden ran the Jihad Committee, which includes the Egyptian Islamic group, and the Jihad Organization in Yemen, the Pakistani al-Hadith group, the Lebanese Partisans League, the Libyan Islamic group, Bayt-el-Imam group in Jordan, and the Islamic group in Algeria. According to some sources, this committee has a bureau in London. These are the main assumptions concerning what the French call the "British connection", meaning the Islamic network in Britain, and probably a little more. An important question has to be cleared, though. It concerns the terminology. For so far, there is not an agreement between the Western observers as regards the exact signification of the terms: Islamism, Islamists, or fundamentalists. Last week, the French magazine "L' express" ran a cover story headlined "The Islamists attack the West". Such an expression omits that many pro-Western Arab regimes are actually Islamists. Yet, they have been hit by the Islamic terrorism. So, where is the difference, may one ask? The difference has been well explained by an American writer, Mr. Marc E. Fisher, who after receiving a letter of protestation from one of his fundamentalist readers, who happened also to be American, answered him as follows: " Point taken. We tend to get careless with our terminology when referring to unfamiliar groups, whether that unfamiliarity is due to faith, culture, or skin color. To ascribe terrorist acts to a blanket class of people called 'Islamic Fundamentalists' would be as misleading as saying that all Christian fundamentalists danced with poisonous snakes and spoke in tongues. My apologies for the discrepancy. " Then Mr. Fisher stated that he meant only " those who believe that their faith justifies the use of violent force and the killing of 'infidel' Americans and Israelis. And he concluded: " In the future interests of accuracy, we will refer to 'Islamic extremists' or 'Islamic terrorists', not as a catch-all generalization for all Muslims but as a way to separate the true and peaceful fundamentalist from the more radical (and violent) believer." (Conspiracies and Extremism. 09/14/98). If this definition could convince the other Westerners, so much the better for the communication between civilizations! At a time when America is seeking to form a great coalition against terrorism, maybe it is important to remind ourselves that the Arabs and the Muslims - islamist states included (Saudi Arabia for example)- experienced this kind of blind terrorism well before it reaches the USA.


_______________
- 4 -
______________



EQUIVOCAL QUESTIONS:
AMBIGUOUS ANSWERS


September 28, 2001 (MMN) ; Palestine Chronicle; Middle East News Online.


Non-Muslims have absolutely the right to wonder about Islam as about any other religion, but as to what is Islamic and what is not, they cannot judge. There is a good reason for that: if there is no clergy and no intermediary in Islam between the man and his God, people are not allowed though to say whatever they want about the substance of islamic matters. The word Islam means submission. Submission to God and to His law, as it has been revealed in the Koran. There is nothing rebellious or anti-social in Islam. Were it a terrorist religion, it could not have expanded widely and spread from the Arabian peninsula to India and the Caspian sea eastward, and to the shores of the Atlantic westward. Anyway, the important question for those who are trying to understand what exactly happened on that fateful 11 September is not about what Islam is or what it is not, but rather about what terrorism is and what it is not. And it is quite disturbing for a billion of Muslims throughout the world that their religion is mingled so skittishly sometimes with the awful and sorrowful mess that occurred at the hands of immoral terrorists.
That's why they keep asking for evidence. Not because they are sympathizing with the Taliban: many of them know nothing about them, and many others hate them because of their fanaticism. Yet, it is as hard for the Muslims to believe that such a monstrous thing might have been the result of their co-religionaries' acts, as it is hard for the victims' parents to state that they will never be able to see their beloved again. Worst, if Islam could produce such a monstrosity, this is to mean that something is wrong with this religion! This is quite an unacceptable idea for any Muslim, since the Koran - as the Word of God- is the perfection in itself. Do you only imagine the impact of such an idea about one billion of Muslims? Do you imagine the shame, the guilt, and the humiliation they would feel? Indeed, they are said these are the acts of fundamentalists! But this is a poor consolation! For it means that all the Saudis, the Qataris, the Pakistanis, and many others are responsible for the death of more than 6000 people, since it is known that they are fundamentalists!
But this kind of logic is as irrational as misleading.
To begin with, when Bin Laden and his comrades of the so-called World Islamic Front, issued their statement of February 23, 1998, calling for " killing Americans and their allies- civilians and military..." they were not given carte blanche from one billion Muslims to represent them. Many of those Muslims, likely the majority, never heard of such a declaration. A lot of them did not even suspect that Bin Laden exists before the media focused on him after the bombing of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Besides, those men were neither representing Afghanistan nor another Islamic country. They were - and still are- pariah and outlaws in the majority of the Arab and Islamic countries, and they were on their own. As we know, they have funds and enormous sources of money so that they hardly need the support of any state to fulfill their sinister projects. Their congregation includes five movements or groups, which are:
- Al- Qaida: Bin Laden.
- Jihad group of Egypt: Ayman al-Zawahiri.
- Egyptian Islamic group: Abu Yasir Rifai Ahmad Taha.
- Jamiat-ul- Ulema of Pakistan: Mir Hamza.
- Jihad movement of Bangladesh: Fazlul Rahman.
And although these groups have their own principles and plans, it is easy to mistake them for other fundamentalist fighters: e.g. the Sunnite Hamas in Palestine or the Shiite Hizbollah in Lebanon, which both - do we need to recall it? - have condemned without ambiguity the September 11 attacks. It must be underlined though that what Israel is facing and calling "fundamentalist terrorism", is considered in the whole Arab and Islamic world as a resistance against the Zionist occupation. It is utterly regrettable that civilians are also the victims of bombs, but there are casualties on both sides, and Israel is still an invader. So, even if one cannot miss the difference between the two groups (: one is resisting an occupying force, while the second is claiming to be some kind of an "illuminated justiciary"), it is rather easy to slip into equivocation.
However, when you look at the so-called World Islamic Front, how many people would you say it is including? Ten thousand? Twenty thousand? Fifty thousand? Come on! Even with one hundred thousand activists, these people are neither a majority in their countries, nor weighing of any political weight upon the future of the world. The sole country where they have some sort of weight is the poor Afghanistan: 21million people according to the latest statistics, and nearly a no man's land! Yet, they are very dangerous, and their threats must always be taken seriously. For anyway, they have the means to fulfill them, as they proved it several times.
Thus, put together, they are a drop in the Islamic ocean which encompasses peoples of all races, and all countries. Who can say today without falling to a ridiculous stanza that all those peoples, all those races, for which Islam is the binder, identify to Osama Bin Laden or to any of his partners?
To be sure, the problem with Bin Laden is not about Islam, but about terrorism. And this is the way the mainstream media ought to tackle it. But instead of that, what do we see? Everybody, in the papers, on the radio, on TV, or even on internet, thinks he has something to say about Islam, Islamism, and alike subjects, which used to be actually as belonging to the scholars and the experts. With such a focus on these delicate matters in the Western popular media, the flow of insane hatred, and insidious rubbish overrode any control. The subject is no longer about terrorism, but about Islam versus the West!
" In fact", stated a so-called journalist on a Western radio, " they (: i.e. the Muslims!) do not like our style of life. They hate our values, and criticize everything we cherish!!!"
From such a statement to declaring that " the Western values are superior to Islam", there is only a short step which Mr. Berlusconi, Italy Prime Minister did not hesitate to make, in a complete contempt of his own position as a man in charge of a nation where live and work millions of Muslims.
Then, if some people in the Western elite cannot control themselves and give up to the primary reactions against Islam and Arabs, what about the man in the street?
Thus goes on the talk about Bin Laden's Islam! Not about his terrorism, but precisely about his Islam! Again, people miss the point and put the strain on the wrong question. Why so? What are they expecting to know from all that interminable polemic about Islam and Islamism? These are philosophical and juridical matters that even the Muslim thinkers are not discussing anymore. Why? Because this is the history of Islam.
To sum it up in a few lines, in the three centuries which followed the prophet's death, attempts were allowed to interpret the Koran in the light of a changing world. The practice was known as Ijtihad. But by the end of the ninth century Islam had been codified in legal manuals of the Shari'ah -: the law-, a comprehensive code of behavior that embraces both private and public activities. The gates of Ijtihad were then closed. Indeed, some prominent Sunnite scholars, such as Ibn Taymiyyah (1236-1328) and Jalal ad-Din as-Suyuti (1445-1505), dared to reopen the gates. And Shiite Muslims - a minority predominating in Iran and parts of Iraq- believe that Ijtihad is still allowed. Yet, it is not a matter to be put into the hands of anybody. Those who are allowed, must be acknowledged by the religious authorities. True that some Sunnite modernists tried to reopen Ijtihad in the end of the 19th century, to reconcile Islam with valuable scientific traditions in the West. But their efforts have not been pursued, and it is unthinkable that any non-Muslim scholar whatever his erudition could be allowed to direct Muslims in matters concerning their religion.
Thus, with all the consideration Muslims vouch to the Western experts of Islam, it is really a madness to believe that they would let them dictate - or even suggest- to them what is islamic and what is not, either the topic is related to fundamentalism or any other subject. The true specialists know this very well, and never even think of it. But those who have to take important decisions in the Western governments, related to the Arab-Islamic world, should think about it.
Now, let's come back to Bin Laden.
Whether he is Muslim or not, whether his Islam is right or not, whether he prays five times or more, is it of any importance? The problem is about murder, about whether he has or not the right to call to murdering people, and whether he masterminded the attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or not. Now, we do not know of any religion or any secular law that allows individual or collective assassination and absolves its perpetrator or whoever pushes to it. That is the point, not the religion of Bin Laden and his partners. And that is why people in the Arab and Islamic countries are so suspicious about the U.S. intentions, and some governments are so reluctant to help, despite they suffered from terrorism well before it reached the West. They even suffered from two kinds of terrorism: one from their own co-religionaries, and the other from the Israelis. Nobody can forget it, since it is perhaps a key- element if we want to understand what happened. Yet, in calling for a coalition against terrorism, the Bush administration sounds omitting that just one day before the attacks against America, the problem of the terrorism was worded differently, according to each camp. On the one hand, there was the Israeli terrorism denunciated by many Western media, not to speak of the Arabian ones, which caused nearly the collapse of the Durban conference and, anyway a huge controversy. And on the other hand, the terrorism denunciated by the USA, which included several countries along with some well known groups. Then, have the September 11 attacks changed something in this controversy about terrorism?
Anyway, in the Arab-Islamic world, there is a feeling about an equivocation of some kind in the American position.
Let's put it straightforward: Some Muslims throughout the world - Arabs included- feel that there is an abusive, unrestrained, and somewhat immoral use of their religion in connection with terrorism, through media bias, misjudgments, bigotry, and other abuses. They wonder whether the West intends to fight terrorism with all its aspects and under all its names, or only to fight Islam under the misleading banner of combating terrorism.
If the first option is wished, needless to say that the second, even as a mere hypothesis, is causing a deep trouble among Muslims of all countries, including indeed the Western states, where many Muslims and Arabs - mainly in the USA- have been the victims of discrimination and hate. The fact that 500 to 1000 of the missing or presumed dead in New York are said to be Arabs and Muslim is not highlighted. The fact that General Sharon and his war-machine have been the only de facto beneficiary from the tragedy, has not even been discussed by the mainstream media in the West. The fact that the tragic event of September 11 completely reversed a growing feeling of distrust towards Israel, in the wake of the Durban conference and the widespread accusations of war crimes towards Sharon, has not been seriously debated either.
Instead of that, " the US indicated that (...) this time the coalition could also include Israel", writes Al Ahram Weekly (: 24/09/01). How could the Americans expect - honestly - that in twenty-four hours the Arabs change their minds and accept to be part of a coalition along with General Sharon, with whom the controversy is still subsisting? For President Mubarak, " to fight terrorism, the whole world must fight, not a small group of countries. A coalition means that we will divide the world into different groups: a group to fight terrorism, a group against this group, and a third group which is neutral. Then, we will fight each other without any reason."
Yet, if the USA is quite able to wage a war against Afghanistan or whoever it deems supporting terrorism, even without evidence whatsoever, such a war may destroy a country or more, but as to put an end to terrorist acts, there is a doubt about it.
To end terrorism, the USA has not only to obtain the full cooperation of the Arab and Islamic countries, instead of singling some of them out, but also to acknowledge its own faulty foreign policy as regards the claims of the Palestinians, the Syrians, the Iraqis, and all those who, in the last years, feel that they have been victims of American injustice. Everybody understands the anger of the American people for the horrid inhuman tragedy which struck innocent folk. But anger is not a solution. What happened to America on Sep. 11, has been for years the daily lot to innocent people in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan itself at the hands of Israel, America's government, and the Taliban. Can anyone deny these facts?
Now," have no mistake about it"! the problem is not, as some foolish theorists put it, between the Western world and Islam. The problem is about politics and terrorism.





_____________
- 5 -
___________

CONVENIENT TO ISRAEL!


October 2, 2001 Palestine Chronicle ; Middle East News Online.


It is quite difficult not to notice it. Since the tragedy of September 11, and after the first moments of surprise, the Israeli observers are almost jubilating: such an opportunity to regain self-confidence and possibly popular sympathy in the West has not occurred since years. Not to use the catastrophe in order to settle accounts with the Arab world – and above all with Islam- would be naive. But is it the government of Ariel Sharon that would refrain from seizing what is already known as the “ominous opportunity”?
Let’s go to the facts.
“ Right now “, advises Hirsch Goodman in The Jerusalem Report (1/10/01), Israel must: “ continue its policy of targeted assassination”, “seal off Palestinian cities like Jenin”, and “ continue its … policy of eroding the status of the Palestinian Authority, with measures like the closing of Orient House”…!
And if you ask: Why so right now? The answer is obvious: “ There is no doubt that September 11 massacre will make the Western world more sympathetic to Israel’s cause”! That’s the point.
Unfortunately, this is not an orphan idea these days in Israel. With a man like Sharon at the head of the state, there is indubitably a large portion of people thinking the same thing. And this is why the meeting between Perez and Arafat, though encouraged by the USA, rapidly sounded as taking the paths that lead nowhere. Of course, the Palestinian opposition criticized such a meeting, as it had been reported in the news, although the reasons of such critics had barely been highlighted. But that would have been of a real importance if the results of the meeting could be palpable today on the ground. We cannot say the same thing as regards the Israeli critics, since those who opposed such a meeting are the colleagues of Mr. Perez in the Government; otherwise people who not only have means to fulfill what they decide, but also the power to do it.
Thus, right-wing members of the security cabinet, we are told, blasted Perez for meeting with Arafat, with Tourism Minister Rehavam Ze’evi and Public Security Minister Uzi Landau both saying “ there had no point in him meeting Arafat in the first place”. Landau is reported as saying that he (Perez) “ had blurred the distinction between the good guys and the bad guys and had seriously impaired the IDF’s preventive power”.
Interior Minister, Eli Yishai, demanded even that “ the responsibility for explaining Israel’s policies be taken out of the hands of the Foreign Ministry and transferred to the Prime Minister’s Office.” (Haaretz: 1/10/01).
This said, if the Israeli officials think that their current Foreign Minister is no good, who is going to contradict them? Certainly not the Palestinians who are precisely the victims of the same foreign policy continuing under varied faces and different governments.
In fact, rare are the observers who believe that after the September 11 tragedy in the USA, there may be a real opportunity to resuming negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. We can hardly omit that something very important, and very grave, happened on the international scene concerning directly the state that is the most involved in the Middle East conflict. How would that event shape the future policy of the USA towards the same region, is today the question.
However, it sounds that the Israelis are eager to answer it as conveniently and suitable to their immediate interests as they can afford. But how the Americans themselves, the Europeans, and the rest of the world think of the problem, seems of no concern of them!

_____________
-6-
____________


QUESTIONS TO Mr. RUMSFELD



October 3, 2001 Palestine Chronicle ; Middle East News Online.

During his trip to the Middle East, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had to be confronted with many questions, some related to the short term and long term objectives of the anti-terrorist coalition he is endeavoring to form, and some others concerning the nature and substance of the support the USA is seeking... It is not a secret either that so far, there is not a concordance of views between the Arab themselves about the priorities of the current situation, as regards the fight against terrorism and the conflict with Israel. Questions would be aroused also about the possible shifts in the American attitude concerning some Arab states that, until September 10, were on the "terrorism list": four Arab states (Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Sudan) plus Iran.
What would have encouraged the Arabs to rising these questions and to discussing them with Mr. Rumsfeld might be caused by some rumors: It is said for instance that the USA muted its criticism of Russia's military aggression in the independence-seeking republic of Chechnya, acknowledging Moscow's claim of rebel links to alleged terror suspect Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda network. The Americans are not to ignore however that some Arab states - notwithstanding their political proximity to the US- traditionally support the Chechen claim for independence on the ground of Islam brotherhood.
It is said also that Washington waived sanctions imposed on India and Pakistan for their 1998 nuclear tests. It went along with a UN decision to lift diplomatic and travel restrictions on Sudan. Then, what about Libya, Syria, and Iraq?
Mr. Rumsfeld does not only need to be enough clear in his answers to these expectations, but also to be convincing. He has to bear in mind that although his Arab interlocutors are not necessarily sharing the same analyze of the situation, nor holding the same positions, there is still an important common platform for which they stand for: the conflict with Israel.
Here, the lately revealed stance of the Bush administration encouraging the foundation of a Palestinian state can help, if some matters related to the future state get more light. It is not only a question of borders and security, but also of viability, in addition to a fair resolution of the problem of refugees and Jerusalem. Maybe the Bush administration, after a first period of groping, is willing to act more efficiently. But so far, the hard-line government leaded by Sharon is blocking the process. Admittedly, the USA has today " a vision that is alive and well" as Bush-Powell put it, are they ready to go to the end of this process which means in the least supporting the birth of an Independent Palestinian State, even if that has inevitably to gravely displease their Israeli allies?
For there is a question that the Americans and even the Israelis have to answer today: What if what happened on September 11 in the USA, occurred instead in Israel itself? We know that all the Arabs, notwithstanding their religion, condemned that terrorist act. But in the light of what was happening since the beginning of the Intifada regarding the savage repression of the Palestinians, who can say whether Osama Bin Laden or whoever carried out that terrorist act, would not be considered as a fair hero of the Palestinian cause, if he struck Israel instead of America?
Terrorism is anyway condemnable as an inhuman practice, but some Arabs cannot help to wonder: Why the killing of Palestinians by the Israeli army is not called terrorism, but retaliation or defense, while the resistance of the Palestinians against occupation is labeled terrorism?

_________________
- 7 -
___________

THE ABORTED INITIATIVE

October 3, 2003 Palestine Chronicle ; Middle East News Online.

Whatever weight the Israeli intelligence could bring to the balance, when it comes to fighting terrorism, it may be equal to nothing if we compare it to a volunteered, deliberate, free and good-willing cooperation between the USA and the Arab states. In the present situation, the Israelis cannot be of a great help to the Bush administration; despite they have indubitably an important intelligence apparatus. We do not need to remind anyone that the Israelis themselves are failing to contain or prevent the attacks from varied Palestinian factions. The fact that they are actually in war against the Palestinians- despite the talks about a truce – is also a disadvantage in the current hunt for valuable intelligence data about terrorism: in order to reach some of their goals, they would necessarily distort information and shape it conveniently to their immediate interests. True, there is an important tradition of cooperation between the American intelligence agencies and the Israelis’. Yet, on the short term, the credibility and the efficiency of the latter for the Americans is not obvious. There may even be grave lacunas and wide contradictions in the analyses and appreciations of the regional situation.
Here is a significant example. Some days before the Sept.11 terrorist attacks, we are told, “ the Bush administration had been preparing a major Middle East peace initiative that would have held out the prospect of US recognition of a Palestinian state in a speech to be given by Secretary of State Colin Powell” on Sept. 13: anniversary of the Oslo peace. According to Washington Post (2/10/01) the initiative and the plan for the speech had been approved by the National Security Council at a White House meeting, as well as by President Bush.
That would have been indubitably the best present to be offered to the peace seekers in memory of what have been pledged and signed. How the government of Sharon would have reacted at such a prospect, we do not know. Yet, it seems that the Saudis were involved in such a plan through their ambassador, Prince Bandar.
The high importance of such an information is obvious. For even before the fateful day- Sep.11- there was a heavy strain on the Saudis, and some people were even pointing out to them as secretly supporting Osama Bin Laden. It was said for example, that far from being an outcast from his own country, “ he is in contact with the Saudi authorities via their embassy in Islamabad.” And Robert Fisk goes on: “ Indeed, in 1996, he received an emissary from the Saudi royal family, who said that Bin Laden could have his Saudi citizenship restored to him plus a gift of 339 million to his family if he abandoned his public jihad (holy war) against the West’s presence in the Kingdom. (www.ejournal.co.uk-The Saudi Connection.)
But such a hypothesis is rather weak. It is denied by the past attitudes of the Saudis and by the present. Bin Laden may be a Saudi asset only for those who are by all means seeking and expecting a confrontation between Islam and the West, where the Saudi Kingdom would be an enemy of the West not an ally. The first beneficiaries of such a clash are, to be sure, the Israelis. And this is why they could be unscrupulously misleading for the Americans.
May be we can add that as lately as September 2, according to some sources, Yassir Arafat was summoned urgently from Durban by Crown Prince Abdullah. And there, before Foreign Minister Saud el-Faisal, General Intelligence Chief Nawaf, ambassador Bandar, and other senior advisers an American message was being handed to the Palestinian leader. It is said that it was about the planned acts of some Palestinian groups, and about the killing of Taiseer Khattab, director of office for Amine al-Hindi (Palestinian General intelligence chief), who had close American connections. Yet, if not much information leaked about that meeting, it is obvious that something important was going on between Washington and Riyadh, in connection with the Palestinian question.


__________
-8-
________



HUNTING THE FACELESS MAN


October 8, 2001 (MMN); Palestine Chronicle; Middle East News Online.

While the U.S. effort to get support for a coalition against terrorism went on, a rumor was running last week about a list of 27 Lebanese wanted by the FBI that might have been sent lately to Beirut. Among those persons suspected of having links to Al-Qaida, we find Imad Mughniyah, Abu Mohjen (Ahmed Abd al-Karim al-Saadi), Bassam Ahmad Kanj (alias Abu A'isha), Munir Maqdah...etc.
A few days after the September 11 attacks on America, an article of Jane's Security, reported that Imad Mughniyah, head of the special overseas operations for Hizbullah, could have been the brain behind the attacks, along with the Egyptian Ayman Al Zawahiri, and possibly the logistical and financial support of the Iraqi Intelligence Service (SSO). The report did not hide that its main source of information was Aman, Israeli military intelligence service.
However, different rumors run about Mughniyah on whose head the Americans have put a $2million reward. First, he is said to have undergone extensive plastic surgery that has altered his appearance.
If this rumor reveals to be true, he is not to be caught next week; and if his identity remains hidden, he could be anywhere. So, why look after him in Lebanon?
According to the Jane's report, in March 1984 Mughniyah kidnapped the head of the CIA station in Beirut, William Buckley, which triggered what later became known as 'Irangate', when the Americans tried to exchange Buckley (and others) with arms for Iran. A year later, a combined CIA/Mossad operation killed seventy-five people, when a car bomb exploded at the entrance of the house of Hizbullah spiritual leader, Sheik Mohammed Hussein Fathlallah. Among the victims, was the brother of Mughniyah.
Other sources mention Mughniyah as operating on behalf of Iranian intelligence, and as responsible of the suicide bombing attacks on the US embassy and the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983. In addition, he is said to have masterminded the 1985 hijacking of a TWA airliner to Beirut and the bombing of the Israeli embassy in Argentina.
Some reports say that Mughniyah continued to operate several training camps in the Beqaa valley- controlled by the Syrians - though he is believed to reside in Iran most of the time.
Last year, one of Bin Laden's top aides who was indicted for involvement in the 1998 bombings of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Ali A. Mohamed, testified before a Manhattan court that
he had been in charge of making security arrangements for a meeting between Bin Laden and Mughniyah in Sudan during the early 1990s to discuss ways of opposing American hegemony in the Middle East.
In June 1996, it is said also that Iran's Ministry of Information and Security hosted a meeting in Teheran that included Mughniyah and a senior aide to Bin Laden. Since then, operatives from both groups met several times. However, so far these rumors have not been confirmed, neither have been others about several secret trips to Germany in recent years, allegedly made by Mughniyah, suggesting that he may have met with perpetrators of the September 11 attacks.
It is not easy to make evidence about such "information", because much of it could be manipulated by the Israeli intelligence for which the opportunity of hitting two birds with a single stone is too attractive not to seize. An example is quite significant: it is reported that prior to the establishment of Hizbullah in the early 1980s, Mughniyah served as one of Yasser Arafat's bodyguards. Although only Arafat's services could deny or confirm this rumor, it is not really of much importance for the current investigations. However, it is obvious that the Israelis are interested in mixing up the past and the present, the false and the truth, the dark and the clear, in order to direct suspicion towards the Palestinians and thus to discredit Arafat as a man of peace in the eyes of millions of Americans.
Thus, if some kind of link could be found between Mughniyah and Arafat himself, - were it even a phantasm! - it is undoubtedly helpful to Sharon.
Meanwhile, the hunt for Mughniyah sounds like the hunt for George Orwell's Invisible Man!



_________________
- 9 -
___________


DON'T PLACATE THE ARABS
AT SHARON'S EXPENSES!

October 8, 2001 (MMN) ; Palestine Chronicle ; Middle East News Online.

It was expected. Ariel Sharon said it, and he was neither joking nor making himself deliberately ambiguous. The man, as it is worldwide known, never has been a dilettante enjoying the high and fine subtleties of the diplomacy. His floppy language is an integrated part of his personality. You have to take it or to leave it as it is. Trying to find any hidden "pearl" of wisdom behind what he says would be meaningless and let you unsatisfied. A rash-headed man, that is what his own history reveals.
And now, his supporters in the Bush administration would have to accomplish a trapeze jumping in order to repair whatever he had damaged in the relations between Israel and its most important ally. Yet, with a little acumen they would have expected such a reaction from the Israeli Prime Minister. Since they did not warn him about making such incongruous remarks, neither did his own advisers in the Israeli Cabinet, they missed a good opportunity to save the face.
The reaction was expected, because not only of the substance of Mr. Bush's declaration about the "vision" of a Palestinian state, but also - and above all - because of the international conjunction, not to speak of the current mood in Israel.
On the one hand, everybody acknowledges that there might be a shift in the American perception of international terrorism that could have caused a noticeable modification in the administration's policy towards the Middle East. One of the areas concerned by that recent shift is likely the Arab- Israel conflict. On the other hand, it seems that Bush and Sharon had not had the same analyze as regards the September 11 attacks on America, and its causes and purposes, and its consequences. To be sure, Sharon envisioned an opportunity to continuing his own battle against his terrorists, as if the American tragedy gave him a blank check that he would cash as he likes. He hastened to point out to Arafat as his bin Laden, and in twenty-four hours readied the Israeli army to carry out any decision he would take. He would never recognize that Powell pressured him to allowing a meeting between Perez and Arafat. When he declared to the New York Times (Oct.7) that " we have not been under pressure" adding that what worried him " was what might be", he did not seem convincing. For we know that he vetoed Arafat-Perez meeting, and when he was forced to accept it, he was likely sure that the cease-fire would not last. And it did not last.
Yet, Sharon tried to refrain from pushing the cork too far. Indeed, there were hints and well organized Israeli "leaks" about a so-called Palestinian-Iraqi-Lebanese-Syrian and- why not? - Saudi involvement in the terrorist strikes on America, but who would take seriously all the whimsical wishes of Sharon's intelligence service? Nonetheless, if Sharon could bear some pressure from Israel's old allies, he seemed unable to bear more when Mr. Jack Straw sent in urgency to Iran by Tony Blair, allowed himself to write in a local paper: "One of the factors that helps breed terror is the anger that many people in the region feel at events over the years in the Palestinian territories."
These words were quite unacceptable to Sharon who knew that Straw was accomplishing a mission on behalf of the British government in full agreement with Washington, aiming at getting the Iranian cooperation with the anti-terrorist coalition. Iran is the supporter of Hizbullah. In Sharon's eyes, the Americans and the British have lost the marks and gone blind: They see America's foes, but they do not see Israel's - Sharon's, that is! Then to make the water overflow the glass came the acknowledgement that a plan for a Palestinian state was under way. Was Perez really unaware of it, as he let us understand when he declared to the N.Y. Times (same day) that Sharon was reacting about the news of " the mysterious plan"? Maybe!
Anyway, Sharon mistook the epoch and its personages, and his historic metaphor showed only his ignorance of history. For even with his own concepts, neither Bush could be Chamberlain, nor Arafat Hitler.
And the mighty and over-armed Israel is far from being 1938'Czechoslovakia.



________________
-10-
___________

THE FRENCH IN THE COALITION (1)


October 9, 2001 (MMN) ; Palestine Chronicle; Middle East News Online.


President Jacques Chirac announced Sunday, Oct. 7, that France will take part to the military operations led by the USA against Osama bin Laden and the regime of Taliban. The majority of the French political class seems to sustain the current action. The first Secretary of the Socialist Party, Mr. François Hollande, declared the American retaliation as "legitimate" and approved the French participation. So did Mr. Paul Quilès (SP), president of the parliament's defense committee, who deems the current strategy "reasonable since it endeavors to avoid casualties among the civilian population". Mr. François Loncle (SP), president of the Foreign Affairs Committee approved and asked that the parliament be consulted in case the French troops would have to go to the front. Idem for Mr. Jean Michel Baylet, president of the Parti radical de gauche. On the right, the UDF (Mr. François Bayrou's Union pour la démocratie Française) wished that " France be able to occupy entirely its place " in the " fight against the fundamentalist terrorism ". Mr. Bruno Mégret, leader of the MNR (far-right), also approved the " American retaliation " and the " French support" and asked the government to "neutralize the Islamist implantation " on the French soil.
However, some leftist voices disagreed with the current trend. Thus, Mr. Robert Hue, national secretary of the Communist Party (: which is presently participating to the government of Mr. Jospin) talked about " war acts (...) bearing heavy considerable risks", and underlined the possibility of " uncontrollable gearing". Mr. Noel Mamère, representative of the green party (also a member of the left's government), criticized the " war against the Afghan people". For him, the American reaction sounds " too disproportionate" and announces a "dangerous escalation". The Movement for Peace (pro-Communist) denunciated the "war logic" as well as the terrorism. The LCR (Trotskyite movement) expressed its " indignation as regards the French participation to the war apparatus".
On the diplomatic side, a communiqué of the Quai d'Orsay (French Foreign Ministry) issued on October 5, emphasized that Paris has presented a plan of action to its partners. In the context of " the plan of action for Afghanistan" proposed by France it says, emergency humanitarian aid is to be provided immediately. It will be adapted as needs evolve.
According to the communiqué, the plan is based on three types of intervention: support for French NGOs with expertise on the ground in Afghanistan; support for international agencies (ICRC, UNICEF, OCHA); food aid via WFP which is scheduled to arrive at the end of October 2001.
It is balanced between the zones of access (in the north, center and south) open to each operator selected.
The first batch of aid also takes into account France's contribution (17%) to the special funding mobilized by ECHO for the final quarter of 2001. Financing for this aid is coming from the Emergency Humanitarian Fund (FUH 2001), the DGCID, the Ministry of Agriculture in the case of aid, and the contribution already provided to ECHO. The Ministry of Agriculture has also released 4,500 grain equivalent tons in addition to the initial financing.
According to Mr. Josselin (Minister of the French-speaking and international cooperation) the French plan will be spread out over several months and will release a total of 214 million francs, plus what the Agriculture Ministry has indicated, i.e. a total of 226 million francs. This humanitarian aid will be destined for all the people of Afghanistan, through support to French NGOs and international agencies.
Meanwhile, on October 8 and 9, the General Affairs Council is scheduled to meet in Luxembourg. It is expected that the European Ministers discuss the consequences of the attacks on the U.S., both the internal and external aspects. Among the questions concerning third countries, relations with Iran and Pakistan have to be examined, as well as the action to be followed as regards Afghanistan. There is also talk about a six-point plan presented by France, concerning the political arrangements and the reconstruction.
The council is expected to decide on measures to be taken regarding freezing the assets of entities linked to terrorist activities (a French initiative). A special General Affairs Council is to be convened before the informal European Council meeting at Gand (Oct.19) so that the work begun in each area can be coordinated and a report for heads of state and government prepared.
It is expected that the Council also discuss the situation in the Middle East in light of the latest developments and following visits to the region by several European Ministers.
The communiqué of Quai d'Orsay condemns the violence of Israeli military reprisals in Hebron, which left six dead in 24 hours, and welcomes the statements by the Palestinian authorities calling for a cease-fire.




_____________
- 11 -
___________

DISSENTS BETWEEN U.S. AND PAKISTAN?


October 10, 2001 (MMN); Palestine Chronicle, Middle East News Online.



In his daily briefing, Mr. Rumsfeld acknowledged lately that some warplanes are coming back without fulfilling their mission. When asked for explanation, the defense Secretary did not hesitate to say " we are running out of targets"!
This is quite an understandable statement, which by the way reminds us of what an American-Afghan was saying a few days before the strikes: " New bombs would only stir the rubble of earlier bombs." For Mr. Tamim Ansary, all what the Americans do in Afghanistan have already been experimented by the Soviets... to no avail! The only issue in his opinion is to go in there with ground troops. That is the only way to catch bin Laden, and he is probably right. (: Salon.com - an Afghan-American speaks).
So, why are they bombing Kabul and Kandahar and other cities where live innocent people if they know that there is little chance to get bin Laden and Mullah Omar that way?
Besides, it seems that despite the reassuring tone of the American officials in respect of Pakistan, there is a little dissent with Gen. Musharraf. The latter declared lately that " a government imposed from abroad cannot successfully replace the Taliban in Afghanistan". Otherwise, if ever the Americans succeed to ousting the Taliban from power, the government they seek to establish with the help of former Afghan king Mohammed Zahir Shah, would have to put up with Pakistan and accept some kind of trusteeship, as has always been the tradition in this region. The example of the particular relations between Syria and Lebanon is here cogent. But the king himself acknowledged in an interview with Newsweek (Sept.29) that all the Afghans think that they have been abandoned by America and by almost all the world after the defeat of the Soviet Union. During his reign, he said, he" tried very hard to be sure that people from the north and south intermingled". Apparently, that was the greatest failure of this country. The question is therefore: is the northern alliance armed and supported by the West able to achieve this purpose, once the Taliban toppled, despite the serious disability that is the absence of its famous leader Massoud? Needless to add that if Pakistan is worrying about the post-Taliban stage, it is also because Massoud and his northern alliance were fighting against those whom they deemed to be the stooges of Pakistan. This is why Gen. Musharraf emphasized on the necessity of a " broad-based multi ethnic government" to take over. How would he view the current attempt to form such a government by king Zahir Shah is another unanswered question.
Furthermore, Gen. Musharraf, unlike Mr. Bush, is talking about a very short war, which is altogether understandable. For the durable unrest in Afghanistan would inevitably cause trouble in Pakistan. As long as Islamabad was able to control the Kabul regime, it was reassured that its own people would not be involved in continual demonstrations and useless and tragic confrontations with the government. Yet, Musharraf himself owes his ascension to power to such unrest in Pakistan. Like many rulers of this kind, he knows that he would last in power as long as he is able to maintain some quietness and stability. Unfortunately for him, quietness and stability are precisely what is being refused both to Pakistan and Afghanistan.

_______________
- 12-
_____________

WHERE WOULD AMERICA STOP?


October 10, 2001 Palestine Chronicle; Middle East News Online.

The letter delivered to the United Nations Security Council by Mr. John Negroponte, US ambassador, in justification for the campaign against Afghanistan made many eyebrows rise in the Arab world. It says for instance: " We may find that our self-defense requires further actions with respect to other organizations and other states." That means that other targets may be on the "menu" of the Pentagon. The question is then not only who are they, but also - and above all - where the U.S. would stop?
It is not a secret, though. Many observers are already hinting to the next targets of the "anti-terrorist coalition", which is so far consisting in two states (: the USA and G.B)! Maybe the French would soon join their allies on the field. Yet, even with France fighting alongside the Americans and the British, the international coalition is far below the dream of Mr. Bush (: forty states!) For once, this is a son who, seemingly, is not going to outdo his father's accomplishments, would you say! Ah, but wait...This is just the point!
What some Arabs and Muslims fear is precisely the hypothesis that the current President of the United States becomes obsessed with the idea that he must carry on what his father had left incomplete. This is at least the official position of the Arab League. How would another war against Iraq be perceived? And what if pursuing what " the self-defense requires", Mr. Bush decides to bomb Iran, or Syria, or Sudan, or Libya, or all of them, since they are all on the list of the " state sponsors"? And by the way, other countries may be also bombed, for they are suspected of harboring some terrorist groups: Yemen, Somalia, etc.
The hypothesis is absurd, but is it impossible? The Chicago Sun-Times writes for example in his Oct.8 delivery about a " strong feeling among American conservatives that an attack on Iraq is essential to protect U.S. national interests." Though it is hard to see the link between the American interests and bombing an already exhausted country, you may still ask: How about the Arab states who hold - through their league- a stance against war? The answer, according to the same paper, would be: " keeping Arab states as members of the anti-terrorist coalition is neither possible nor desirable. In their (the conservatives) view, Israel is ally enough."
Well then, let them take Israel as an ally in this fight against terrorism, and let's see what would happen next: The scene would be much more "clear", for then they would give bin Laden the sound ground for what he pretended about dividing the world into two camps! Is this exactly what Mr. Bush is aiming at?
There are reasonable people in this administration though, who know that holding such a position is pure madness. For who in America wants to have all the Arabs, and the entire Muslim world against the West? Besides, it is" reassuring" to say America can crush the Taliban, the Iraqi, and everybody else, for it is true. But the question is not about the military power - who doesn't know that the US is a superpower able to wipe even the whole Afghanistan off the map? -, but rather about knowing whether this is going to end any terrorist threat. Thereupon, the answer would be much less reassuring.
The weapon bin Laden is using - some observers in the West know it - is not only terrorism, but also the rhetoric and all its possibilities of combinations and ambiguities. Is it amazing that he pretends he is fighting on behalf of the Palestinians, and the Iraqi, and the Muslims? That " America ... will never taste security and safety unless we feel security and safety in our land and in Palestine"? These are ultra-sensitive matters to all the Arabs, all the Muslims. Only the hypocrites pretend the contrary. But it is about the means to reach peace, security, and prosperity that the majority of people disagree with the extremists.
So, if the Bush administration wants to alienate the majority of the Arabs and the Muslims, the way is: Bomb more countries! Crush more innocents! Give a blank check to Sharon! Forget the plight of 22 million people in Iraq! And then be sure that the door you thus open in this century's beginning, will never be closed.



__________
-13-
_________





PRESSURE ON THE HOUSE OF SAUD
October 13, 2001 (MMN); Palestine Chronicle, Middle East News Online.




When New York city’s twin towers collapsed under the shock of the diverted planes that hit them with all the power of their engines launched at flying speed, nobody in the immediate aftermath would have ever thought of the Kingdom of Saud as the possible birth land of the terrorists. Such a thought would have sounded to the Americans as absurd than its corollary already spread in hints and whispers among the Arabs pointing out to Israel’s Mossad as a suspect. For the logic, the historical links, and the economical interests naturally dismiss these two important allies of the USA from being suspected.
But soon, with the investigation getting on and unveiling the identities of the suspects, people began to have second thoughts.
Seven out of nineteen suspects, according to the FBI, are Saudi citizens. Seven others may also be Saudi, if we consider their names: Ahmed and Hamza al-Ghamedi, Fayez Ahmed... Otherwise, the majority of the alleged terrorists would be Saudi citizens, if they were not from other Gulf States, all of them allies of the U.S. A.
Though this is quite a blurring statement, the fact that such an unprecedented attack on America might have been caused by people coming from the Middle East cannot be due only to a bad chance. Here is the heart of the matter. For as America got deeply entangled into the Middle East policies, no reasonable leader or observer would claim innocence or neutrality as regards whatever situation has been prevailing in the region since years.
Some observers have already made their mind: there is too much evidence leading to the Kingdom of Saud, not to consider it suspect! But as in all the “thrillers”, too much evidence against a party, is not always the right evidence. How can we resolve this paradox?
The fact that some suspects came from the Saudi Kingdom or the Gulf states may be incriminating these states only if we omit two points: 1- the links between the terrorists and bin Laden’s al Qaeda organization, if we consider the current statements of the FBI. 2) The fact that he is actually an outcast representing only his followers. But it seems that these statements are not obvious for everybody.
For whoever is surveying the international scene these days, it is clear enough that the Arab Gulf – particularly Saudi Arabia – is put under an unprecedented pressure. Because of what happened on Sep.11 in America, the citizens of the wealthiest Arab States became suddenly suspects in the eyes of many people in the West. Now and then, papers run stories about a so-called “Saudi connection”, and some colleagues in the Western media do not hesitate to hint to a mysterious plot concocted on the hot sands of the desert, behind the velvet curtains of an emir particularly hateful of the West!
Well, maybe they do not put it this way, but the idea is felt between the lines. True that some analyses deserve to be considered. But this is not the case of all what is now available in the media about that topic.
Here is an example:
For Mr. Stephen Schwartz, it is the whole Wahhabism that must be singled out as the very cause of what happened on Sept.11. “ One major question is never asked in American discussions of Arab terrorism”, he writes; and this question is: “ What is the role of Saudi Arabia?” Then the answer he gives is quite amazing. In his view the question is not asked because “ American companies depend too much on the continued flow of Saudi oil, while American politicians have become too cozy with the Saudi rulers”! (The Spectator –U.K. September 22.)
The answer is “amazing “ because the writer does not even notice the paradox he trapped himself within. For if Saudi Arabia is ruled by an ideology so hostile to the West, how come that this very country happens to be one of the most important allies of the West in the region, since the time of King Abdel Aziz al-Saud, and never ceased to be?
The second reason for which the “ question is not asked in the US”, says Mr. Schwartz is that “ to expose the extent of Saudi and Wahhabi influence on American Muslims would deeply compromise many Islamic clerics in the US.” So, if we trust his initial thesis about the menace of the Wahhabism, The Americans would know that they have dangerous plotters among them (the Islamic clerics relays of the Wahhabis!) and they are turning a blind eye on their conspiratorial activities!
Still, we can push the paranoia further. He quotes professor Seyyed Vali Reza Nasr from the University of California at San Diego, who thinks that if the US “ wants to do something about radical Islam, it has to deal with Saudi Arabia. The rogue states (Iraq, Libya...etc) are less important in the radicalization of Islam than Saudi Arabia.” Undoubtedly, since they have their own extremists opposing the government by all means. But so far, the role of Saudi Arabia as an Islamic leader is quite understood. What seems less understandable is the jump from responsibilizing Saudi Arabia to demonizing it, which is easily achieved by both Schwartz and Nasr. The latter adds: “ Saudi Arabia is the single most important cause and supporter of radicalization, ideologisation, and the general fanaticisation of Islam”!
The second example we would mention is more subtle in its analyze, although it is not favorable to the Saudis either.
The serious French newspaper Le Monde, on its October 4 issue, did not hesitate to run a story full of suggestions and questions about a generation of Saudis that even if it did not take part to the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan, feels an admiration towards bin Laden. According to Le Monde, we must find the causes of what happened on September 11 not in Afghanistan, but rather in the Saudi Kingdom itself. ( : L’hypothèse de la piste Saoudienne).
It is in 1991’s war that lie the reasons of the current wave of terrorism, says the French paper, precisely in the opposition to the entrance of the American troops in Saudi Arabia. The Sheiks Safar al-Hawli and Salman al-Awdah along with Mohammed al-Masaari and bin Laden formed since then a front which opposed the King’s decision on the grounds that it is incompatible with Islamic precepts.
The bombings of November 13, 1995 (against a building of the National guards, sheltering American officers, and making 7 dead) and of June 27, 1996 in the American base of al-Khobar (19 dead) confirmed that the opposition to the American presence was taking a violent turn. The fact that the Saudi security services investigating about these cases did not allow the Americans to freely enquire sounded like hiding information. The Americans never appreciated that behavior, which they considered as not cooperative. For them, the Iranian trail was plain. For the Saudis, Iran under Khatami is no longer an enemy. That was already a first matter for disagreement between the two allies.
The idea that the roots of what happened on Sep.11, lie in Saudi Arabia and in the beginning of the nineties, forwarded by Le Monde may be interesting, although it does not present a straightforward explanation. Behind it, we can discover all the culpability of the American policy that some French observers have never ceased to denunciate since years. Along with that culpability of which America is charged, there is also the old animosity of the French Catholic secularity towards the Saudi Kingdom and the kind of Islam it is propagating. For indubitably, in these days some people in the West are jubilating: not only they are now able to condemn the American stiff and clumsy policies towards the Arabs as the main cause of what bin Laden called lately (in his intervention on Al Jazeera)” the punition of God”, but also they can by the way condemn the Saudi policy as responsible for the attacks against America! The point had to be emphasized.
Is the pressure on Saudi Arabia the result of some governmental orchestration in the West? No doubt, some Saudis are wondering. But although it is difficult to answer this question, maybe can we quote some significant examples.
On Oct. 5, the Greece’s international newspaper Kathimerini run a story headlined “ Bin Laden’s dangerous Mideast links”. According to this report “ reliable Arab diplomatic sources in Athens” said that the network (Al Qaeda) could have a very different and far more dangerous dimension. They claim that it is not made up only of illegal, dissident groups but has managed to infiltrate the military, the secret services and even government circles of Arab states, including the two leading countries of the Arab world, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
As we cannot question the sources of this report, we have to point out that some of its” information” sounds ill-intentioned towards Crown Prince Abdullah, who is deemed to entertain un-severed ties with bin Laden through the Saudi Secret service ex- chief, Prince Turki. And the report goes on alleging “ Abdullah is not favored by Washington because of his disapproval of the US military presence and his strong anti- Israeli position...”
One ought to observe that the idea of linking bin Laden to the Crown Prince is obviously too attractive not to be attempted by someone likely angered by Abdullah’s alleged positions, notwithstanding the veracity or the falsehood of the rumor. Still, the argument is too weak to be sustained. How can any person endowed with reason and common sense believe that such an alliance between a rebel – a pariah – and a Crown Prince, who is actually in charge of the Kingdom, could be possible? What is the substance of such an alleged alliance and what could be its aims? Would Abdullah give up power to bin Laden to compensate him for “special services”? Would he share power with him?
Such an absurd reasoning is rather ignorant of facts.
Who more than the Saudis themselves knows bin Laden? And who better than them knows that his ambition consists in bringing Saudi Arabia to its knees, deposing the House of Saud, and settling a new theocracy based on his version of a pure and uncontaminated Islam? Like many people, bin Laden was struck by the easiness whereby Ayatollah Khomeini snatched power from the Shah in 1979. But if the old Khomeini were able to rise people against the government in Teheran, why bin Laden – helped with his millions and his Mojahedeen- would not be able to do the same thing in Saudi Arabia, using Afghanistan as a staging ground for his self-declared leadership in exile?
The Saudi government is aware that the present situation – continual unrest in Iraq and in Palestine – plays rather in favor of bin Laden who would by all means exploit it: deterioration in economic and political environment, increase in the number of unsatisfied people, not to speak of the dissidents and opponents, corruption and scandals, etc.
Lately, a bomb exploded in the city of Khobar, (near an American military base), killing two people including one American. And the question the event arises is, to be sure, about any involvement of al-Qaeda. The Saudi Ambassador to Washington, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, acknowledged corruption in his country, reported The New York Times (Oct.9) and said that the Saudi Royal family has “implemented a development program that was close to $ 400 billion. You could not have done all of that for less than, let’s say $ 350 billion. If you tell me that building this whole country, and spending $ 350 billion out of $ 400 billion that we misused or got corrupted with $ 50 billion, I’ll tell you yes. So what? We did not invent corruption “. Neither is America or any other country in the world clear of it.
Some Western observers think that if bin Laden’s power is felt at the highest levels of the Saudi regime, a deaf struggle is opposing two competing factions in the royal family over how to deal with it. Thus, when some days before the Sept.11 attacks the Saudi chief of intelligence – who held that post for 25 years- Prince Turki (brother of the Saudi foreign minister) was dismissed from his post, it was said that he was “ the first- high ranking victim” of that power struggle.
Many people – among them bin Laden – would exploit without a scruple any internal struggle to show Saudi Arabia much resembling to its “ugly” brother: Iran in the last days of the Shah: omnipotent police of state, alliance with the West and dictatorship. Otherwise, the infamous ingredients of any revolt.
When the USA asked to use the Kingdom’s facilities in its campaign against Afghanistan, the hesitation of the Saudi government seemed to confirm the suspicions of some paranoid observers in the West towards this country. The pressure was deeply felt in the Kingdom and still is. But despite the reassuring declarations of Prince Saud Faisal, the discussion went on in the media about whether the Saudis are in or out the anti-terrorist coalition.
The Washington Post of Sept. 28 reminds us of Faisal saying: “ if it comes to military action, Saudi Arabia will not avoid its duty”. But so far, nothing of that happened, some people say!
“Prince Sultan Air Base already is home to about 5,000 U.S. servicemen and about 200 U.S. British and French planes “, writes the same paper. Meanwhile, with the beginning of the strikes against Afghanistan, has the number increased? That is quite an odd answer to bin Laden claiming the departure of the foreign troops from Saudi Arabia! Thus, it is assumed that under the Joint Task Force Southwest Asia, based on the sprawling and highly secure desert base, their mission would be “ expanded to participate in strikes against Afghanistan.” And whatever the official position of the Saudis, the Americans seem assured that the use of the base is granted.
Nonetheless, the pressure on Saudi Arabia is not only Western. Some Arab and Muslim states do not appreciate that perspective. They are convinced that if the Saudi allow the Americans to attack the Taliban from their soil, they would use it also – maybe in a second stage of the war – to strike other countries they deem sponsoring or harboring terrorists.
Anyway, what’s the point in keeping a base somewhere if it is not used when needed? They say.
To this reasoning the Saudis answer: U.S. Forces are based in the six member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council. Along with the Saudi base, fighter squadrons and army personnel are based in Kuwait; a forward deployed armored brigade is in Qatar; cargo and refueling units are in Oman and the United Arab Emirates, and the Navy’s 5th Fleet is based in Bahrain. Moreover, all the governments of these countries support the fight against terrorism.
So, why the fuss about the Saudi position?

___________
-14-
__________


THE FRENCH IN THE COALITION (2)

October 15, 2001 – Palestine Chronicle ; Middle East News Online.


The French position as regards the American riposte to the Sep. 11's terrorist attacks has sensibly evolved from a cautious moral support based on sympathy to more an active military involvement alongside the USA. In their press briefing on November 6, both Presidents Bush and Chirac made sure that the anti-terrorist coalition is henceforth rolling with several wheels and alternative engines. Mr. Chirac asserted that no less than 2000 French servicemen from the three sections of the armed forces are currently fighting in Afghanistan alongside with the Americans. And while emphasizing that the American riposte has been condoned by the United Nations, the French President said that the military operations, though necessary, are not the sole way to fight terrorism. " We support the initiative undertaken by Mr. Ibrahimi", the UN emissary, he added. "The humanitarian aid is also an important concern for the coalition as well as the fight against terrorism financing ". Mr. Chirac thinks also that " the facilities allowed by the democratic regimes as regards the free circulation of funds used by/for terrorism" is another matter of concern.
For his part, Mr. Bush welcomed his French guest warmly and confirmed the rumors about bin Laden's attempts to get nuclear weapons. He said that such intentions whether proved accurate or not must be taken seriously, and that an investigation is currently under way, which would allow the government to take the necessary measures.
Concerning the anti-terrorist coalition, Mr. Bush outlined briefly the speech he was going to make next Sunday at the United Nations, unveiling some of its contents. He would say particularly that the members of a coalition must do more than showing sympathy, although he understands very well the reasons of those who are reluctant to join the military operations. Nevertheless, those nations must at least take some measures against terrorism.
As France is getting more involved in the Afghan war, it is not amazing that on his way to the 56th session of the UN General Assembly, President Pervez Musharraf makes a working visit to Paris. Accompanied by Foreign Minister Abdu Sattar and Finance Minister Shaukat Aziz, the Pakistani President would have a meeting with Mr. Chirac on Wednesday Nov.7, attended by Mr. Vedrine - Foreign Minister-, followed by a working dinner. Mr. Musharraf is also expected to meet Prime Minister Lionel Jospin on November 8 for a working breakfast.
For the Quai d'Orsay, the meetings are part of the intensified diplomatic contacts on the international situation and Afghanistan at ministerial level. They will permit the French authorities to consider the prospects in that country with the principal countries concerned, Pakistan in particular, which has a leading role. The purpose of the visit is also to strengthen Pakistan in the choice it has made in the fight against the terrorism. Mr. Vedrine has already exchanged views on these questions with President Musharraf and his Pakistani counterpart during his recent visit to Islamabad on November 2.
Concerning France's opposition to moderate Taliban being in a transitional solution - which is an issue favored by Pakistan-, it seems that Paris still holds the same attitude. Anyway, that's a question that must be taken up by Mr. Ibrahimi and the various actors who are now trying to put together a political solution. But for the Quai d'Orsay, it is the notion of "moderate Taliban" that is perplexing. For" the word Taliban in itself implies an extremist value which is the opposite of the sense we give the word moderate", says the spokesperson for the Foreign Affairs Ministry, before adding: " There is a contradiction in terms. But it's well understood that a number of moderate Pashtuns are going to be in a future government representative of the whole Afghanistan. That's our position."


________
-15-
__________


HAWKS HAWKING STRATEGY


October 15, 2001 (MMN) ; Palestine Chronicle ; Middle East News Online.

What's happened to Mr. Colin Powell? He is barely recognizable! In its Sept.10 issue Time magazine labeled him ironically the missing man: " Where have you gone Powell?" read the taunt on the cover. Is it not amazing that the man who in 1991 was in charge of the military operations called " tempest of the desert", has become today a "dove"? He is said to oppose the extension of the war to Iraq! Is it a joke? Not really, if we are to believe some rumors making of him the defender of the moderate line in Bush's administration, against the hawks who, either in the Defense or the State Departments are trying to neutralize his "liberal diplomacy".
Pro-Israeli people inside this administration, as well as Mossad, have been working hard to ensure the implication of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in the Sept.11 attacks. According to these rumors, Paul Wolfowitz - deputy secretary of defense -, Richard Perle, - former defense official under Reagan-, John Bolton - at State - and others are urging an action against Baghdad! And Powell is quoted as saying: " Do you want to start World War III"?
Recently, the Israeli deputy defense minister, Dalia Rabin Vilozov, " revealed" that Iraq is one of the next American targets after Afghanistan, noting that " the US will inform Israel, in advance, about the attacks on Iraq"! Last Monday, the Israeli defense minister Benjamin Bin Aliazer announced Israel's readiness to take part in the fighting the US will launch against Iraq!
Trouble is that the offensive against Iraq has not ceased since 1991, unless we call the siege and the no-fly zones " cooperation with the Iraqi government"! What is all that non-sense? How can reasonable people fool themselves to that extent? But are they really reasonable? Don't they hear news? No later than Saturday Oct.13, US and British planes attacked targets in the south of Iraq. According to the Iraqi News Agency - confirmed by Reuters- the warplanes " carried out 11 sorties coming from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and flew over the provinces of Basra, Dhiqar, Muthana and Meisan". It seems also that Western planes based in Turkey have also flown over northern Iraqi provinces. The Iraqi air-defense fired at them, although no casualties have been reported.
So far, such incidents never surprised the observers. But when one recalls some Arab officials pretending that they are against extending the "fight against terrorism" led by the West to Iraq, one cannot help but wonder: are those people blind or fools? Are they meaning that Iraq is not under attack right now and since years? That's why they say they will not take part in the military operations within the "anti-terrorist coalition" although they support - to be sure! - the idea! Otherwise, they prefer that the US and GB go alone to "terminate" the " dirty job" in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and anywhere they want!
And the US and GB seem ready to respond to that "untold message". American investigators probing anthrax outbreaks in Florida and New York believe, according to The Observer (Oct.14), " they have all the hallmarks of a terrorist attack, and named Iraq as prime suspect as the source of the deadly spores".
The same scenario the US and GB have planned for Afghanistan is also available for Iraq. Thus, contacts have been made with Iraqi opposition in London aiming at preparing a government in exile ready to take over after ousting the current regime. This is to mean that a huge offensive against Iraq is possibly under way. To justify it, the US and GB need only to find the links between anthrax, al-Qaeda network, and Baghdad.
This strategy was settled in a September two -day seminar by the hawks gathered around Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, as it seems, and it is not unlikely that they earn Mr. Bush's ear.

_________________
- 16 -
_____________

FACTS, NOT JUST TALK

October 16, 2001 (MMN) ; Palestine Chronicle; Middle East News Online.

So at last, it seems that the Bush government is now convinced that there will be no anti-terrorist coalition working unless an effort to keeping public diplomacy more efficient is consented. Still it is obvious that such well-purposed endeavor has to go beyond the old stiff positions of the administration, if it is to succeed. It must not sound occasional and just related to the current crisis. A real shift in the American tackling of some topics has to be felt. It is not enough, for instance, to say that: " OK. Now Mr. Bush is rather favorable to the creation of a Palestinian state neighboring Israel", for people cannot help but think: " this is a reaction caused by the Sept.11 attacks." Thus, forgetting that they were condemning that terrorist act as inhuman, some of them are now saying:
" After all, if such an operation caused that acknowledgment, so it is good! Another of that kind and we will have all our problems resolved!" And even if this is not exactly what the Bush administration was seeking, its late acknowledgment about the necessity of the Palestinian state, has only contributed to create more confusion in the Middle East.
Why the Americans have waited until they were hit to recognize the right of the Palestinian people? The question has been inevitably raised, and whatever Washington would say about a plan that was already under way prior to Sept. 11, there is little chance to persuade people. The wide spread idea is that since the US needs the Arabs to take part to the anti-terrorist coalition, and by the way, to justify the war against the Muslims of Afghanistan, Bush is ready to promise anything! Is it not significant that the Taliban are now perceived as " Muslims " and " brothers" in most Arab countries, where they used to be labeled " extremists", and " fanatics" by the media? Just one day prior to Sept.11, the Taliban were demonized in the majority of the Arab countries where they did not have any diplomatic representation, Saudi Arabia and U.A.Emirates excluded. Today, their plight under the bombs is making almost the whole Arab world-shedding tears in the official media! Something is wrong with that behavior? Not at all! This is just the reverse side of America's own irrationality. The Arabs are actually sending to the Americans the image they got of them in the mirror of contemporary history: It is obviously a distorting mirror.
For so many years, the Arabs have been at odds with the American positions in respect of the Middle East conflict. And while their cause - the fight against the Israeli aggression against their lands- seemed the most justified in the world by all the moral principles recognized by the United Nations' charter, the USA was not only ignoring it, but also supporting Israel's continued aggression. The irrationality of such a behavior was incomprehensible to the Arabs, because for all what they were representing as 22 states and standing for, the USA rarely condemned Israel and its positions often expressed the untold intention to humiliate the Arabs.
Lately, the USA pushed that irrational endeavor to the extent of asking the Emir of Qatar to put more pressure on Al-Jazeera broadcasting from Afghanistan! If such an odd demand concerned an American company, wouldn't that have caused a scandal in the country? What about freedom of information? Is it only good for the Americans and no good for the other nations?
Today, we are told: " if Bush were asked to speak on al-Jazeera, he would consider that"! Of course! Not that CNN and the American media are not enough to communicate with people, but it seems that there is an increasing interest in " public diplomacy". However, maybe the Bush administration has understood at last that it is more decent and certainly more efficient to accord an interview to al-Jazeera than to ask for its censorship.
Still, there is a long way before the administration if it is determined to sell its vision of freedom and democracy to the Arabs. As Mr. Edward
P. Djerejian - assistant secretary of state for the Near East under G. Bush- put it lately: it is " only if we are perceived to be not only talking the talk, but walking the walk", that America can convince the Arabs.

_______________
- 17 -
_____________


THE GAP BETWEEN THE ALLIES

October 17, 2001 (MMN) ; Palestine Chronicle; Middle East News Online.


When Mr. Donald Rumsfeld aboard his Air Force jet en route to Riyadh in the beginning of this month, was telling reporters " it's not going to be a cruise missile or a bomber that's going to be the determining factor (...) but a scrap of information from some person in some country that's been repressed by a dictatorial regime... that's going to enable us to pull this network up by its roots and end it..." William Safire was just wondering in his column (N.Y. Times, Oct.1): " How do we get the best intelligence within Afghanistan about the whereabouts of the bin Laden terrorists?" And answering: "From local villages, of course, some of whom know where caves and camps are". Then: " How do we encourage frightened Afghans to be our commando units' eyes and ears? First, by identifying our antiterrorist cause with that of mainstream Muslims around the world." Thereupon, Safire stated: "We are failing to do that now".
The matter may even grow more delicate with the progression of the campaign against the Taliban, if the rumors about the existence of conflicting views inside the Bush administration reveal to be confirmed. The fact that the Defense Secretary was the man chosen to build the anti-terrorist coalition underlined the increasing ascendancy of the military view on the administration. The Pentagon was struck at the heart. To get its revenge seems a matter of military honor. That's why yielding to the diplomats over this topic sounds unlikely. How would the State Department react at that growing importance of the hawks? After all, building up a coalition around the US is a political matter. It requires all the subtlety and the finesse of the diplomacy. How the American allies are going to react to such a pressing demand from the Pentagon?
The problem is perhaps not with the Europeans, albeit some of them are frightened by the quickness of the American reaction, but rather with the Arabs and the Muslims throughout the world. That's why Mr. Colin Powell took the unusual step of inviting the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to lunch, on the same day the Defense Secretary was in Saudi Arabia before heading to three other key partners: Egypt, Oman, and Uzbekistan.
Uppermost in that lunch's discussion, it was said afterward, was the stability of Pakistan and whether its president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, could withstand pressures from his Islamic population once American military operations began. Some senators believe that Musharraf's control is perhaps overrated. The fact that Pakistan is a nation that has tested nuclear weapons and whose stability is crucial to all of South Asia adds a strain to the American worries.
" There was an overlay of concern about making the Islamic world afire", the committee's chairman, Senator Joseph R. Biden, confided to the reporters. " We asked: are you really sure you are not going to be creating more Osama bin Ladens by what you will do?"
It was - and still is - the question. But it does not concern the sole Pakistan. Many Arab and Muslim allies of the USA are worried. During his visit to Washington, Sheik Hamad Bin Khalifa, emir of Qatar, made clear that " Arab countries would not support an effort by the Bush administration to broaden its campaign to target groups such as the Palestinian Hamas and Islamic Jihad movements and the Lebanese Hizbuallah organization", considered by" many Arabs as legitimately resisting the Israeli occupation". Later on, Saudi Arabia's interior minister, Prince Naief said his country " disapproves of America's attack on the Taliban". A former CIA officer in the Middle East, Robert Baer, told The Los Angeles Times (Oct.13) that " Saudi Arabia provided little if any assistance to investigators hunting the friends and finances of Osama Bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terror network"! At the same time, the way New York's Mayor Rudolph Giuliani turned down a $10 million donation from a generous Saudi prince was not well appreciated in the Arab world. The Prince was not making any condition for his gift, but just telling his opinion about the Palestinian problem. Where was the evil?
Kanan Makiya writes in the Observer: " it is now up to Arabs and Muslims to draw the line that separates them from the Osama bin Ladens of this world just as it was up to Americans to excoriate, isolate, outlaw, imprison and eventually root out the members of the Ku Klux Klan from their midst." Right. But would the Americans and the British do the same thing with " the Sharons of this world"?
Until that is done, it seems that Mr. William Safire would have to wait for " the Muslim foreign legion including Westerners " that he called for enlisting in the campaign against terror!

____________
- 18-
_____________

CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS
(: Israeli version)


October 18, 2001 (MMN); Palestine Chronicle, Middle East News Online.

It sounds as if nowadays' Israelis are losing the marks of a collapsing Old World without finding the way to the new one. Many of them are not even aware that times are changing and that clinging with teeth and fingernails to a wreck is not granting safety when the sea is stormed. Their behavior is significant. Either they duck a head in the sand, like the ostrich, or they resort to threatening as the last weapon for the desperate!
In the first case, we have Sharon reiterating his well known positions in a recent speech to the Likud party in Kyriat Motzkin: there will be no negotiations under fire, and the Mitchell report would be implemented in stages after a seven day period of total quiet followed by a period of six weeks of confidence building measures before the resumption of negotiations! Maybe Sharon would like to negotiate in a graveyard with the dead, for there is no other place on earth where the quiet is total! Yet, even the graveyards today are not providing total quietness to their dead! But Sharon is still confident that his wishes are orders for the Palestinians! Well perched upon his moon, the granddad would never land even if the whole damned world goes crazy-mad with blood and blind violence. Latest news: the cranky man has almost forgotten his irritation with Bush's "provocations"! He would not fire his awkward troublesome Foreign Minister, Perez, whose head is wanted by fellow likudists. He proposes another solution: " When we reach the negotiations", he said, " they will be handled by the Prime Minister's office. And I will stand at the head of the team that will handle the negotiations"! Much the worse for Perez! But since the negotiations are still a remote perspective, unless Mr. Bush forces the old man to landing from the moon, Perez may still hope to hold his job and some dignity. Not that Sharon seeks to humiliate the Nobel-prized maker of the Israeli nuclear bomb - a paradox? No, a fact- but he is rather willing to prove his diplomatic abilities! A hidden gift that nobody ever suspected in the supervisor of Sabra and Shatila's butchery! Thus, the Israeli Premier said he has a diplomatic plan, " but would not reveal it at this stage"! Who pretends that Sharon is a foreseeable warmonger?
In the second case, we have some Israelis threatening to go to the utmost "logic" with the nuclear weapons, if a Palestinian State is created! This is not a joke. Who, excluding Ex-President Reagan, may afford to play publicly with such matters for the fun of terrorizing the adversary camp? Sharon? - Wrong answer. He has not the (...) let's say, the courage! But if you say for instance: Louis Rene Beres, the author of "Security or Armageddon", the result is: Bingo! The latter writes on The Jerusalem Post (Oct.16): " A Palestinian state should not be foolishly supported by the US" (...) because its creation " alongside the State of Israel will heighten the risk of regional nuclear war considerably..." Then the writer goes on to explain that anyway Israel " might resort to nuclear retaliation", in case it " feels close to defeat"!
Such talk is closer to megalomania than to lucidity. But the trouble is that many people in Israel might be misled to a murdering overdose of "power rapture". We cannot say that those who chose Sharon as Prime Minister opted for moderation.
Some years ago, Israel was part of the Western defense system in the Middle East, along with Iran (under the Shah) and Turkey. The triangle was working as long as the game with the Soviet Union was progressing towards the Détente. In that build up, Israel was indubitably a corner stone. But two important events happened and changed completely the game and its rules: The revolution in Iran, and the collapse of the Soviet Union. A new regional order emerged wherein other states became key-players for the interests of the USA. Among those states, we name: Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
Seemingly, the Israelis- like some Arabs- are not willing to see these changes as they are actually. For them, the former Soviet Union was some kind of ominous stabilizer. Thanks to the cold war - and even to the Détente - the Western wind was favorable to them. But when the whole Communist Empire collapsed, they were challenged to finding a "reserve" player.
That's the very source of the theory about the clash of civilizations: The West versus Islam!


__________
-19 -
__________


IRANIAN WORRIES

October 19, 2001 (MMN) ; Palestine Chronicle ; Middle East News Online.


Tehran is utterly worried. The message it is trying to convey to the West may contain a double significance, if not more. On one hand, the Islamic republic believes that its 900km long border with Afghanistan makes of the future of this country one of its most urgent concerns. On the other hand, Tehran knows that it is well the victors who shape the post-war geopolitical configurations according to their interests. Otherwise, in order to have a word in the aftermath of the war, the Islamic republic - like any other party - ought to be part of the coalition. But is Tehran able to go so far?
In a recent telephone conversation with French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine, Mr. Kharrazi - his counterpart - stressed the official viewpoint consisting mainly in: 1- refusing any military solution to settle the Afghan crisis. 2- Giving a key-role to the current representative of Afghanistan in the UN concerning the future of this country. 3- Giving the UN a role of supervisor. 4- All Afghan groups and tribes should participate to the broad-based future government.
If we exclude the conventional rhetoric from this message, we may interpret it as a warning that though Iran would not take part to the ongoing offensive against the Taliban- which it never recognized -, it would not allow America and Pakistan to settle the future of this country according to their own interests, though.
An Iran News editorial shows the current mood prevailing in Tehran as regards the American intervention. It termed the visit of Colin Powell to Pakistan as " ill timed" no matter what the logic behind it may be. The editorial did not fail to notice that one possible reason for Powell's visit could be " to pave the way for the return of the former Afghan monarch, Mohammed Zahir Shah, to his homeland". The paper could thus barely hide the true reasons of the Iranian worries: The possible return of Zahir Shah to power is an omen they do not want, since this may be appealing for the offspring of their own Shah. Such a perspective is merely painful to contemplating for the Iranian Mollahs.
How would they deal with it?
The Iranian institutions are almost in a state of emergency. Though the parliament is controlled by Khatami's followers, some of whom were, so far, urging moderation and dialogue with the West, it sounds as if the recent crisis is rather favorable to the hard-liners. Lately, the spokesman for Special Parliament Commission on the Regional Crisis Gholam Heydar Ebrahimbay-Salami said that the commission has reviewed a proposal on ' active independent position based on national interests' instead of 'active neutrality' vis-a-vis the recent crisis. Which means that a shift in current Iranian policy concerning the regional struggle has been not only considered but also pledged. Which means also that Iran is moving slowly, but almost certainly, towards more an active role in the regional map, which had been reined in by Khatami access to power. The spokesman underlined the Iranian concerns about " the change in strategic balance in Central Asia, the presence of the US forces in Uzbekistan as well as Russian support for the US led alliance against terrorism."
It is indubitable that Iran is confronted with an unprecedented situation on its borders, where Russians and Americans seem - for the first time in the contemporary history - agreeing upon containing the terrorist wave which Iran itself - through its revolution- was one of its causes.
Thus, Iran is seeking allies. The old quarrel between Pakistan and India would suit perfectly its own wishes. The Northern alliance and India would be these "natural" allies against what is felt in Tehran as an American-Pakistani plot to exclude the Iranians from any regional entente to be settled.


___________
-20-
_________



PROFILE OF THE ORDINARY CITIZEN
in the lost places of this world!

October 22, 2001 (MMN) ; Palestine Chronicle; Middle East News Online.

The Islamic fundamentalism under its terrorist version is an expression of the failure and the growing discredit of the contemporary Arab and Muslim States. True that the sword has always figured prominently in Islamic history, that the Prophet Muhammad was a man who vanquished his enemies on the battlefield, that Islam owes its rapid expansion to military conquest... But we cannot sum up the Islamic civilization in these sole facts. We do not need to remind anybody of the arts, the sciences, and the cosmopolitan drive of the Islamic thought. The Louvre as well as other great Museums contains enough evidence about the humanism and the universality of the Islamic civilization. And if Bin Laden is really the great leader and the "thinker" of those legions of terrorists, let's ask them: What has he to do with Al Farabi, or Ibn Roshd? And where would they place him in the line of people like Al Kindi, Ibn Sina, Al Jahiz, Ibn Khaldun, and so many others who contributed to giving the Islamic civilization its universal direction? Who is Bin Laden among those giants? The real answer is that he is just the offspring of the contemporary Arab failure. He is more related to the dwarfs of this civilization than to its radiant figures.
Bin Laden is a terrorist, indeed, in the same measure that the Arab dictators themselves are. He is the product of an Arab society plagued, from the Atlantic to the Gulf, with the same flaws. And here is the reason whereby some half-lettered, half-ignorant Arabs and Muslims, are sympathizing with him or supporting his "cause". If Bin Laden is their "hero" it is just because of their misery. Because with the hateful dictatorial regimes they got, the Arabs have reached the level zero of moral distress. For the man in the streets of any Arab capital, Bin Laden is just the " right ", the "logical" answer to the State terrorism, to the absence of freedom, to the contempt of democracy so fully expressed by the rulers. Why would the crushed citizen of any Arab state identify to the ruler? Nothing, absolutely nothing binds them together. Where is the Arab citizen who can look into your eye and tell you proudly: I live in this country not only because it is my birthland, but also because it is the land of freedom and democracy? That's why the figure of the rebel is so appealing for the crushed Muslim population. No matter who is the rebel or what is he aiming at! Since he claims that he is against the establishment, he is enough good to be charged of all the hate the crushed man of the streets is able to dedicate to his ruler. Thus, from an isolated outcast living in a remote cave in the Mountains, Bin Laden is sometimes magnified as a popular hero. Whether his pretensions are true or not is not the point. Anyway, the legend will go on with the rumors exaggerating it and making of the man a kind of Muslim Superman! Whether he has masterminded the attacks against the twin towers and the Pentagon or not, is not the question that would haunt the street-man of the Muslim cities either. He has not asked for evidence. He does not need it to believe in his old myths. It is the rulers who did to give themselves more credit in the eyes of their population. So they believe! And that is why they are so reluctant, so cautious as to rallying the anti-terrorist campaign! All of a sudden, they have discovered that, after all, Bin Laden is a Muslim! But For the street-man, suffices it to know that the mighty superpower is now hunting down bin Laden! His conclusion is: a single man - and what a man! An Arab Muslim! - reveals to be "smarter and stronger" than the whole US, maybe the whole world! (Given the fact that he is actually excluded from that world!) So, if some Arabs, some Muslims are able to set up that hell, that means that "we" - Arabs and Muslims - are not as helpless against our rulers as they pretend!
The crushed street-man thus finds a figure that is almost symbolic. For him it is important that men like bin Laden exist, no matter what they preach. For he is not interested in their program, - he "knows" that no Arab leader has any program anyway! - but rather in the level of opposition and contradiction they are able to reach in their relations with the current regimes. Whether they are terrorists or not is no concern of him. The street-man is not an idealist. He lives in a milieu already filled up with violence. And if it is absolutely necessary for him to answer the question raised by the terrorist behavior, he would not fail to acknowledge that the first terrorist is his own state, his own ruler!
Not that the street-man of the Muslim cities does not feel the pain of those American families who lost their beloved ones in the attacks. He is not heartless. How could he, whereas he knows very well that, like them, he is also a victim? But like any citizen of any country, he focuses first on his own problems, then on the others'. Thus, if he happens to be an Iraqi, a Palestinian, or an Algerian, the question is resolved: We have our dead, they have theirs! And if he is from the rest of the oppressed Arab-Islamic world, he would wish that bin Laden sends out his terrorists to get the country ridden of such or such ruler, if America cannot fulfill the task! And so goes on the story...



_________________
PART THREE
_______________

-1-


SHARON DOES NOT MAKE THE DIFFERENCE!

October 23, 2001 (MMN) ; Palestine Chronicle ; Middle East News Online.

In charging the PFLP of all the responsibility as regards the current Israeli escalation and outlawing it, Arafat likely thinks that it would be enough to placate Sharon and to make him more thoughtful as to the consequences of his acts. But this is not as simple as he believes.
The Israeli Premier is an impulsive; this is a matter of character. Yet he is not a perfect fool! He knows that the world media are currently focusing on the war in Afghanistan, that everybody in the West is haunted by the dreadful terrorist network which is said to have agents and supports almost everywhere in Europe and America, etc! He knows that a real psychosis is gripping the West, that the Arabs and the Muslims living in these countries clutched by paranoia have never been so ill treated than they might be right now in some places. Every one of them is a suspect, no matter his origin or his status. When would the implacable Sharon find again such a golden opportunity to lead the punishment attack against the Palestinians he was promising since he was elected? For him, this is just the time to strike.
Let Bush and Blair talk about the future Palestinian State as they wish! It doesn't matter. Sharon has some cards to play, and the first of these cards is about terrorism, precisely! Isn't this the time to fight against that scourge? Well! That's just what his army is doing in the Palestinian territory! Hunting down the terrorists who shot his tourism Minister, as Arafat is unable to find them, maybe - or most certainly - because he is one of them! That is exactly what Sharon has always said. Arafat is a "pathological liar" and the " head of a terrorist gang"!
However, despite the appearances, Sharon might be able to think for himself sometimes. In these days, he could have some thoughts crossing his mind. Here is a sample (: just forgive his frequent use of the third singular pronoun to talk of himself):
"Who would oppose me among the Western leaders? Bush? Come on! This is a childish thinking! Has anybody read the American - quite official - reports about terrorism? Has any reader found any important difference between the Israeli and the American analyses of terrorism? Why the fuss about Sharon's deadly "achievements"? The entire World knows that when Israel strikes and kills Palestinian leaders, this is fairly called "legitimate defense" - and lately " targeted operations"! -, And when the Palestinians do the same thing vis-a-vis the Israelis, this is called terrorism! And though America, Britain, France, Germany, and all the Western countries condemned my policy of 'targeted things', they actually did nothing, absolutely nothing to stop it. When Arafat asked for international monitors to give what he calls some credibility to the cease-fire before the implementation of the Mitchell report's directives, the Bush administration just told him: No, no, and no! We won't anger our ally Sharon! Remember?
Given the fact that I never hid my intentions to handle the crisis according to my feelings, that American weakness was equal to telling me: Go on! Do as you like! And that was exactly what I did... What I am still doing!
Now, you can still say: Mr. Bush has promised! And Mr. Blair did the same! Indeed!
But for us, the American and the British pledges about the Palestinian State, in this very moment, have been made just in order to gain time and support from the Muslims for the campaign against the Taliban. They are nothing but a deviation on the road. Our allies will join us later, I am sure, when they understand that we are actually fighting against a single foe with many faces. Whether you call him bin Laden, or Saddam, or the Islamists, or the Arabs, or Hamas, or Arafat, or the Crown Prince Abdullah, or the PFLP- that's just what Arafat did to make himself credible to "us"! - or the Taliban, or the Durban conference, or Satan himself ... there is no disagreement whatever between us that we are talking about the same enemy!"
Now, who is going to persuade Sharon, not of the contrary of this view, - the Arabs are not asking for so much - but just of the little, yet important differences that exist indeed between him and the rest of the Westerners who want really to reach peace?


_______________
- 2 -
______________

POPULAR WARS!

October 24, 2001 (MMN) ; Palestine Chronicle ; Middle East News Online.

The war against the Taliban is quite unpopular in the Arab world, some people say; which may be true. But, is that implying that there are wars that are popular? Which one? Maybe the Gulf war since it had to liberate a small country occupied by its big neighbor! That might explain why it was easier for some Arab rulers to mobilize all their civil and military institutions in order to serve the "noble cause" of helping a "brother"!
"Brother" Bush - the elder- was then needed, and the US army welcome! The Israelis were forgotten for a while. They would have loved to be thus left "in peace" for the first time since years, though the Iraqi missiles had not rained on them! The "popularity" of the Gulf war among the Arabs does not need to be proved: the demonstrations were daily events. Some of them were even organized by American- backed governments against America! CNN reached a top-audience in the Arab world. The "show" was unmatchable.
But so far the Americans are at odds with the Arab governments about more a substantial support for the war effort against terrorism. The trouble is that in the same time Sharon is claiming also that his army's intervention in the Palestinian areas aims at fighting terrorism! Worst: Israel rejected the American demand to withdraw on the grounds that the Israeli army has not been armed by the USA in order to stay quietly in the barracks when the Shin Beit fails to protect the Ministers! Since Israel is a recognized "democracy" nobody would retort that the army has nothing to do in the streets! These are foreign streets, guys! Palestinians! Israel remains a "democracy" ruled by a General ranked military!
This is not a popular war either. At least, the Americans are trying to make the war in Afghanistan look "humane" since they cannot make it "popular" in dropping supplies of food and medicines, not only bombs! But the Israelis are concerned neither about popularity nor humanity. They have barred these two words from their dictionary long years ago. Anyway, what popularity and humanity have to do with the musculated Israeli "democracy"? And if the Americans are not happy with the Israeli re- occupation of the West Bank cities, they should only blame themselves! The $ 4 billion they give yearly to Israel is alms barely sufficient to keep building the settlements! Israel is so needy that it has been forced to pocketing the Palestinian taxes it was assumed to gather for Arafat! How could it be otherwise anyway, since the latter revealed to be a "pathological liar"? At last, the Israeli soldiers have been unleashed. Instead of raging in their barracks, they would invade the Palestinian cities and villages and lay their hands on whatever booty available. No surgical- "humane " and "popular"- strikes here! But only rampage and plunder for the sake of another $ 1 billion - or more - AIPAC has promised to get from the stingy US Congress!
By the way, Senator Joseph Biden managed to put the wagon on the rails last Monday, when he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that it was "high time Saudi Arabia was told to stop financing hate-filled religious schools around the world "! That's the point! Israel costs nothing to the American taxpayer! But you know what, it is Saudi Arabia that is pumping a hell of money out of the American pockets, as the price to pay for about 1.6 million barrels of oil imported each day! Just at a time when the American soldiers are at some yards away from the oil wells! Why not to take oil gratuitously and to tell Saudis just to shut their mouths since they owe their power and stability to the American protection? This move would also be "popular" - may be "humane"! -, and Mr. Biden and others would be thus satisfied, wouldn't they?



________________
- 3 -
_______________


THE LAST ROUND: (1)
FIGHTING FOR SURVIVAL

October 25, 2001 (MMN) ; Palestine Chronicle ; Middle East News Online.

Many observers believe now that the Iraqi regime is likely the next target of the US war machine. It is just a question of timing. Those among the Arabs who are feigning amazement while contemplating that perspective are either oblivious of some facts or living in a fanciful world. Just one day before September 11 attacks, the very official CRS Report for Congress quoted Iraq as one of the Middle East sponsors of terrorism. Has anything changed since then? Has the American policy towards Iraq shifted as it is said now it is the case concerning the Palestinian State, for instance? Let's have a look at this report.
On page 29, it read: " US-Iraq differences over Iraq's regional ambitions and its record of compliance with post-Gulf war cease-fire requirements will probably keep Iraq on the terrorism list as long as Saddam Hussein remains in power."
In other words, the problem seems really between America and Saddam personally. Some observers would go to the extent that the question has to be settled between ruling families, both in Iraq (the Takriti) and in America (Bush)! Which is due to varied reasons, whereof they mention for instance the failed assassination plot against former President Bush during his April 1993 visit to Kuwait, allegedly masterminded by Baghdad. At the time, the US retaliated on June 26 with missile strike on Iraqi intelligence headquarters.
One must keep in mind that it was in February of that year that the World Trade Center bombing exposed for the first time the vulnerability of the United States homeland to " Middle Eastern-inspired terrorism". According to the aforementioned report, the bombing " sparked stepped up law enforcement investigation into the activities of Islamic networks in the United States and alleged fundraising in the United States for Middle East terrorism." For the report, the additional law enforcement powers and efforts in recent years " might have accounted for the foiling of the alleged plot by bin Laden supporters to detonate a bomb at Los Angeles airport on the eve of the millenium". So it is inexact to pretend that the Sept.11 attacks surprised completely the American intelligence society. An important part of the same report has been dedicated to analyzing the activities of bin Laden and his al-Qaeda. But nothing leaked about their intentions, and we find nowhere in these pages the slight allusion to a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda.
However, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld warned since Sept. 30 that he expected the enemies of the United States would eventually help terrorist groups obtain chemical, biological and possibly even nuclear weapons technology. Asked whether the United States was worried that military conflict in South Asia might destabilize Pakistan, which has nuclear weapons, Mr. Rumsfeld said yes. And asked if the United States would soon turn its attention to nations other than Afghanistan, like Iraq, Mr. Rumsfeld replied, " I think we're already turning our attention to other states."
That is why it was not a surprise when American investigators probing anthrax outbreaks in Florida and New York named Iraq as prime suspect. Reports were therefore aired about a meeting last autumn in Prague between Mohamed Atta - one of the hijackers - and Ahmed Samir al -Ani, a former Iraqi consul expelled by the Czechs, as it seems, " for activities not compatible with his diplomatic mission"! (The Observer - Oct.14). Other rumors circulated. Thus, in the past four months prior to September 2001, at least three high-ranking Iraqi intelligence officials - among them Hassan Ezba Thalaj- have allegedly visited Pakistan to meet representatives of al-Qaeda. According to the same sources, previous visitors have taken large sums of money with them, including Ahmad al Jafari, a senior Iraqi intelligence officer who took £ 420,000 about 18 months ago! Other funds have been forwarded via banks in Lebanon.
Indeed, it is hard for any observer to check up the credibility of such assumptions. For some people, all is simple and clear. " Growing your own anthrax isn't difficult but turning it into a useful weapon is", writes The Wall Street Journal (Oct.15), before adding: " the leading supplier suspect has to be Iraq." Why? The answer is ready: " Saddam has stockpiled thousands of pounds of biological agents, including anthrax"! What about the Russians and their mafia ready to sell anything to anyone?
Nonetheless, this is not exactly what Mr. Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector, thinks. In an article published by the Los Angeles Times (Oct.12), he says: " It has become all too convenient to automatically link Iraq with biological weapons. While there is a legitimate concern about the status of the United Nations' efforts to account for all of Iraq's weapons programs, this concern must be tempered by the reality that most of Iraqi's biological agents, along with its production facilities, have been destroyed." Furthermore, Ritter thinks " Hussein and bin Laden are complete opposites in terms of ideology and motivation, making them natural enemies as opposed to secret allies". The conclusion he reached is: " With its military poorly trained and equipped, its economy in tatters and once-vaunted weapons of mass destruction largely dismantled by UN weapons inspectors, Iraq today represents a threat to no one."
Yet, bad reputations have apparently a long life. Some people would not forget such a dossier so easily. Even if it is void, with some smart black and white allusions it may be still interesting to exhibiting. A good hook for anxious readers! An ideal witch-hunt where nothing can be proved totally true or absolutely false! Some files confine with the mysterious night of intelligence secrets or pseudo-secrets. They are always open to endless investigation. And if they shock us, or go against or beyond our beliefs, this is also part of the game.
Maybe the most " interesting" hypothesis consists in assuming that the Iraqi regime had been also behind the bombing of Oklahoma perpetrated by Mc Veigh in April 1995! And that the whole affair had been manipulated by the CIA and the FBI from the start!
The Skolnick's report (6-15-01) says that Mc Veigh was actually under video and audio scrutiny since at least thirty days prior to the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah building. According to Skolnick, the terrorist was seen in Kansas and Oklahoma in the company of two Middle-Eastern men, who were Iraqi military officers, from intelligence units, brought into the United States at the end of the Gulf war, 1991.
They were " part of more than four thousand of the same, supposed defectors, arranged by then President Bush", who for the decade of the 1980s, " was the private business partner of Saddam Hussein."
Skolnick is actually talking of an affair that had been partly analyzed by Alan Friedman in his book: " Spider's Web: The secret history of how the White House illegally armed Iraq". But he adds his own interpretation. Thus he says, "a little known Chicago federal lawsuit was brought, in October 1990, during the lead-up to the shooting war, to keep concealed the related bank records showing the clandestine partnership." But as part of the cover-up, Chief Judge Posner ordered the Bush-Saddam BNL (i.e. Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro) case removed from the courthouse!
In fact, the partnership between Iraq and many Western powers - among them the US- during the war period (against Iran) is an open secret. But Skolnick makes of that partnership something particular: it was not between states, but rather between persons. Among those persons we find not only the Bush family (father and sons), but also Bill and Hillary Clinton!
The connection is complicated: you ought to find links between all those people - Hillary included! - and a French firm, American Lafarge, which reportedly has been making the ingredients for poison gas supplied to Saddam Hussein!
For Skolnick, Mc Veigh was seen by the CIA and the FBI in the company of his Iraqi handlers carrying around several suitcases some of them containing highly effective C-4 explosives. One suitcase even contained a lower level sub-atomic device, known as "Red Mercury".
Thus, after the bombing " nuclear-type radiation residue, from tritium, was found and secretly measured by government operatives in the bombsite"! Mind you! " Saddam Hussein has been developing 220 pounds of Lithium 6, which can be converted to Tritium"!
Even if one does not know a lot about Tritium and Red Mercury and alike matters, one hardly needs Einstein’s brains to understand that if there were really the least doubt about a nuclear radiation, nobody would have been able to hide it. Seemingly, Skolnick foresaw that objection, and he said: " The top honchos of the news networks in America knew about the FBI/CIA surveillance of Mc Veigh prior to the bombings and were aware of the FBI/CIA audio/video taped surveillance. But the data was censored at the highest level of the US government and the monopoly press. Further, the discussions showed that the FBI/CIA have closed circuit video showing an Iraqi military officer supervising the one purporting to be Mc Veigh near the bombsite "! Then the confusion reaches a top when Skolnick wonders: " Was the real Timothy Mc Veigh put to death?"
A masterly issue, whose basis is much resembling to all those reports about secret meetings and connections between the September 11 terrorists and the Iraqi diplomats or agents. With however something particular to the Skolnick reports: Here the people at the top are not only concerned, but also suspects. And they are not only suspects but also possible accomplices with the terrorists! That's why they keep total silence about the whole story, although they were since the start aware of the terrorist plan!
This is not to mean that those who run America are clean and innocent. Of course they are not. But the idea that both CIA and FBI knew about a terrorist conspiracy and not only shut their eyes on it but also organized a real censorship on the media in order to protect a corrupted American President, is not easy to swallow up. Admittedly Mr. Bush - or Mr. Clinton- or both have business links with Saddam, how would they manage to cover their interests when we know that all the important media and intelligence networks in the USA are open not only to people who are on their side, but also to their opponents? Thus, if there were really audio/video-taped surveillance of Mc Veigh with his alleged Iraqi manipulators, how many people in the FBI and the CIA would have known about it? And if all of them were definitely corrupted how did Skolnick himself know about the subject?
However, Skolnick's thesis though difficult to admit, corroborates the idea that between Iraqi and US governments maybe there is more than what has been publicly acknowledged, which with hindsight may explain the obstinacy both governments have put into fighting each other, as if upon the issue of such a struggle depends the survival of each party.



_________________
- 4 -
_____________

DARE TO ANSWER

October 26, 2001 Palestine Chronicle ; Middle East News Online.

Some people in the West think that since the majority in Israel had elected General Sharon, as Prime Minister, he should be respected as any democratic leader in the civilized world! Well! Hitler also had been elected by a majority of Germans, with however a little, yet important difference: When he came to power he had never been condemned by any special investigation committee as directly or indirectly responsible for the collective murder of thousands of people. Sharon surely had been. His reputation as a criminal preceded him to the Ministry, and nobody seemed ever to care among the Western governments. They continued to treat him with all the honors due to his status as Israeli Premier, at a time when a lawsuit was being filed against him in Brussels as a war criminal.
How many victims should fall in Palestine before the Western governments decide to stop Sharon as they did with others? Why was it easier for America and its European partners to intervene in the Balkans against the ethnic cleansing? Why the repeated Western condemnations of some Israeli policies remain confined to the bureaucratic diplomatic apparatus without any translation on the field? If the Western governments are sure they are condemning these Israeli policies out of their respect for high moral values, what are they waiting for to make their principles operative? What is refraining the Western States from accomplishing what they deem to be right and fair?
If all of them agree that the Middle East conflict should be tackled according to the United Nations' decisions (242 and 338...etc) why don't they compel Israel to fulfilling its international obligations as a member of the UN? Whom are they afraid of? Who would oppose them if they do? Why among all the conflicts of the world only the Israeli-Arab is still continuing? Who is actually invading and occupying a foreign land against all the principles recognized by the United Nations and the International law? And why, knowing who is exactly the invader and the outlaw, the Security Council is not empowered to expelling the invader and stopping such injustice? Why such an endeavor was possible in other cases and did never happen as regards the Arab-Israeli conflict despite it is much older than many others are? Who is responsible for that awful resignation which caused havoc and ruined all the peace efforts? Who else but the five permanent members of the Security Council? And who among those members is posing for international leadership? Is there anyone else but America? So why America is so reluctant to halt the Israeli continued aggression against the Arabs despite it was able to do - successfully- much more in other conflictual cases? What is the American State expecting from the Arabs? Thanks and gratefulness? Satisfaction and happiness? Faithful friendship and sincere cooperation? Is America sure it has respected the Arab mind? Is America sure that those who gave birth to one of the most important civilizations in human history deserve to be thus daily humiliated by a handful of thugs and assassins, without ever being worried by an American or a Western retaliation? And why so? Is it only because the Israelis pretend they are a part of the West? What did Israel give to the West since its foundation as a state? And what did it take from it? What about comparing these interests with the Arab- Western exchanges? What would be Israel without the Western help and support? So, is the West innocent as to the Arab blood? Is the West good and fair for millions of Arabs squeezed and humiliated by the soldiers of the bloodthirsty Sharon?


________
-5-
________

SHARON REVERSES BUSH PRINCIPLE

October 28, 2001 Palestine Chronicle . Middle East News Online.

One of the peculiarities of Sharon's character is that he is unbending. Soon or late, he would unveil entirely his ill-hidden intentions, and push his allies - in the Israeli government and outside - to the wall. It is noticeable that the Israeli Prime Minister launched the Beit Rima operation a few hours after President Bush asked him to remove his forces from the Palestinian-ruled areas. A senior Israeli official has bluntly expressed the Israeli answer: " We will leave only when the goals of the operation have been achieved (...) we will not apologize and will not bow our heads"! (: The Insider- Oct.23).
So far, the incursion caused more than 40 dead among the Palestinians. If statistics matter in this case, we would ask: how many lives Sharon would take in order to assuage his thirst for revenge and blood? But everybody knows that Sharon will never disturb himself with such "futility"! He wouldn't have survived as a "politician" if he did, would he? The fact that he is the man in charge after an Israeli investigation committee condemned him for his responsibility in Sabra and Shatila butchery corroborates the idea that the Israeli society has completely lost the moral sense. And this is not just the responsibility of the Likud party. The current Foreign Minister, Shimon Perez (labor), made himself the faithful spokesman of his boss. Lately in Washington, he repeated exactly the same words Sharon wanted him to say: the Israeli army will withdraw once the total quiet established! Perez is not even aware of the monstrous contradiction between occupying others' territories and asking them to keep quiet! His colleague in the labor party, the Defense Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer claimed the American demands are "baseless"!
The American Jews seem also moved by the "harshness" of the US demand! It seems that Mr. Colin Powell received lately a letter from Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, where the latter said he was " extremely troubled" by the State Department's call for an Israeli withdrawal!
Incredible! Those people are thus "troubled" by a call for peace and negotiations! Yet, the increasing number of victims the army intervention is causing never troubles them! Death - collective death - is not then a human factor pushing for a peaceful resolution of the conflict to be considered? Is it just a matter of statistics? Not even that! Remember how Sharon is still there despite thousands of Palestinian dead are suspended to his neck!
So, is there a tacit agreement between the right- wing and the left-wing Israeli officials about the true goals of their government concerning the PA? " Across the political spectrum there is speculation that Mr. Sharon is out to topple Mr. Arafat and destroy the PA", writes The Economist (Oct 24: squeezed).
Who did not know that yet? Is it still a secret?
However, there is now another speculation propagated by the Israelis themselves. The decision by Bush administration, they say, to issue the harsh demand for an Israeli withdrawal was due to information suggesting that Sharon was not planning to swiftly withdraw from Area A, and that he has reached a point of no return, which will end only with the collapse of the Palestinian Authority.
Hereafter, it is up to the Americans to play, and it is well Sharon who is actually urging Mr. Bush to make a choice: Either he is with him, or he is with the "terrorists" (i.e. the Palestinians)!

_________
-6-
_________

IRANIAN-AMERICAN COURTSHIP

October 30, 2001 Palestine Chronicle ; Middle East News Online.


Neither the Israeli officials nor the Iranian Mollahs would pretend they are surprised: it seems actually that the expected rapprochement between Washington and Tehran is slowly progressing. The Washington Post (Oct.29) echoed quietly some of the ongoing negotiations, when it reported that less than two weeks ago a dinner took place in a private Senate dining room. The attendants were some members of Congress and the Iranian ambassador to the United Nations, Hadi Nejad Hosseinian. To make sure Israel would not be forgotten, it was well Senator Arlen Specter - "who is Jewish and a vocal supporter of Israel "- Who led the lawmakers. For the Post, the conclusion is clear: " The dinner on Capital Hill is just one of many quiet signals that Iran and the United States, longtime antagonists, are exploring better relations".
Maybe this is just a verification of the old proverb: " At war-time nobody chooses his allies"! We had had already a foretaste of the triangular secret cooperation between the US, Iran, and Israel, through the Irangate affair. Yet, today something has changed: such news are barely surprising in the eyes of many observers. The Islamic Republic is no longer a "virgin" frightened by the courtship of the Great Satan. Its President Khatami has called for a dialogue with the Americans since his first election. And if Washington refrained from showing its eagerness to resuming sound relations with Iran, it has never ceased to grope the ground. A new approach has to be settled. The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks just triggered it.
President Khatami condemned unequivocally the operation. Thereupon, Mr. Powell held out the prospect of improved relations with Tehran, forgetting that only a few weeks earlier President Bush signed into law the bill extending the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act by another five years. Powell also overlooked the inconvenient fact that in June US Attorney-General John Ashcroft had named 13 suspects responsible for the truck bombing outside the al-Khobar residential complex near Dhahran airbase in Saudi Arabia on 25 June 1996, and accused unnamed Iranian officials of being the instigators.
But more significant is perhaps the fact that the lawmakers, who met the Iranian ambassador over a private dinner on Capital Hill, have certainly read the CRS Report for Congress about terrorism issued on September 10. Accordingly, they know then that Iran is still considered one of " the most active state sponsors of international terrorism". Yet, they could not have missed the "wink" to President Khatami, which consisted in:
1- naming the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (led by Masaud and Mariam Rajawi) as a terrorist organization... just a few months after the Congress itself greeted the same organization for its fight against the regime of Tehran!
2- acknowledging that " Iran has improved relations with its Gulf neighbors dramatically in recent years, and that its support for Gulf opposition movements has diminished sharply".
Let's remember also that as early as September 13, Mr. Bush prompted -as it seems - the British Government to court Iran. Mr. Blair dispatched a letter to Khatami seeking his assistance in the fight against terrorism. The Iranian leader's positive response was enough for London to dispatch Foreign Secretary Jack Straw to Tehran on 24 September. His declaration to an Iranian newspaper about terrorism in the Middle East including Israel as one of its causes infuriated Sharon who asked for explanations from the British.
Since it has become obvious that there are links between the Middle East conflict, the Afghan mess, and international terrorism- under its varied faces, Israeli terrorism included - is it of any use then to raise the question that is still burning some lips: If Iran is a terrorist state how can the American officials justify that courtship?


_____________
-7-
___________

WHAT IS PERES INITIATIVE?

October 31, 2001 Palestine Chronicle ; Middle East News Online.

Is the Israeli labor party preparing the ground for the changing of the guard, in case Sharon's current Cabinet reaches the expected impasse that is already looming at the horizon of its misdeeds, or just undertaking an international public relations campaign? What is going on? Have they decided to take their distances with Sharon while some prominent labor members are still sitting in his Cabinet? The labor Ministers in this Israeli government, it should be noticed, are not simple subalterns: Neither Eliezer nor Peres are walker-on in the political configuration that is running the Israeli war machine against the Palestinians. They share responsibility with their right-wing colleagues in the military crackdown against the PA, since the occupation of the Orient House, and well before that. Today, the Israeli army is still rampaging in the Palestinian streets and taking its time, as if anyway nothing could hinder the Israelis from rushing forward to invade and kill each time somebody shoots down a settler or a soldier. What would become the French Republic if any time an Algerian immigrant loses his nerve and shoots down a citizen - which may happen - Mr. Chirac sends out his army to break the bones of the Algerian people? The Israelis have agreed to respect the symbols of the Palestinian dignity when they signed the Oslo accords. Nobody ever pretended that such accords could bring a quick and easy peace. They were just an attempt or a test for both peoples.
Yet, peace- seeking is a frame of mind, or a spirit, which suggests a substantial change in the behavior. It is another way of measuring one's own steps in respect of that goal - peace-, and it is certainly not consisting in watching the "partner" and waiting for him to stumble and fall on the next step.
Today, we are told that a new peace initiative is being prepared by Foreign Minister Shimon Peres. Knesset members Haim Ramon and Shlomo Ben-Ami have also launched their own plan for unilateral separation. But even if all the members of the Knesset come up tomorrow, each one with his own peace initiative, it will change absolutely nothing in the tragic and highly dangerous situation created by the incursion of the Israeli army in the Palestinian areas.
If the Israelis want to talk for the sake of talk, nobody would hear them in the Arab world. But if they want to talk in order to shove the peace process, then they should start by carrying out what they have already agreed on in the past negotiations.
What are these new Israeli initiatives bringing to the peace-seeking efforts? What would Mr. Peres say in Majorca or elsewhere, which Arafat has not yet heard? It is understandable that Israel seeks to make some profit of its presence at the expected economic conference on that Spanish Island, along with the Palestinians. After all, Madrid gave its name to the whole peace-process that started in 1991. Yet, it is immoral to pretend that those who are actually taking part in the current invasion of the PA territories, are also those who undertake peace initiatives. The truth, all the impartial observers know it, is quite different.
Just ask them what is new in the Peres Plan? He would call for a total withdrawal from Gaza strip and the dismantlement of all Jewish settlements there, is that it? OK! What is he waiting for to do so? Is he not a Minister in power? Unless he believes that his plan would be more easily carried out once he is back to opposition!
This is not serious talk. And unfortunately, time is running out and the peace-seekers are not winning it, as it seems.
But, why is it so hard for the Israelis to see themselves as equal to the Palestinians, just as equal?


____________
-8-
________

THE NEED FOR A NEW VISION

November 5, 2001 Palestine Chronicle ; Middle East News Online.

For the Americans and the Iranians wishing to ease tensions between the two countries, is this the right time to act?
Two days after the Washington Post reported about a dinner on Capital Hill gathering the Iranian ambassador to the UN and some senators, (see our story: Iranian-American courtship) the Israeli newspaper Haaretz revealed that a few days prior to that dinner the "Leakage Committee" - a joint US-Israel committee established in the 1990s to keep track of nuclear technology leaking from the former Soviet Union to countries like Iran, was convened in Washington for the first time since the change in administration in the US. The reunion was attended by Meridor, Uzi Dayan, and Gideon Frank on the Israeli side, and headed by John Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, for the US side.
The explanation the Israeli paper gave of the motives for such an urgent meeting is related to the Israeli own worries about an Iranian nuclear build-up helped by Russian know-how technology in Bushar. But there is an acknowledgement however that during his last visit to Moscow, Gen. Sharon- who owes his election to the support of Russian-born Israelis- has been challenged by Mr. Putin to provide evidence that Moscow was helping Iran acquire nuclear weapons. For their part, the Russians recognize that their deal with Tehran concerns only the equipment of a nuclear-powered electricity plant. But for the Israelis, this is just a camouflage. They are convinced that Russia is trying to reassert its position in the Middle East as a major player through secret deals in arms of mass destruction with countries like Iran. Since the collapse of the communist party in Russia, which was considered - because of its atheist ideology - as an obstacle to furthering friendly and cooperative relations with some Islamic countries, the way is henceforth open. The Israelis believe that Putin is trying to win at a double game: singing a lullaby to Mr. Bush about Russian- American necessary collaboration in the fight against terrorism, on the one side. And trying to counter the American influence in the Middle East and in Central Asia through secret deals in armament and technology leakage, on the other side.
But though such assumptions are not unlikely, if only we recall the dispute between Moscow and Washington on major strategic issues prior to Sep. 11, there is little chance that the " Leakage Committee" meeting was just about debating the Russian-Iranian cooperation as seen from Israel. Are Mr. John Bolton's most urgent concerns about whether Iran would get its nuclear capability in 2010 or in 2005? There are certainly more urgent priorities on the American agenda of Arms control and International Security. The fact that the US is today much worried about direct terrorist menaces at home than about any other subject does not need to be further emphasized. This is moreover the reason that urged some American officials to undertake an attempt of gate opening with Iran, encouraged as they were by a liberal wind crossing the Iranian political scene. It is understood however that neither the Israeli nor the Iranian hard-liners wish to see America and Iran - or any other "rogue" or ex-"rogue" state- reconciled. The same could be stated about the American-Palestinian relationship, albeit this is really the time to ease the tensions and oust the contradictions and the psychic obstacles that block the process of reconciliation. After all, all the wars have to end. Why should it be otherwise for the Middle East? In fact, there is no right or wrong time to start a peace-making process. It is even at the heart of wartime that such a process may be set up.
Today, there is an agreement between all the nations of the world about the necessity to put an end at the international terrorism. Indeed, the US and its European allies do not need the blessing of the Pope to wage war against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, but they do need the cooperation of the Arab-Islamic world to make this campaign truly credible as a fight against terrorism, not against Islam or Islamism. Now, with the month of Ramadhan looming at the horizon, and with some European nations agreeing to join the war effort, the campaign is taking a new turn. Will the West be able to understand that what is at stake is not just changing the Afghan regime - it has been already done several times- but rather pulling the carpet from under the terrorist feet? For if the West topples the Taliban without changing anything in the Middle East, there will be still a platform for further terrorist acts on the same grounds and according to the same claims.
__________
- 9 -
________


FUZZY SITUATION

November 5, 2001 Palestine Chronicle ; Middle East News Online.

So at last the anthrax threat is not just an Americo-American affair as some people hinted. It is unlikely that the US ultra-right-wing organizations that are suspected of dispatching terror letters in their country do not forgive Pakistan for its alliance with the Bush administration, and think of punishing also the Pakistani institutions! After some anthrax cases appeared in Pakistan - particularly in the daily Jang (the country largest newspaper) along with an International bank and a computer firm in Karachi-, the American extremists' trail is less obvious. The comparative analyses of the anthrax used in the American and the Pakistani cases would give however more light to the investigators.
Meanwhile, there are increasing doubts concerning the positive results of the Musharraf-Bush alliance, not only as regards the war goals in Afghanistan, but also in respect of the current evolvement of the situation in Pakistan and on the borders with India. There are also speculations about the priorities of the American alliance: is Pakistan more important than India for example? Would the Indians and the Pakistanis forget their divergences until the end of the Taliban war? What if the huge flow of refugees, the unrest on the borders and the movements of troops irritate the contradictions between them?
The New Yorker magazine reported last week that the United States has contingency plans to seize Pakistan's nuclear arsenal if Musharraf falls! That was rather badly viewed in Islamabad where the Government hastened to issue a strong statement asserting that the nation's nuclear arsenal was in safe military hands! But was that enough reassuring for Washington?
If Musharraf had since the beginning urged its American allies for a short military campaign, it was not just because he thought that a brief attack was the best way to end the menace! As it happens, he might have never thought of such a thing as toppling the Taliban and dismantling al-Qaeda in a few days. After all, he is a General. He knows what is at stake in this war. So, he could not have many illusions as to the short-term results of this campaign, which, according to the Americans, is still at its beginning! But the game where Gen. Musharraf has been embarked may reveal highly dangerous for the continuation of his own rule, and one can hardly pretend that he is unaware of it. And while the American military staff needs more time to reach some of its goals, Musharraf's grip on power is weakened a little more each day.
Seen from New Delhi, these facts are not much reassuring either. India is assumed to have more Muslims than Pakistan, while the nuclear weapons of the latter are still pointing at Ghandi's motherland! Sometimes, the Indians cannot help but tell themselves that, after all, it is the American policy in this region that resulted in such a mess! First, when President Nixon tried to "tilt" toward Pakistan in the 1970's Indo-Pak war, which ended with the revolt of nearly half the Pakistan and the independence of Bangladesh! That was a score for India! But ten years later the Pakistanis got their "revenge": they would support American war against the Soviet rule in Afghanistan and in return they would obtain the American silent complicity over developing their own nuclear weapons, which were pointed at India!
Today, the Americans are again fighting in Afghanistan - with the Pakistani support - the people they had armed to fight the Russians! It is said that tomorrow there will be a new regime in that country (i.e. Afghanistan), but before reaching that day, some order has to be settled, and some questions have to be answered. To delay the answers means only that the protagonists do not wish to see the bitter reality, wherein there is not much trust between the allies, and wherein fear of betrayal and dark conspiracies is undermining the conjugated efforts to end the terrorist threat.

___________
- 10 -
____________
HARD CHOICE FOR BUSH

November 7, 2001 Palestine Chronicle ; Middle East News Online.

The United States cannot merely urge Israel and the Palestinians to cool off their conflict, just because there is another conflict - in Afghanistan -, which the Bush administration deems more important. This is quite an irrational behavior. You cannot ask people who live under fire since long years and for whom violent death has become a daily lot, to forget their plight for the sake of the American efforts against the Taliban. You just cannot tell them: "our fight against Bin Laden is more important than yours. Wait for us until we finish the job out there. Then we'll set up something good for you!"
The choice for the Bush administration is not easy, though urgent. But to postpone it indefinitely is not a solution either. Nobody will take the decision instead of the present government. If it opts for delaying what has to be done right away, this administration would thus acknowledge tacitly its weakness. At times like these, weakness is equal to powerlessness, which is the best way to encourage what Mr. Bush pledged to fight: i.e. terrorism.
Time is important, and it has not yet run out of control for Mr. Bush. Many American Presidents have urged Palestinians and Israelis to have the courage of going beyond their pains in order to make peace. But not a single American President dared to put himself this precious advice into practice: i.e. in making the hard choice of allowing an independent Palestinian State to raise. Would Mr. Bush be the one?
It is understood however that the Americans will not choose instead of the peoples of Israel and Palestine. For the American President the choice concerns rather the Foreign policy, or to use Mr. Bush's own terms: " the vision".
Since Bush talked about his vision, all the Palestinians and the Arabs, and indeed all the Israelis, turned their eyes towards America.
When the Arab Foreign Ministers gathered in Damascus last weekend, they made sure that Osama bin Laden " does not speak for Arabs and Muslims", as Arab League Secretary-General put it. For them, it is clear that there is " a war between him (bin Laden) and the world". And since the Arabs do not exclude themselves from this unfortunate world, it is therefore clear that their choice is made: they will not side with bin Laden.
This position has been fully explained lately by Mrs. Hanan Ashrawi in the Commonwealth Club (: San Francisco) before a scheduled meeting with Mr. Colin Powell. Speaking for both the PA and the Arab League, she disavowed bin Laden's repeated invocation of the Palestinian cause, and said: " Our cause is not up for grabs. You do not have the right to use it for your ends. We have been victims all our lives and we do not condone the victimization of others". At the same time, she asserted what commonsense reveals to all of us: i.e. that the plight of the Palestinians is " one of the major causes of extremism in the world".
There are now assumptions about the next steps and the way the situation is going to evolve both in Afghanistan and in the Middle East. That is why there is a need for an American choice: would Mr. Bush " take the bull by the horns" and force Gen. Sharon to accept peace as he forces the Afghan people to accept war? Since the Palestinians - and behind them the Arabs and the Muslims- deny to bin Laden the right to talk for them, On the one hand, they are expecting that Mr. Bush translate his vision in a just and comprehensive solution for the Middle East conflict. Yet, they are not just waiting for theories and principles without an efficient field apparatus to carrying them out. On the other hand, they know that some choices would be painful for the Bush administration, but they are necessary. For if America is asking people in Palestine and Israel to make sacrifices, it is quite logic that Bush shows them the way. It would be utterly appreciated, not only in the Arab world, but also in Europe that the American President shows that if his vision hits Gen. Sharon and the Israeli hard-liners, he would not yield to them. For they know like everybody in this world that America has the means to bring the terrorists and the warmongers - like Sharon - to reason, even at the cost of important sacrifices.
Isn't America trying the same logic in Afghanistan? So, why not with Israel?



__________
-11-
________
BETTER LATE THAN NEVER
November 13, 2001 Palestine Chronicle ; Middle East News Online.

Would it be nice to snatch an acknowledgement from a giant that much less important is actually much more efficient and useful? The biblical legend of David and Goliath is easily recalled. But it is not serving the Israeli mythology of power anymore.

David is here the small people of Palestine, crushed so many times by the ultra-modern, ultra-sophisticated, and ultra-barbaric Israeli-American war machine. Yet, the Palestinian-David of modern times shows an unmatchable determination to resist the Zionist occupation and the American injustice. It has survived after so many butcheries. Its has never weakened. Its desire of freedom never faltered. And through all the past years, since the 1948 tragedy, I don't know what is the most amazing! Is it the determination of this small and great people, or the lack of generosity- not to say the cynicism and the hypocrisy- of the American giant? A LACK OF GENEROSITY? Yes, of course! How can we call otherwise the recalcitrance of this superpower's leaders to recognize what has been acknowledged by everybody in the world, as the legitimate right of the Palestinian people to independence? How many lives would have been saved, how many wars would have been prevented, if America showed eagerness to supporting the creation of a Palestinian State since the PLO began claiming it? But the zeal of the American governments was unilateral. It worked, indeed... for the Israeli State, until it reached the present impasse.

It was not nice to see the butcher of the Palestinians walking in the White House as if he were in his own "dacha". For a President who claims to be the inheritor of the great Abraham Lincoln, was it necessary to put his hand in the hands of a man acknowledged by his own people to be responsible for the massacre of thousands of Palestinians? The fact that Mr. Bush does not wish to meet Arafat does not make him more credible as a peace broker than those who preceded him. Despite what he had lately acknowledged concerning the necessity of a Palestinian State.

WHAT DID MR. BUSH BRING WITH HIM ANYWAY? A promise? The Arabs have got an overdose of promises! They do not wish more. They just ask for fulfilling what have been agreed on by the international community in the United Nations. That's all.

Simply put: The Palestinians are not asking for alms. They have been abused and victimized, and if they are still considered as terrorists by the US government, it is awfully regrettable. But tell us then: What's the point of endorsing a Palestinian State if the man who made this acknowledgement - i.e. Bush - is still refusing to meet Arafat? Does anybody in Washington think that such a project is possible without negotiating with the PA? Would the Americans create such a state only with Sharon's help? Are they thinking the Palestinians would accept any state, anywhere, at anytime, with anybody at its head? If this is what they think, they are not dreaming ... but only deeply sleeping (!) while the world is going crazy around them.

Egypt's killed President, Anwar Sadate, used to say: " 99,99% of the peace's keys in the Middle East are in the hands of the United States!" The figure is just enough funny to remind us of how Sadate himself and the majority of the Arab Presidents get elected in their respective countries, with 99,99% of the voices! In fact with the indefectible support of the USA and other "friendly" European governments, in many cases! But with the Palestinian people - whose elite is acknowledged to be one of the most educated in the Arab world - it is unlikely that this kind of conjuring works. More to the point: When the Palestinians decided to have their state, the US was far away from recognizing to them such a right. Today, the idea has become not only acceptable to the US government, but seems also very useful to gather the Arab and Islamic support.

Washington is late. But the French proverb says: Mieux vaut tard que jamais! (Better late than never).
___________
-12-
_________

AN EYE ON KABUL
ANOTHER ON ISLAMABAD


November 14, 2001 Palestine Chronicle ; Middle East News Online.

The USA is fighting this war with an eye set on the operations' field (Afghanistan) and another on its background (Pakistan). The worst that may happen is that while driving the Taliban out of Afghanistan, The Pakistan goes out of control. For the moment, Musharraf is still the man of the situation, but what would happen if both remaining Taliban and angered Pakistani extremists join in to turn their guns against the Pakistani government deemed to be weaker than its American and English protectors? The big concern is about the nuclear stockpile that would become the most dangerous anti-American weapon in case the extremists seize power in this country. The religious leaders have already declared war on the Pakistani government. Those who among them called on the overthrow of the government are now detained. But the situation in Kashmir is also tense. An Indian journalist has lately asked President Bush why do you advise restraint when we complain about terrorism, whereas you hasten to wage war at thousands of miles away from your shores when it is you that terrorism hits? Is an Indian life less important than an American life? Bush tried to explain then that terrorism is condemnable anyway and in all cases, but was the Indian journalist really convinced?
Pakistan and India have both had nuclear programs since the 1970s, and the two historic enemies began dueling nuclear weapons tests in 1998. Pakistan and India have fought each other in three wars since gaining independence from Britain in 1947, twice over the Himalayan territory they both claim in the Kashmir region.
Tensions over disputed region have risen again in recent weeks, and there is much to bet on the fire being triggered by the Pakistani Islamists. The latter obviously aim at dividing the allies. If they can restart in this moment any marginal war in Kashmir, and if the Indians bite the hook, it will be a success for the extremists. The United States has sought to walk a fine line diplomatically, maintaining friendly relations all around, while keeping an eye on the nuclear capacities of both nations. But sensitivities are very close to surface.
In fact, even with Musharraf entirely involved in the American game, there are still some worries as regards the relations with India. First, Washington has never favored this country since the time of Nehru, deemed to be, with Nasser, Sukarno, and Tito, one of the most dangerous anti-American propaganda activists. Decidedly, India was too close to the former Soviet Union - at least geographically, but not only - to be considered as a friend by Washington. Nevertheless, the US did not seek its animosity, at least officially, though its rapprochement with General Dhia -ul- Haq - former dictator of Pakistan- resulted in Indian bitterness towards the American "short-sightedness"! Both India and former Soviet Union had had trouble with their Muslim citizens. But at that time - the seventies and the early eighties- it was still easy to silence them. The real trouble began with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The Americans had then to choose: either arming the fundamentalists to fight the Soviets, or to keep silence about the invasion. They chose the first option, which at that time was perhaps not the worst. But like some medicines, it has secondary effects. One of these effects consisted in boosting the Mujahideens who quickly infested the whole region till the Russian Caucasus.
As it has been pointed out many times, Pakistan had two reasons to support the Mujahideens. First, the Pakistani military was - perhaps still is, which is another reason for concern- determined to pay India back for allegedly fomenting separatism in what was once East Pakistan and in 1971 became Bangladesh. Second, India dwarfs Pakistan in population, economic strength, and military might.
The US government estimates that India has 400,000 troops in Indian-held-Kashmir- a force more than two thirds as large as Pakistan's entire active army. The Pakistani government, as it seems, supported the irregulars as a relatively cheap way to keep Indian forces tied down. The question is now: How this situation has evolved since the beginning of the war against the Taliban?


_________
-13-
_________

PEOPLE OF KABUL

November 19, 2001 Palestine Chronicle ; Middle East News Online.

Whatever your origin, whatever your background, whatever your political opinion, whatever your race or your religion, you cannot be insensible towards the sight of people's happiness as Kabul is being liberated from the grip of terror and fear. It was such a releasing feeling, such a touching scene of the ordinary life! It was so simple and so great at once that one is almost unable to find the words depicting that discreet, and almost shy joy that we can read on the faces of some people of Kabul, the martyred city. The barber, who can at last do his job without fear. The painter who can today practice his art. The journalist, who can write and publish what he thinks, without being fired, or worst, executed. The TV speaker, who, after five longs years of forced silence, can accomplish the job she had been trained to doing. The photograph, who can finally catch his snapshots, without risking his life. The little girl, who can today go to school like millions of her alike in the world. The women who had lost husbands and brothers and fathers in the successive Afghan wars, and who were condemned to be prisoners in their own country, neither able to work, nor to lead a normal family life. And all the people of the modest professions. All those men and women whom we meet in the souks and the markets of every city. All those anonymous human beings, who do not care for the great international strategies, and who know absolutely nothing about the purposes of the elites in power, and about their struggle and thirst for gold soaked with the blood of the poor and the humble. All those little people of Kabul, who had fled the Taliban, or who had seen their sons forced to follow the dark path of Mullah Umar against their will. All those who had been forced to sacrifice. All those who did never imagine that their fellow-countrymen could be so cruel. All those who gave up life because they could not do otherwise. All those who gave up even their own death, because they no longer knew what to do with their life. Those who came back from the mountains and the caves. Those who came back even from the graveyards. Those who were born in the war and never knew to what resemble an ordinary day in a peaceful country. Those who were never born, because they were killed while they were still in their mothers' belly. And all the people of the suburbs, and the countrymen, and the people of other liberated cities and villages. Peasants without lands to plough. Traders without capital to grow. Street merchants reduced to be street beggars. Poets, musicians, writers, actors, painters, sculptors, filmmakers, lawyers, intellectuals, all of them condemned to be" reasonably" obedient to the obscurantism of the Taliban, and to give up their own reason to live. All those who never believed that a great religion like Islam could be made so criminal. All those who do know that only the hypocrites or the idiots think that bin Laden and the Taliban are Islamic heroes or even Muslims. All those who feel the real sense of these words in their flesh, because it was their own blood that had been shed, not that of any enturbanned megalomaniac sheik filled up with resentment and bitterness towards the whole mankind. All of those who do not wish anything but to be let alone, and to be allowed to live like ordinary folk live in all the other cities of the world.
All of those who came back to Kabul after its liberation, and who feel again that they are just as we are: ordinary people in a country that may be - and must be - entirely freed from the shadows of the past and the monsters of the present.
To all of them, we say: Welcome to life again!


_________
-14-
_______

TERRORISM AS A PROBLEM OF COMMUNICATION

November 21, 2001 Palestine Chronicle ; Middle East News Online.

Some people among the elite in the West imagine that the average Muslims resent the Western civilization. In their eyes, this is an important reason - if not the main- explaining what happened on Sep.11 in America. Those who hold such pretensions actually ignore what Islam is about. Who among them has only read the Koran? And who, reading it, tried thoroughly and honestly to read such or such interpretation of its verses by a recognized scholar? We can indeed reverse the problem and say: Some Muslims think that the average Christians and Jews resent them. And that is an important reason - if not the main- explaining what happened since the expansion of colonization in the 19th century and its continuation in the 20th century with the implementation of the Zionist state in an Arab land and its unconditional support by all the Western States that never faltered.
Thus, if we start by blaming the "other" as responsible for our own misery, we may perhaps alleviate our bad conscience, but this behavior would hardly help us finding out the real causes of our problem.
Some other people take just the extreme position at the other pole. Instead of charging the "other" of all the evil that happens to us, we should first see how we cause it even without being aware. Thus, a Christian or a Jewish Westerner would say for example: America and Europe are hatching violence and terrorism as an egg hatches a monstrous reptile. And if it is a Muslim, he would say: Why! Terrorism is our internal problem. It is an Islamic problem.
While no one of these four theses is quite wrong in the absolute, none of them is quite accurate either. It reminds me of a puzzle we are trying to piece together. If we forget only a single element of the game, we will not be able to reach the right result.
We have here these 4 propositions:
1- A Westerner: - The Muslims hate us.
2- A Muslim: - The Westerners hate us.
3- A Westerner: - The West is the cause of terrorism.
4- A Muslim: - The Muslims are the cause of terrorism.
In this quadraphonic figure of communication, the most striking phenomenon we can observe is that there is no internal communication between its four elements. Each one is speaking as if the three others do not exist at all. Each one thinks that what he says is the truth. For if anyone of them imagines that there might be also another truth, he would reconsider his judgment as relative, and thus he would be more prepared to hear what the other is just saying in the same time.
Unfortunately, the greatest problem of our world is perhaps about communication. In spite of the boom that touched all the aspects of our contemporary means of communication, we just do not know how to communicate. We think that we talk, but we do not know that the "other" does not understand our hotchpotch. We think that we issue significant signs, and we are not even aware that in the "other's" eyes we are just gesturing like a monkey! And thus goes an important part of our daily deals in communication, most of all when they are additionally complicated by international - insoluble! - problems.
So, what's the fuss is about? What have we to do in order to make ourselves understood?
If we come back to the aforementioned figure, we will have the four elements making the following subsequent statements:
1- The Westerner: - They hate us = Let's destroy them.
2- The Muslim: - They hate us = Let's destroy them.
3- The Westerner: We caused our problems = Let's correct ourselves.
4- The Muslim: We caused our problems = Let's correct ourselves.
What we can state here is that while the two first propositions make an absolute no-win equation, since if we put them together we would have war, and war is not the best and unique way to tackle the problem of terrorism and the issues related to it, the third and fourth propositions are suggesting another way, more peaceful and serene, to handle our problems.
Now, how would any State behave if confronted with the problem of terrorism, is not only a matter of political decision, but well before that, a matter of lucidity and good comprehension of the problem of communication.

__________
- 15 -
_______


CAN THEY STILL REMAIN ALLIES?

November 21, 2001 Palestine Chronicle ; Middle East News Online.

In the present context of regional seething (in the Middle East) and international crisis (the war against terrorism), any American pressure on Saudi Arabia will have reverse effects, if it does not merely backfire at its source.
How? Some of you would ask. The answer may be very long and complicated, but to make it simple and brief, you ought only to recall some fundamental principles:
1) The Israeli-Arab conflict is the most important determinant factor in that region, since it is not only shaping the frame of the Arab and Islamic mind, directing the public opinion and mobilizing the masses, but also foreshadowing the future changes in the geo-political map as well as in the internal struggles between the regimes in place and their opponents. To ignore this factor is to be blind. For either in the first Gulf war (between Iraq and Iran), or in the second one (between Iraq and the international coalition), or even in the present fight against international terrorism (the war against Taliban and al-Qaeda), any objective observer would not fail to notice that in these three crisis, the Arab- Israeli conflict was in the background of the picture, and in all three cases the Saudi Kingdom played a key-role.
As long as it will stay unresolved, the Arab- Israeli conflict will not only breed more wars, revolutions, and coups, some of which will be relatively uncontrollable or unmanageable, but will also justify any other internal or external conflict. For example: in the Iraq-Iran war, both states claimed that to defeat Israel they must first defeat those who help it: the Iranians depicted Iraq as a secular support of Great and Little Satans, (America and Israel)! One of the mullahs claimed that to reach Tel Aviv, the Islamic army of Iran must cross Baghdad! For its part, the Iraqi regime was keen on proving that Israel and America were supplying Iran with weapons! Etc. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia was siding with Iraq, and thus playing an important role, though not yet entirely unveiled, in the Iraqi war effort.
In the second crisis of the Gulf, the Iraqi claimed that with more oil supplies from Kuwait - under their control - they would be able to fight Israel and liberate Palestine! Thus, to liberate the Palestinians, they had first to invade Kuwait! Still, to give more credibility to these claims, Iraqi missiles rained on Israel when Iraq itself was under the fire of the allies. Here also, Saudi Arabia played a key-role.
In the present crisis (War against terrorism in Afghanistan and elsewhere), the Arab-Israeli conflict was again mentioned at the heart of the international struggle. Bin Laden took it as a justification for his war against the West. And the Bush administration sounded to understand what its enemy was playing at, and the American President responded in claiming plainly for the first time that he endorsed the creation of a Palestinian State. And once again, we will find Saudi Arabia in the background of the scene. But this time in an ambiguous position, since the Saudi kingdom is for the first time considered by some American media and politicians as possibly "dangerous".
2) Subsequently, the Americans criticizing the Saudis cannot imagine perhaps the good they do to them in the Arab Street. Slowly emerges presently in the Arab and Islamic world, an image of Saudi Arabia as not only the wealthy country focusing almost selfishly on its own self-development - as it has been the case until recent time -, but rather as the country of Islamic militancy. As we said, in the context of an unresolved Arab-Israeli conflict, this is not bad for Saudi Arabia, but rather the contrary. Either in the Arab Street, or in the political spheres, people are now considering Saudi Arabia as one of the very few Arab states able to make the Arab - Palestinian especially - voice heard in the West.
How can it be otherwise, when we see how some American media, politicians, and even - lately - religious men (like Franklin Graham), demonize unscrupulously today Islam, Muslims, Arabs, and Saudis? How would the Arab public opinion react when the evangelist Graham, declares in an interview on NBC that "Islam is very evil and wicked religion"? How would the same public opinion react when an editorial of the prestigious New York Times states that " one of the disturbing realities clarified by (September's) terror attacks is Saudi Arabia's tolerance for terrorism"?
The bias against Saudi Arabia sound as a condemnation of the whole Arab world. The ordinary citizen wonders now: if the Americans treat their allies the way they do today with the Saudis, then what is the necessity of maintaining that alliance?



___________________
- 16 -
_________

LEBANON AND TERRORISM


November 22, 2001 Palestine Chronicle; Middle East News Online.

Though there is little indication about any change in the relationship between the USA and Lebanon, some rumors keep insisting that this country may be the next target for the American war-machine, since it is accused of being the refuge of many groups related to bin Laden (: see for example the Janes'report on Nov.21). Nothing in the behavior of the American officials betrays such intentions, though. In his message to President Lahud on the day of independence (November 22), Mr. Bush made clear that while working for global peace in the Middle East, he wished more involvement of the Lebaneses in the fight against terrorism. The impression the message leaves is that it is worded in conventional diplomatic fashion, well pondered and balanced. So, where do these rumors find their sources? Maybe not in the declarations of the American officials, but more likely either in some security concerns, or in the rage of the Israelis and some of their zealous supporters to find something to entangle the Americans with in Lebanon.
They will not have to dig very deep in order to reach what they seek. The method is simple: some of the men who fight Israelis in Lebanon are - "must be ", that is- the terrorists the Americans are looking for! Though the ambiguity is straining, the examples abound.
- Imad Mughniyah, presumably the head of Hizbullah's special overseas operations, is a first target.
- Usbat al-Ansar is a second. According to some sources, Mughniyah's collaboration with Bin Laden has occurred mainly in conjunction with Usbat-al-Ansar (the league of supporters), a militant Palestinian Sunni Islamist group assumedly operating from the Ain al-Hilwah refugee camp in the southern Lebanese port of Sidon and, possibly also, from the Nahr al-Bared camp in Northern Lebanon.
It is said that the leader of the group, Abu Mohjen - alias Ahmad Abd al-Karim al-Saadi- is linked to bin Laden's network, and that he has left Lebanon for Africa, and it is his brother Abu Tarek and assistant Abu Obeida who are in charge now.
- Another possible target is Takfir wa al-Hijra group, led by Bassam Ahmad Kanj (alias Abu Aisha) who, with many other members, had fought alongside bin Laden in Afghanistan against occupying Soviet forces in the 1980s. He is said to be financially supported from overseas associates of bin Laden through bank accounts in Beirut and North Lebanon. Before rallying bin Laden in Afghanistan, Kanj lived in the USA where he met his wife Marlene Earl, who converted to Islam. In the early 1990s he returned to the USA, where he had had in that period close ties with Raed Hijazi, who was later indicted for involvement in a series of foiled bombing plots by a bin Laden cell in Jordan that were timed to coincide with the turn of the millennium. Two of the suspected hijackers who flew on separate flights out of Boston on September 11, Ahmad al-Ghamdi and Sata al-Suqami, have been tied by federal investigators to Raed Hijazi.
- A fourth target may be Munir Maqdah, who on March 28, 2000, was indicted by Jordan's State Security Court on charges of providing military training to a group of bin Laden's followers who planned to carry out terrorist attacks in the Kingdom. In September, he was convicted in absentia and sentenced to death. But it is said that Damascus who controls Ain al-Hilwah refugee camp has always refused his extradition.
To be sure, these are a few examples from a list of 27 names of men suspected of having links with al-Qaeda that has been sent from the US government to Beirut. Thus, to pretend that there is no problem between Washington and Beirut is to be misguided. Yet, to pretend that the existence of such a problem is enough to waging war against Lebanon is to miss completely the point.
Primo, the Lebanese government is likely the most embarrassed by such a situation. For though, Neither the President nor the Prime Minister can afford to dissociate themselves from the resistance movement against the Israeli continuing occupation of Shebaa farms and the Golan, as from the popular feeling towards the Palestinian plight, they do not seek the American hostility either.
Secondo, In the Lebanese effort of reconstruction, both the West and the Arab world are needed. Lebanon paid the price for sustaining the Arab cause during 15 long years of civil war, not to say anything of the repeated Israeli aggressions. If there is a country yearning for a just peace, it is well Lebanon. If there is a country abhorring violence, it is well this one. So why should Lebanon face the American war machine? At the worst moments of the Israeli aggressions, the Lebanese officials never mistook Israel for America, albeit they condemned the silence or the complicity of the latter.
Tercio, it ensues that Washington ought to weigh the situation. This is not Afghanistan, where al-Qaeda and the Taliban have hijacked power. This is a country that has always been in the camp of the progress and democracy. That is why it has been targeted by many foes of freedom, but despite the pressures, neither its intellectual elite nor its political class in its majority never yielded to fascism and terrorism.
___________
-17-
________


THE LAST ROUND: (2)
AMERICAN DOUBLE MESSAGE


November 25, 2001 (MMN) ; Palestine Chronicle; Middle East News Online.

A diplomatic source that opted for anonymity, contended that "whether former President Bush wanted it or not, he made the unforgivable mistake of allowing Saddam to remain in power, when he was able to bring him down. This is the very cause behind all the terrorist attempts that struck America since 1993. For Mr. Bush did exactly what Machiavelli had warned any lucid ruler from doing in his " Prince": if you hit a powerful man, don't just wound him, but kill him right away, for if he survives he will never forgive you."
According to the same source, Usama bin Laden and all the mess about the Taliban is just a smoke-screen to cover the American failure in tackling the terrorist threat which was quite real since the first attempt at bombing the World Trade Center in 1993. Some people in the American intelligence agencies think that Iraq - not any Islamic fundamentalist State - has sponsored the operation against New York City's twin towers, but they could do nothing because:
1- there is no sufficient evidence.
2- the political consequences could be drastic. For America would subsequently recognize that it is well its own policy towards Iraq that caused its violent wrath and desire for revenge.
3- that could lead to completely reversing the tide in the American opinion, from the current indifference vis-a-vis 11 years of embargo against Iraq and continuous siege (with no fly zones and sudden air raids now and then) towards wondering whether it is really worth.
4- Therefore the American administration will be put under popular pressure, for as long as the terrorist threat was anonymous and remote, people in the US felt safe and the government was trustful. But if the policy towards Iraq reveals to be the cause of unrest inside the USA, then there will be two options:
- Either the government is able to put an end to the threat, by a quick and efficient action.
- Or it is unable. Which means the policy must be changed.
5- As it is unlikely that any American administration recognizes its own mistakes, the government would opt for a mystification: You need to know who is the enemy? Ok. It is bin Laden and the Taliban! There is no evidence about Iraq involvement; which means that the administration wants to win time, and to carry on with the same policy until the moment it feels it good to act otherwise.
Two persons at least in the Bush administration made the current dilemma very clear. Mrs. Condoleeza Rice told the Arab satellite TV network al-Jazeera on Oct.15 that " we worry about Saddam Hussein. We worry about his weapons of mass destruction... and certainly, the United States will act if Iraq threatens its interests." And Mr. Paul D. Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary advocated striking Baghdad as soon as " we find the right way to do it."
But former President George Bush can obviously not live with a feeling of guilt upon his shoulders. In a CBS interview on Oct.23, asked if he had any regrets about not going after Saddam Hussein in 1991, he said: "The answer is no. What would have happened if we had done that is we would have been alone. We would have been an occupying power in an Arab land...And we would have seen something much worse than we have now, because we would have had the enmity of the entire Gulf. Egypt would have been gone. Jordan, who came back, would have been gone; Turkey, you name it. So I think we did the right thing."
This is not an opinion easy to sustain, some people would argue. First, because the US was claiming to fight against a dictatorial regime. Now any country that has been for long years victimized and crushed by a dictatorial regime would logically welcome its liberators. If Mr. Bush was sure that Saddam is an unpopular dictator, why did he refrain from helping the Iraqi people to get rid of him? The answer he gave suggests that he was worried by the reaction not only in Iraq where the US would have become " an occupying power" whereas logically it was expected to be a liberator, but also in the Gulf region and in Egypt and Jordan! This is just amazing, because while trying to relieve himself from responsibility and guilt, Mr. Bush gave us - unawarely - another message: Maybe Saddam Hussein is not - after all- the unpopular dictator the Western media was indicting! Maybe if" we" entered Iraq and tried to topple his regime, the Iraqi people would have revolted against us as invaders, not with us as liberators!
Obviously, such logic cannot help the American cause. Bush did exactly what both administrations - his and Clinton's- has long pretended avoiding doing: i.e. making of Saddam a popular hero while they were seeking to vanquish him! Bush's argument did not reduce his responsibility as regards the consequences of Desert Storm, while it proved just the contrary of what he was saying. Is the USA today less alone? Are the Gulf States, Egypt, and Jordan still in the American lap? Has the American popularity increased among the Arabs since 1991? And if this is so, why the old Arab allies dispersed and kept their distance with the current administration confronted with a terrorist threat and seeking their cooperation?
The Iraqi officials have no illusion as to the intentions of the US administration. In an interview with London's Sunday Telegraph, Tariq Aziz, Deputy Prime Minister, said " its is just a matter of time". He is convinced that the US and Britain plan to launch one thousand missiles at 300 Iraqi targets. People are already speculating about the "phase two" in the US response to Sep.11 attacks. For many of them Iraq is the designated target, not only because President Bush has to complete what his father left unachieved, but also because the real danger is not Usama bin Laden but well Saddam Hussein!
Anyway, there is no doubt about a connection between them, say some commentators. William Safire wrote in The New York Times (Oct.22) for example a story that was substantially run by other people close to the Iraqi National Congress (the Iraqi opposition). Much of what he tells us about Jim Hoagland's precious ears, and the "Iraqi ties to terrorists", is available on the Arabic site of the I.N.C., along with Mr. James Woolsey opinion. As the latter is the former director of C.I.A., one has no difficulty in making the rapprochement between what he says and what Safire, Hoagland, and the anonymous report of I.N.C. were saying.
The story may be summed up in few lines:
Faruq Hijazi, Saddam's ambassador to Turkey, has had a series of meetings with bin Laden. These began in Sudan, arranged by Hassan al- Tourabi, the Sudanese Islamist leader, and continued in Afghanistan. The conspiracy was furthered in Baghdad in 1998 between bin Laden's lieutenant, Ayman el-Zawahiri, and Saddam's vice president, Taha Yasin Ramadhan. To strengthen Saddam's position in the Arab world during his 1998 crisis with the United Nations, bin Laden established the "World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and the Crusaders". Saddam reciprocated by promising secure refuge in Iraq for bin Laden and his key lieutenants if they were forced to flee Afghanistan.
However, for Mr. R. James Woolsey, Iraqi implication in the terrorist operations in America can be proved even since 1993. He says: " little was done to discover the implications of the fact that one of the indicted plotters, Abdul Rahman Yasin (who held Iraqi and American citizenship) fled to Baghdad after talking the FBI in New Jersey into releasing him. There are indications that both he and Ramzi Youssef, now in prison in Colorado, may be Iraqi agents."
But the question is not new.
In March 25, 1997, a petition was presented to the United States Court of Appeals on behalf of Timothy James McVeigh by his defendant, under the reference (case No.96-CR-68-M). To save the head of the terrorist who bombed the Murrah building in Oklahoma City, his lawyer imagined a very simple scenario where he would be no longer the cold-blooded killer but rather the victim, manipulated by more powerful than him. The document entitled " PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS"suggests the following hypothesis:
A foreign power, probably Iraq, but not excluding the possibility of another foreign state, planned a terrorist attack(s) in the United States and that one of those targets was the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma city (...) The plan was arranged for a Middle Eastern bombing engineer to engineer the bomb in such a way that it could be carefully transported and successfully detonated. There is no reported incident of Neo-Nazis or extreme right-wing militants in this country exploding any bomb of any significant size let alone one to bring down a nine story federal building and kill 168 persons (...) This terrorist attack was "contracted out" to persons whose organization and ideology was friendly to policies of the foreign power and included dislike and hatred of the United States government itself, and possibly included was a desire for revenge against the United States, with possible anti-black and anti-Semitic overtones."
Then the document suggests that Iraq had already tried its hands at such a conspiracy in 1990, but had been thwarted by Syrian intelligence information given to the United States! Taking in consideration that first failure, the Iraqis decided then to act from a remote base in the Philippines!
Operating out of Philippines as a base, the state-sponsored (sic) terrorists, with the Murrah Building already chosen as the target, enlisted the support and assistance of members of the Radical American Right. The defense believes the evidence suggests that American neo-Nazis were chosen to carry out the bombing of the Murrah Building because of a shared ideological bent of hatred against the American government. It is possible that those who carried out the bombing were unaware of the true sponsor.
But the most striking is about another piece of information, which reveals that the FBI had an informant in Elohim City who warned the Bureau of a plot targeting for destruction federal buildings in Oklahoma, including the Murrah Building. And you know what? The FBI buried the information! The lawyer of McVeigh went even to the extent of comparing the case with the World Trade Center bombing and stating that " it is similar"! Which ultimately means that both operations are related, although the persons who carried them out came from different environments!
Enter Sherman H. Skolnick (see part 1 of this story) and the CIA.
For the former there is evidence that both FBI and CIA knew about the conspiracy and buried the information in order to protect Bush and Clinton who allegedly were deeply involved in business with Saddam! But for the latter, it is not the American government but well Saddam - and his ally bin Laden- the source of all the troubles.
For any impartial observer, the question raised by this concatenation of events is about the credibility - not the acknowledged legitimacy - of the American response. Thus, if we take the example of the anthrax affair, we may wonder whether the American administration is trying to find the truth or just something corroborating its own assumptions about the Sept.11 attacks? Second question: behind the insistence on Iraq necessary involvement in all these terrorist operations that struck the United States, is there a non-said acknowledgement that America is also guilty?
Remember the aforementioned double message - the apparent and the latent- of former President Bush!



________________
- 18 -
_______________

THE LAST ROUND: (3)
WHO CARES?

November 26, 2001 (MMN) ; Palestine Chronicle ; Middle East News Online.

If we believe some sources, there is little doubt amidst the American Intelligence people as to a next terrorist attack. The controversy is not about whether it is going to happen or not, but about when and where! It goes without saying that with such a little material we are not progressing at all. For what is the use of warning people of an imminent catastrophe if we cannot give them a clue about efficiently protecting themselves? If the warning was just a justification of the ongoing bombing of Afghanistan, with a little effort the administration may certainly find better. And if it is just to make any failure of the intelligence and security people more "acceptable" - in pretending that we knew it! - it is rather going to be a poor excuse, in case another terrorist attack happens really.
Senator Richard C. Shelby for instance, from the Senate intelligence committee, warned the reporters as early as October 4: " we have to believe there will be another attempt by a terrorist group to hit us again"! Which looks like a preventive political bet rather than a foreseeing intelligence data based on an accurate information. This is just the kind of talk that is presently widespread in the American media, concerning so many issues related to the terrorist topic. People are speculating and making a lot of assumptions, for the facts are still hard to guess and predict.
Ultimately, there is nothing new in all that talk. And the politicians who had to deal with varied aspects of the Security problem in relation with the international order - some analysts would opt for the word: disorder! - know it very well. Mr. Rumsfeld, speaking on the NBC program "Meet the press" in the last days of September, said: " There's always been terrorism, but there's never really been worldwide terrorism at a time when the weapons have been as powerful as they are today, with chemical and biological and nuclear weapons spreading to countries that harbor terrorists". So, this is just the way to outline the problem. But it could be done in other words. We can for instance have the same topic overlooked from Tehran, or Baghdad, or Riyadh, which are just at the opposite side - and not only geographical.
Thus, for Mr. Hashemi Rafsanjani, chief adviser to Iran's supreme leader, the United States is paying the price for supplying anthrax to Iraq, which fought a bitter war with the Islamic Republic in the 1980s.
"They knew anthrax was not a conventional weapon of war, but they supplied it to Iraq", he said on Oct.26: " Now anthrax, which they themselves sent to this region, is back to haunt them"!
But Rafsanjani would certainly have avoided to be confused though he was able to read the New Scientist's report on the question published just two days prior to his declaration. Under the headline " Anthrax bacteria likely to be US military strain", the report read:
"The bacteria used for the anthrax attacks in the US is either the strain the US itself used to make anthrax weapons in the 1960s, or close to it. It is not a strain that Iraq, or the former Soviet Union, mass-produced for weapons. "
The same viewpoint has been, by the way, emphasized by a story run on Oct. 25- a day before Rafsanjani's revengeful declaration- by The New York Post, which has served as a target-address for the anthrax senders. " Some investigators believe the same person may have written both sets of letters", reports Murray Weiss, who mentions then- the prevailing feeling that " the anthrax does not point to an international terrorist group", but could be "manufactured here"!
But that was hardly going to be the end of the story. And Iraq is most likely to remain a suspect, not only because the truth cannot be established on behalf of a single version - were it Einstein himself who wrote the report for New Scientist! - but also because there is not an agreement between the scientists themselves on a clear and sound explanation. Let us be simple: if such an explanation exists, would the US government hesitate a second to make it worldwide spread? At a time when Mr. Bush is so keen upon broadening his anti terrorist coalition, any sound evidence concerning the Sep 11 attacks and the anthrax terror would be much welcome and very helpful, to be sure. But the point is that we are still trampling with foggy assumptions.
The trail leading to the American ultra-right-wing groups as possible suspects has been lately outdone by the discovery of the anthrax cases in Pakistan. We know that the FBI was - perhaps is still - investigating about the attempts - successful or not, we don't know - made by some of those groups to get the deadly bacteria from several US- based laboratories before it surfaced in Florida. But if the anthrax "does not point to an international terrorist group" as it has been believed, why should it appear also in Pakistan?
The Pakistani case shows, if need be, that no trail should be dismissed as unlikely before the terrorists are known and arrested. Besides, it corroborates the assumption that Usama bin Laden may be in possession of chemical and biological weapons. Anyway, it is not hard for him to get them, for if we believe some sources, he bought some samples of anthrax by mail from shady laboratories in Eastern Europe and Asia for as little as $ 10,000. The confession of a former follower- Ahmad Ibrahim al-Najjar- at a recent trial of more than 100 members of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, unveiled these facts. According to al-Najjar, "factories in the Czech Republic and elsewhere in Eastern Europe supplied deadly bacteria, including salmonella, by mail without checking the identities of the purchasers as long as bin Laden agents paid $ 7,500 up front." Bin Laden's group was able to get the anthrax germ from another factory in Southeast Asia, which supplied it to the Indonesian -based Islamic Moro front.
Unfortunately, this is not the end of the investigation. The question that remains unanswered is: how can we check up the veracity of this testimony?
The Iraqi trail is actually another headache, maybe the most important for the American investigators who are not willing to believe that Baghdad has entirely destroyed its stocks of chemical and biological weapons. The Israelis made even a duty out of plunging their poisoned dagger into the chest of a dying camel! The Jerusalem Post wrote on Nov. 1: " at least two pieces of evidence point to Iraq as the source of the anthrax". The first is a " chemical additive" found in the powder that is identical to what is known about Iraqi anthrax! What is that "additive"? -No answer! The second indication is that " Iraqi anthrax can generally be treated and cured after it has taken effect"! That is great! But...the Israeli writer has not invented the lukewarm water! Obviously he forgot that some victims are already dead! Furthermore, he added that Rafi Eitan - who is a professional intelligence officer who had retired after the Jonathan Pollard affair- told him: " we already knew in the seventies (...) that Saddam was developing anthrax as a biological weapon"! And he believed him! (: Uri Dan: Saddam's death labs).
Unfortunately for them, there are people who cannot allow such lies to have a long life. For example, the Federation of American Scientists who published a detailed report about the Iraqi Biological weapons program.
According to this report, anthrax could not be found in Iraq before March 1988.
On that date, a new site for biological weapons production was selected at a location now known as Al Hakam. The project was given the designator "324". The design philosophy for the Al Hakam plant was taken from the chemical weapons research and production facility at Al Muthanna: the buildings were to be well separated, research areas were segregated from production areas and the architectural features of Muthanna buildings copied where appropriate.
At Al Hakam, production of botulinum toxin for weapons purposes began in April 1989, and anthrax in May 1989.
Initially, much of the fermentation capacity for anthrax was used for the production of anthrax simulator for weapons field trials. Production of anthrax itself, it is claimed, began in earnest in 1990. In total, about 6,000 liters of concentrated botulinum toxin and 8,425 litters of anthrax were produced at Al Hakam during 1990. After 2 August 1990, the date of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Iraq's biological weapons program was drastically intensified. The emphasis was shifted to production and later to weaponization of produced biological warfare agents.
So, if these are the facts as recorded by the F.A.S. how the Israelis were able since the seventies to know about anthrax production in Iraq?
Anyhow, the real headache is not about whether Iraq was producing anthrax or not. Everybody knows it was since the Iraqi themselves declared the production of 8500 liters of concentrated anthrax, according to the F.A.S. report. (6,500 liters were even filled into munitions: bombs and Al Hussein warheads, etc.) The question is about the current capabilities of Iraq. And here the same report makes an unequivocal statement:
" Iraq has medical, veterinary, and university facilities where biotechnical research and development can be carried out. Some of these facilities likely are staffed by former members of Iraqi biological warfare program. Much of the laboratory equipment is dual-use and could be used for biological agent development. Iraq has the equipment, raw materials, and know-how for bulk production of biological agents for weaponization and the means of delivering the agents. With the equipment Iraq is known to possess, 350 liters of weapons-grade anthrax could be produced each week, according to Iraq's own production figures".
That is why Iraq is still a main suspect in the American eyes. And it is unlikely that the situation changes even if there is not much evidence concerning its involvement in the terrorist attacks against the United States.

In her well-searched essay about " The World Trade Center Bomb", Laurie Mylroie says: " In February 1993, Saddam ordered his agents to try to topple New York's tallest tower onto its twin, and if, in January 1995, Iraq sponsored an effort to destroy eleven US airplanes in the Far East, then Saddam has not been quiescent"!
All right! But how did she know that? Believe it or not, she gathered it from the Iraqi press!
She says that " in the fall of 1994, Baghdad's official press, in essence, threatened that Saddam might use his remaining unconventional agents, biological and chemical, for terrorism in America, or on missiles delivered against his enemies in the region if and when he became fed up with sanctions". (: The National Interest, winter 1995/96).

That means that Saddam got obsessed with the twin towers since that time and ended by bringing them down! This assumption is a "fitted carpet" for Mylroie's thesis about the Iraqi revenge to which she dedicated a book.
Needless to say that by these troublesome times such speculations may get a favorable wind.

That is why it is not unlikely that after being done with the Taliban job, the American war-machine turns to facing Saddam... for the last round! Maybe it would not be done on the grounds of some sound evidence about the Iraqi involvement in the terrorist operations. The Americans do not need evidence however to prove that the Iraqi government is their enemy. But if they strike again, it is because neither they are ready to forgive the Iraqi regime and to turn off the page, nor they can afford to have it staying anymore in that hot region. Anyway, they say, who cares if we drop one more time our bombs on Baghdad?
Really! Who cares?





__________
-19-
_________



AMBIGUITIES BETWEEEN
BEIRUT and DAMASCUS

November 28, 2001 Palestine Chronicle ; Middle East News Online.

Just after my story about Lebanon and terrorism has been published, last week end, I read Saturday's editorial of Mr. Gebran Tueni on Annahar, wherein he deplored a recent police thrust into a university campus, and wondered when would we stop repeating the famous verse of Al-Mutanabbi: 'idun bi 'ayyati halin 'udta ya 'idu! Which is quite untranslatable, though perfectly understandable to whoever never sees any joy in the returning feast! Mr. Tueni's words were simple, but so touching because of the great pains we feel between the lines. I cannot help but quote here some of his most significant sentences:
"When would the state stop behaving in that occasion as if it were its own enemy and the enemy of its people? And why are we still adamantly waiting for the least sign from Syria in order to turn the page of the past and to get ahead? Isn't that the reason that let so many Lebaneses consider the so-called Syrian service in Lebanon- which we distinguish from the Syrian presence- as the main disservice factor as regards the full independence of Lebanon and its sovereignty?"
Thus, storming the campus of St. Joseph University, " as if it were an enemy base", and holding the students guilty of demanding Lebanon's independence back, is not the right way to commemorate such a day, contends Mr. Tueni, and he adds: "a state that does not believe in freedom should not be trusted with the welfare of a nation whose basic fabric is freedom."
Well said! Yet, after all what he mentioned, which is perfectly ordinary in an Arab state, it was expected that this editorial would never see the day so that only its writer could read. But Lebanon is not any Arab state to be sure; neither Annahar is any newspaper, not to say more about the editorialist himself who does not need to be introduced.
In fact, this is a source of amazement. For despite all these acerbic - and even deadly - criticisms Mr. Tueni directed to the state, and indirectly to those who are in charge, the newspaper has not been shut down, and neither his owner nor his editor have been sued, so far.
I am not taking here the defense of the Lebanese government, whose crackdown on the students has been condemned even by some of its ministers, but I mean only to show the positive side in Lebanon, which is exclusive in the Arab world. The fact that the state allowed Mr. Tueni to publish such an editorial- although I concede this is a right - means that maybe there is still a hope in this country, and that in spite of the negative aspects mentioned by Mr. Tueni, Lebanon remains still democratic and tolerant as we know it, as we like it, and as we want it.
However, one can perfectly understand what Mr. Tueni and so many Lebaneses he voices, feel. Which is mostly indicating the existence of a problem, and a huge one. And despite Mr. Tueni avoided any blunt clash with Syria, as he did with the Lebanese government, it is crystal clear that Damascus is responsible for an important part of the internal Lebanese problem. He mentioned, by the way, the fact that there are no diplomatic relations between the two states, as it is the case for the rest of the Arab countries. And though he sought some reassurance that Syria does recognize actually the independence of Lebanon, it is hard for whoever read his editorial not to wonder: What is this relationship between two states wherein there is no diplomatic representation and no protocol? Why is it not the same between the other Arab states and Lebanon? This is certainly to add more ambiguity to an already obscure relationship.
It is no secret that some Lebaneses are talking about a disguised Syrian occupation of their country, since it is Damascus that decides who will be appointed at such or such key-position, according to its interests. So, what if Damascus undertakes today to lift these ambiguities?



_______________
PART FOUR
______________

-1-


AMERICAN NEW VISION
in the Middle East


December 1, 2001 (MMN) ; Palestine Chronicle ; Middle East News Online.

The slogan of the University of Louisville, (Kentucky) where Mr. Powell gave a long expected speech last Monday (Nov.19) is: " Dare to be great", as the Secretary of State himself reminded the audience. And since his speech was pre-announced and preceded by many signs emanating from the Bush administration, suggesting that an important peace initiative for the Middle East is under way, the expectations were just as great as the problem itself.
Powell started talking of the problem. The first point he made crystal clear concerns the cornerstone of the whole American policy in the Middle East: It is neither the oil, nor the relations with the Arab and Islamic world. Once again, this is not enough for the USA to build the "broadest conception of American national interests" in this region. But it is well the security of a single state that thrills the American policy makers, no matter what that state does, for " this will never change", says the Secretary of State, thus giving Israel an eternal status, although eternity has nothing to do with the policies of this world.
Once this point is made enough obvious, the American " positive vision for the region" would be as limpid as water flowing out of a source.
Let us emphasize the point one more time to make sure that it is well the message Powell wanted us to understand: the source of the American positive vision is Israel's security. And all the rest will follow.
How the Arab states committed to the American policy would react is no concern of the Secretary of State! Would it be accurate that they interpret the message as meaning that the security of Israel is determining the policy of the US not any other consideration (like oil, or friendship with the Arabs, or mutual interests, etc)? This is their business, not Powell's!
If we do not give more importance to the most important concern of the American policy, we will find that there are some positive aspects in this "positive vision", though. For example, the Secretary made sure that the American plan includes " two states, Israel and Palestine", living " side by side within secure and recognized borders".
Ah! Then after all, there is going to be two secure states, not a single one!
First contradiction! Some observers would perhaps notice. But this is not the case. For if you recall the aforementioned cornerstone, you will understand that the security of the second state- not yet created - will be determined by the conditions, the necessities, and the interests of the first state, that is Israel! So, where's the contradiction?
The American logic is coherent, though uneasy to understand for the Arabs. And the Secretary of State is a realistic man. He knows that " until Israel and all of its neighbors are at peace, our vision of the Middle East at peace will only be a distant dream".
It will be then the role of policy to make that dream come true. But how?
There are many propositions included in this Secretary's speech. Of course, he cited the UN resolutions 242 and 338," rooted in the concept of land for peace", reminding us of the past possibilities that had been tested, like the Madrid Conference, the Oslo process, and the tools that are still available to an accurate usage. For instance, the plan negotiated by Mr. George Tenet, and the Mitchell Committee report.
About all he mentioned here there is no disagreement among the Arabs. They have already accepted them, as everybody knows. The resolutions 242 and 338, for example, have been at the heart of all the Arab claims since so many years. But what about Israel? Have we to remind anybody that these two resolutions deal with the occupation matter and ask Israel to end it?
Here too, we must do a justice to Powell. He said clearly: " For the sake of Palestinians and Israelis alike, the occupation must end". And he called for both parties to resume negotiations, with the help of Mr. Burns and the new appointee as senior adviser General Anthony Zinni. But in the same time he kicked his own shinbone, when he merely espoused the stubborn views of General Sharon. The latter, as everybody knows, has never been a supporter of negotiations with Arafat. This is matter of public records. But his tactics consisted at trying to gain time in provoking the Palestinians and pretending when they react that they do not want to negotiate. Sharon has charged the Palestinian Authority of all the evils, and thus, if Israel is still occupying their territories it is because they wanted it!
The Secretary of State in his last speech has echoed this same view. He mentioned for example the " lynching of Israeli soldiers in Ramallah, the assassination of the cabinet minister and the killing of Israeli children " as casting the " deepest doubts about whether the Palestinians really want peace"!
Indeed, the Secretary of State tried to balance this view in mentioning also the torments of the Palestinians under occupation: daily humiliations, murders, etc. But anybody who reads the speech and takes care to count how many times the Secretary of State pronounced the term "must" related to the Palestinians or the Israelis, would find an amazing result.
Mr. Powell said, " Palestinians (or Palestinian leadership) must " ten times, plus one time when he included them in:" all in the Arab world must". As concerns the Israelis, he said "must" a single time, which is "Israel must be willing to end its occupation".
Is that enough to make the "positive vision" really a balanced one? To answer by "yes" is unlikely.
Is that enough to make the "positive vision" cogent in American eyes? Yes, if we recall the aforementioned cornerstone of the US policy in the region.
Yet, because of the pressures put in this speech at least ten times on the Palestinian side, which is rather relieving for the Sharon government, there is still an important distance for the American envoys to cross in order to reach the " distant dream" of peace mentioned by the Secretary of State. And the distance is certainly not geographical, but political.
To gain confidence of the Arabs, they would have to distance themselves from the extremist views of Gen. Sharon. This is not yet accomplished. And it would be as hard to achieving as the Israelis themselves would ask for more support from the US.
What hampers any progress is not the goodwill of the persons- we cannot judge people on their intentions- but it is rather some determinism. To be more efficient in working out a peace process, the US diplomacy has to go beyond some of its believed "eternal" principles.
The world we live in is rapidly changing. The nonsense consists exactly in believing that the doctrines and the governments that issue them are eternal. This is not true. The Arabs may be as important to the US interests- if not more - than Israel. To believe that the security of Israel could be granted without the security of the Arabs, and the future Palestinian State included, is the deadly mistake upon which stumbled successive American administrations.
If the American policy in the Middle East needs really a cornerstone, - a kind of doctrine-, it is all right. But unless it is balanced in its consideration for " the broadest conception of American National interests", to use the own words of Powell, the cornerstone will remain only a stone. A huge, a monstrous stone, hindering the flow of limpid "policy" from its source, and hampering the clear view for the decision-makers.
This is not just to say that you cannot lead a new policy with old means and older principles. Neither is this to suggest that Israel is of no strategic value anymore to the USA, after the collapse of the communist block. It is perhaps true, but we must underline the relativity of such pretensions. To take another example, Iran is no less important as a strategic asset after the change at its top. Yet, it remains so far an unreachable asset for the US. To pretend that Washington is not interested in resuming relations with Tehran because of the poor record of human rights achieved by the latter, is to prove candid as regards the relations between states. As long as the Shah Mohamed Ridha was ruling, the USA has never been ashamed of being involved as a supporter of his dictatorship.
Indeed a New World emerged from the collapse of the Berlin wall, as the wind of freedom crossed Eastern Europe until the borders of Russia and the Caucasus, wiping out the cranky red dictatorships. But if Israel remained a key-piece in the US strategy of containment, other players began to emerge, changing the map and the priorities as well.
Is it possible, for example, after Desert Storm to consider that Israel is helping America in a renewed fight against the Russian penetration in the Middle East? This is just non-sense. And this is not so because the Russians are not trying to gain influence in the region, - indeed they are. Why should they stop? - but rather because the Russians are no longer the Soviets. What was America and the free world fighting was neither Russia nor the Russian people, but an ideology that made of almost half of Europe - and so many other countries- the slaves of the Kremlin. That is mainly all what the cold war was about. And in that period, Israel gained its credence as the watchdog of the USA. That was also the case of Iran prior to the Islamic revolution, and to some extent Turkey.
But the signature of the peace accords between Egypt and Israel in 1979, helped making of this important Arab country another pillar in the edifice of the American strategy. At the same time, the effects of the second wave of the oil boom began to be felt in the region. The influence of the Saudi Kingdom went increasing. It will be disturbed only by the growing rise of its powerful neighbor: Iraq. The two countries are ideologically and politically at opposite sides. Before being a clash between Iraq and Kuwait over oil production quarrel, the August 1990's crisis was indirectly a clash between these two visions: the traditionalist (Saudi Arabia) and the baathist (Iraq). And with hindsight, it seems as if the eight years war between Iran and Iraq, was just a parenthesis or an intermediary period paving the way before the greatest clash that ever happened between contemporary Arab states.
Where was the USA in this picture? It was not far away. All that time Washington was watching and trying to exploit the contradictions between the different protagonists. Israel maintained the pressure at variable levels. When it judged that the situation was enough ripe to attempt some operation supposed to enable the Israeli for more supremacy, the Israelis leaders did not hesitate. That was for instance the case of the raid against the Iraqi atomic reactor in 1980, just a few months before General Sharon ordered the invasion of Lebanon and the siege of Beirut.
Needless to say that the picture changed several times since then, but what remained invariable concerns the tight cooperation - not to say the complicity - between Israel and the USA during all those years. On this level, Mr. Powell is quite in the line of the traditional American policy. And when he asserts that " since Israel's establishment over 50 years ago, the United States has had an enduring and ironclad commitment to Israel's security", he is not inventing a policy but just stating its existence.
Nevertheless, why should the Israeli security be absolutely excluding its neighbors' right to have secure borders and stable status?
This is not only the problem of the Palestinians, but also that of Lebanon, Syria, and even States that have signed peace accords with Israel and who do not take the Israeli commitment for granted- to say nothing about Iran or Saudi Arabia, etc.
To take an example from recent events, the fact that some Saudis took part at the Sep 11 terrorist operation seemed for some American observers enough to indict the regime of Saudi Arabia as responsible for terrorism! And the Israelis, against logic and commonsense, did everything to corroborate the idea of a complicity between some Saudi royals, and bin Laden, and even Saddam Hussein! Thus, in 24 hours, forgetting that the terrorists had struck in Saudi Arabia itself before striking in America, people started wondering about whether it was right to have such tight relations with the Saudis!
But prior to Sep 11, one must recall that the US-Saudi relations were tense, and the dispute was then concerning mainly two topics: 1) terrorism (the operation of Khobar), and the Americans who accused the Iranians of fomenting or sponsoring it, said that the Saudi authorities did not help the investigators. Worse, they might even have hidden information, because they sought to improve relations with Iran.
2) The Palestinian plight: and here it was the Saudis who were accusing the US of encouraging Sharon with their off-hands position on the conflict.
But though the dispute was serious, it is absolutely absurd and abusive to take it as an excuse to pretend that the Saudis sponsored the terrorist operation in America. The cautious position of Riyadh as regards the war in Afghanistan inflamed the minds a little more. Terrorism has thus become a monster bred and nurtured by Saudi Arabia! Hence, the foe is no longer Saddam, but the ailing king Fahd or his brother, the Crown Prince Abdullah!
But if after Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan, the USA seeks also to add Saudi Arabia - and why not Egypt, Jordan, Yemen, and the Gulf States - to its list of states sponsoring terrorism, who among the Arabs will remain in the American camp?
An editorial of The Washington Post (Nov. 11) states the following:
" The Bush administration needs to carefully consider how to manage the relationship (with Saudi Arabia) through a broader war against terrorism. That, to succeed, must change much about the Middle East. The starting point for change must be a recognition that Saudi Arabia's domestic political order is a vital US interest, not a matter that can be subordinated to military or energy-supply priorities".
It goes without saying, that a "positive vision" for the Middle East, if it does not include such changes in the optic itself, as to balance the positions and to increase the level of credibility, will not be able to deal with the varied problems emerging from a conflicting context.
"Dare to be great", says the slogan of Louisville University. It is precisely what is lacking in the US policy towards the Middle East.



______________

- 2 -
_____________

THE LEBANESE QUAGMIRE

December 5, 2001 (MMN) ; Palestine Chronicle ; Middle East News Online.

The commemoration of the 58th independence anniversary in Lebanon took the aspect of a confrontation between the government and the opposition. The police crackdown on the students of St Joseph University was qualified as a mistake even by some members of Mr. Hariri's cabinet. According to Lebanese sources , the Prime Minister sent a message to father Selim Abu, the university rector, asking him to cancel the strike he has called for, but in vain. Those who condemned the police intervention were not only some members of the parliament and intellectuals, but also some ministers such as George Afram, Pierre Helou, Marwan Hamada, Ghazi al Aridhi, and Fuad Saad. The Defense Minister, Khalil Heraoui, while trying to justify the crackdown said," the mistake consisted in ill- considering its political consequences". For his part, Mr. Michel al Mour, Minister of the Interior, acknowledged that " it was a mistake that was supposed not to happen"! And if the Maronite Patriarch Nasr allah Safir, did not make any declaration that could be exploited by such or such party, some people close to the Government talked of a political over- exploitation of a minor event , which could not be dissociated from the regional context and the American war against terrorism. Even a scheduled visit to Beirut by the Syrian Foreign Minister, Farouk Assharaa had to be postponed. But at the same time, Mr. Hariri received General Ghazi Kanaan, chief of the Syrian military intelligence in Lebanon. The meeting included a discussion about the United Nations' 1373 resolution, as it has been said, as well as the expected visit of the American envoys. Nothing leaked, though, concerning talks about the recent disturbance where students and opposition leaders lifted slogans against the Syrian presence in Lebanon. Was Damascus really keeping silence? That is hard to say.
Many opposition parties were actually represented in the campus: The CPL of General Michel Aoun, the FL - Forces Libanaises -, the Phalangist base close to Amine Gemayel, the PNL - parti national liberal -, the PSP - socialist and progressive party, the PC - communist party -, the independent left, and national block . Thus, apparently, for one time we see leftists and rightists agreeing upon a single demand: That Syria leaves Lebanon! This is not what we may call a " minor event" - as it has been labeled by the Interior Minister, M. al Mour. For the hostility between the two camps has rarely been overcome and transcended by a purpose far beyond the contradictions and the paradoxes. But what is reproached to the Syrians and to the Lebanese government seems to be very motivating for those students whose movement has soon bypassed St Joseph campus and stretched to other universities.
Nonetheless, the students' disturbance is not the only trouble for Mr. Hariri's government. And though the Syrians are observing it with a lot of suspicion and -maybe- some worries, they keep reminding the Lebaneses of the menaces still hovering on their heads. On the southern borders, the Israeli army is still ready to invade their country if such is the will of General Sharon. And the opposition answer to this argument may be summed up in these questions: would Syria defend Lebanon against an Israeli invasion? Where were the Syrians when the Israelis occupied the country and besieged Beirut? Why did they not shoot a single bullet against the invaders? Moreover, if the Syrians are so strong as to oppose Israel's belligerence, why instead of keeping 35000 soldiers in Lebanon, did they not send them to liberate the Golan Heights?
In the same process, some observers hint now overtly to the Syrian involvement in the darkest events of the Lebanese civil war. For them, Syria's role is something that has to be cleared out, once and for all. They acknowledge that the Lebanese government is committed to a 1991 general amnesty that protects all Lebanese citizens from prosecution for wartime activities. However, they notice that this amnesty has been selectively lifted to prosecute (or threaten with prosecution) Syria's enemies, most notably former Lebanese Forces commander Samir Geagea, who is serving several life sentences for ordering assassinations in the late 1980s. Why Phalange security chief, Eli Hobeika has never been harmed? Some of them wonder. And the answer they give is: because he is protected by the Syrians!
However, such an accusation is not exclusive to the Lebanese opposition. Some Palestinian sources remind us that the Sabra and Shatila massacre occurred after a Syrian agent, Habib Shartouni, a member of the National Socialist Syrian Party, planted a bomb in the Phalange party headquarters, resulting in the death of Lebanese President-elect Bashir Gemayel along with 40 Phalange members (September 14, 1982). This same Shartouni was sentenced to death, but was released by his Syrian masters after serving only six years in a Lebanese prison.
Eli Hobeika, on the other hand, who directly commanded the slaughter of Palestinians in Sabra and Shatila, not only went un-tried in Lebanon under Syrian control, but also today is the only Phalange leader who escaped assassination arrest or deportation. He even held many high-ranking positions, and served three times as a minister in various Lebanese governments.
Saleh al-Na'ami, a senior political commentator for the Hamas weekly, Al- Risala, wrote after the BBC/Panorama program about Sharon, saying: " with all honesty, there is a certain degree of hypocrisy in the Arab coverage of the Sabra and Shatila massacres! It is true that Sharon bears responsibility for these massacres, but the people who committed these war crimes with their own hands, were never tried".
Eli Hobeika " who was head of security in the Lebanese Forces when they committed these massacres and who supervised the mass killings and the rapes" went on Mr. Al- Na'ami, " boasted in the BBC film itself that he was never, nor will he ever be tried, and that he lives completely free. The same goes for Fadi Afram, the commander of the Lebanese Forces, who had an actual role in committing the massacres."
For the Al-Risala's journalist, it does not make any doubt that it is well the Syrian government who not only protected Hobeika but also " rewarded him two years after the massacre, by appointing him as a minister in the Lebanese government."
However, on the agenda of Mr. Hariri this is hardly the most urgent of his priorities. Anyway, Hobeika is not the only man assumedly protected by the Syrians. Some Palestinians - and not among the most moderate - are said to be also under the Syrian wing. This is perhaps more a complicated problem for the Lebanese government, which is put under a double - if not a triple pressure: from the Americans, from the Syrians, and from the Lebanese opposition.
Following the September 11 attacks, US ambassador to Lebanon Vincent Battle met with Lebanese officials at the foreign ministry in Beirut and conveyed to them the demand of Washington: to seize terrorists, prosecute them and hand over or expel those who are wanted. On September 23, President Bush issued an executive order to freeze the assets of 27 individuals and organizations called on their governments to do likewise. Included on this list was Usbat al-Ansar, a Palestinian Islamist group in Ain al Hilweh, and three Lebanese nationals: Imad Mughniyah, Hassan Izzidine, and Ali Atwi.
According to some sources, Mughniyah is the alleged mastermind of the June 1985 hijacking of TWA flight 847, during which US navy diver Robert Stethem was murdered. Mughniyah is also believed to be responsible for planning the 1983 bombing of the US marine barracks in Beirut which killed 241 servicemen, as well the abduction of several American civilians in Lebanon during 1980s.Izzidine and Atwi, described by the FBI as members of Hizbullah's terrorism apparatus are accused of having participated in the planning and execution of the TWA hijacking.
Relations with the USA took a turn for the worse in November when the Americans requested that Lebanon's Central Bank seeks out and freezes Hezbollah’s assets. Hizbullah's answer was swift: his Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah accused the US of acting on the wishes of Israel and of waging war against every Muslim who refuses to bow to it. On November 6, Finance Minister Fuad Sinyura announced that Lebanon " will not follow the US in freezing Hizbullah's assets because it views the group as a resistance movement and not a terrorist organization. Our position ", he added, " is that terrorism must be defined and that those who are trying to liberate their lands are merely practicing resistance. "The Cabinet officially backed Hizbullah on 8 November, saying resistance to Israel was legitimate as long as Israel occupied Arab land.
Some Lebanese bankers did not hide their worries. The Economy might suffer from American sanctions they contended. Foreign banks not complying with Washington's requests can be excluded from the US market and have their assets blocked. Others warned of a flight of capital if customers find they cannot perform normal transactions. This would be a tremendous blow to the government trying to fund the country's huge public debt and bolster foreign reserves.
On November 11, US National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice raised the stakes claiming that the Lebanese government " needed to reintegrate into international community in order to survive economically." And she added: " Lebanon would not succeed in securing international financial assistance unless Beirut met Washington's demands. Lebanon's very existence depends on such compliance".
Under such a pressure, where the Lebanese government would seek support and help?
The Arabs are not of much help. The Europeans - particularly the French - wish to be present and helpful, but according to their views which are not always concordant with the Lebanese'. One must not omit that the French had grown recalcitrant and somewhat frightened by the Lebanese quagmire, after they lost some of their men in the civil war, among whom we recall ambassador Delamarre. They have thus paid the price of their involvement in a game that soon bypassed them and made of them victims when they thought they were the masters! Quite recently, during a visit to Beirut, French Prime Minister made the enormous blunder of labeling Hizbullah " terrorist"! Which infuriated the political class in Lebanon, and the Quai d'Orsay was well obliged to apologize. Besides, the fact that France occupied Lebanon some years, does not mean that the French understand this country better than others, neither it gives them more "rights" to be involved with its politics than other nations, argued some prominent intellectuals. What occurred to some French personages in Lebanon during the civil war should teach them modesty, they added. Even though they do not like to remember those dark years of blind killing and hijacking, that victimized some of their citizens and representatives, the lesson was clear: they were not more welcome than the Marines. Their policy towards the Israeli-Arab conflict was certainly not more appreciated by the Lebaneses, the Syrians, and the Palestinians, since it was judged complacent towards Israel and unbalanced. Their critics of the American and the British connivance did not fool the Arabs, who knew that without the French support, Israel could have never had so rapidly its nuclear weapons (just an example among many others).
Thus, for those intellectuals, the Lebanese problem - whether the Westerners like it or not - is part of the conflict with Israel. The terrorism also is the offspring of that explosive situation. Those people wanted by the Americans, like Abu Mohjen, the leader of Usbat al-Ansar, and others are said to be protected by the Syrians. It seems that Damascus has vetoed any move by the Lebanese authorities to enter Ain al-Hilweh, for instance. Moreover, why should they enter the camp? As early as October 10, Lebanese Prosecutor-General Adnan Addoum announced that the judiciary had not ordered the freezing of Usbat al-Ansar's assets. While noting that some members of the group had been convicted for carrying out terrorist acts, Addoum said that the judiciary did not consider Usbat al-Ansar itself to be a terrorist organization.
Yet, on November 25, the Lebanese army was said to have pushed closer than ever to the immediate rim of Lebanon's largest Palestinian refugee camp, sparking fears of a military assault to crush Usbat al-Ansar. An estimated 200 army troops, backed by armored personnel carriers and military vehicles fanned out Friday on Taamir a neighborhood adjacent to Ain al-hilweh, setting up roadblocks and conducting patrols for a few hours before they pulled out, according to Lebanese sources . The army operation in Taamir took place less than 24 hours after an explosive charge rocked a military checkpoint at the entrance of Ain al-Hilweh Thursday evening. The blast was the second of its kind in less than 10 days.
Nobody was arrested, but the message was clear: the Government did not appreciate to be threatened. This is also another reason for the reluctance of the Lebanese authorities to comply with the American demands. They actually fear that after some years of relative civil peace, responding positively to the American request may cause an atmosphere of unrest and instability. The questions some of them ask are: What did the Americans do to help Lebanon? And how may anyone imagine that it is easy for Beirut to dissociate itself from the Syrian fate, when the Arab lands are still occupied by Israel?


_______________________
- 3 -
________________

SHARON'S “FINAL PLAN”!

December 5, 2001 Palestine Chronicle ; Middle East News Online.

Coming back from a meeting with President Bush in Washington, the Israeli Prime Minister seemed more than ever determined to carry out his "final " program as regards the Palestinian Authority! Ordered to retaliate for the three suicide bombings of last weekend, his warplanes and helicopters launched their fiercest air attacks in 14 months, firing one missile near Arafat's West Bank office in Ramallah. He was not hurt, because his men had taken him to a shelter, but nothing can prove today that he was not the target.
Indeed, an Israeli spokesman pretended that they did not mean to kill him! But they would have said exactly the same thing if they succeeded, wouldn't they? A "mistake" - or more precisely a well-calculated mistake- may happen at any moment. After all, what did the Israeli committee that unveiled in the eighties Sharon's responsibility in the massacre of thousands of people in the refugees' camp in Lebanon? It was a "mistake", they pretended! And when they killed hundreds of people in Kana - in Lebanon also -, despite the fact they were sheltered in the United Nations' compounds, what did they say? It was a "mistake"! But Sharon himself did not even recognize that it was a mistake! Justifying the massacre in Sabra and Shatilla, he merely and shamelessly said: " Goyims cut Goyims' throats! We have nothing to do with that!" Of course! His " brave" soldiers were just watching nearby and keeping the sinister accounts!
The way everything slipped out of control since Sharon's arrival to power is almost stupefying! Day in, day out, violence has become the only language both parties talk. And since the envoy of the State Department, Mr. Zinni, has not yet left the region, they merely made of him the powerless witness of the guns' power! One cannot help but ask: is Mr. Zinni naive or is he stubborn? Can't he see that his mission has already been terminated even before it began? With whom is he going to talk about peace? Even Sharon's colleague in the Cabinet, the Foreign Minister Shimon Peres acknowledged recently in Bucharest tacitly that Sharon is in a mood of war. He said: " I know there are many members of my party who think the time has come to leave the government"!
Moreover, whether the Americans like it or not, and whether they are aware of it or not, Sharon made of the meeting with their President a " green light" for his last military operations against the Palestinian Authority. If that loose missile has hit Arafat, who would have been held responsible for his death? Sharon? Of course, but with Mr. Bush alongside him in the picture! And nobody in the world would have been able to persuade the Arabs that the strike was not planned and agreed on in Washington!
Yet, all the American officials blamed Arafat for his " permissiveness" towards terrorism! The man has survived by miracle, as the missile exploded at a very little distance from his office, and they are still reproaching him not to do enough to deserve a medal from Sharon! He had ordered the arrest of dozens of militants since the weekend, and they are still pretending that he patronizes Hamas and other activists! But even if Arafat has passed away under that Israeli missile, they would have still found that he had not done enough to stop violence, and that's why he became its victim!
745 Palestinians - at least - have been killed during that uprising against 222 Israelis, and both American officials and Israelis are pretending that the terrorism is Palestinian not Israeli! They see the dead of the Israelis and they never count the dead of the Palestinians. Why should they count the latter? They have nothing special! They do not belong to the "elected people"! Were they only human beings? Who could ever prove it? Their families? They do not exist! Their state? It is still a vague idea! Their country? A mere illusion! So what if they kill them to the last man, to the last woman? So many massacres have already occurred and went unpunished.



________________
- 4 -
___________


A MATTER OF PERSPECTIVE

December 5, 2001 Palestine Chronicle ; Middle East News Online.

In a recent interview on NBC's "Meet the Press", U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared:" Arafat is not a particularly strong leader, and I don't know that he has good control over the Palestinian situation"! Then he added: "He has not ever delivered anything for the Palestinian people throughout history. His record is not particularly impressive"!
These words show clearly the way the Bush administration deals with the Palestinians. Not only it marginalizes and provokes them in inviting General Sharon to the White House and ignoring Arafat, but also in considering their cause just a spare wheel for the needs of Mr. Bush's war effort in Afghanistan and its expected annexes. True, to save the appearances, the administration sent out Mr. Burns and Mr. Zinni. But that was done just after Mr. Bush snubbed Yasser Arafat, not only during the last session of the United Nations, but rather since he came to power, while Sharon was being received by the master of the White House.
Yet, we cannot say that those who executed the last attacks against Israel chose this moment precisely in order to respond to the American indifference towards a great national leader of Mr. Arafat's level, since the latter was the first to condemn them and to order the arrest of some of their assumed leaders. However, it is not unlikely that the attempts aiming at abstracting and weakening Arafat- which started since the arrival of Sharon and with - apparently - the agreement of some of Mr. Bush's men - opened the door to those successive explosions of the Palestinian anger. To be sure, the American President was ill advised: to meet Sharon without meeting Arafat, means that America is still encouraging the occupier. But though the last operations against Israel coincided with both, the arrival of Zinni to the region and the visit of Sharon to Washington, nothing proves that they have been planned in close connection with these events, as an attempt - by Hamas or whoever masterminded them - to blow up the new diplomatic process.
Anyway, what does Mr. Rumsfeld mean when he says, " Arafat is not a particularly strong leader"? What is strength here? Is it the capacity to stay in power, or the ability to mute and rein in the resistance movements? Is it rather the capacity to creep at the feet of Israel and Washington and to crush the rights of the Palestinian people?
Whatever the answer should be, anybody can observe that Arafat had already responded to the pressures and ordered repression. But indubitably, the majority of the Palestinians do not think that this repression - ordered under pressure- makes Arafat stronger, while Israel and the Bush administration still believe that Arafat has not yet reached the required level of "strength" in oppressing his people and stealing its freedom and alternatives. This is indeed a matter of vision and perspective.
Thus, what Israel and Washington view as strength, others consider as weakness, injustice, and humiliation.
And what Israel and Washington view as an endeavor favorable to peace, some observers and actors in the Arab world still consider as offending millions of people and attempts to fool them and despise their minds, their principles, and their creeds.
And what Israel and Washington view as good and fair deeds, may be considered by one billion and half people in the Islamic world as villain and vicious terrorism, against which everybody should fight.
The whole thing is then a matter of vision’s angle and perspective.





_______________
-5 -
___________

BETWEEN ARAFAT
AND SHARON

December 17, 2001 Palestine Chronicle ; Middle East News Online.

Even before leaving the United States for his Middle East visit, Mr. Zinni’s mission was doomed: the Israeli assassination of Hamas military leader Mahmud Abu Hanud three days before the expected arrival of the US envoy had already reduced his chances of success. Not surprisingly, Hamas retaliated. The contrary would have been just inconceivable. Moreover, the Israeli officials boasted and made of such acts something almost heroic. Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer has said that what was “inconceivable” for Israel is “ not to have killed Abu Hanud”! The Israelis did not show any consideration for the cease-fire mediation mission of Secretary Powell’s special envoy. Whereas he was their guest, they flatly ruled out suspending their assassination program, pompously labeled “targeted killings”. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s media adviser, Ra’anan Gissin told the reporters that as long as there are “hot and specific warnings” of imminent suicide bombings, Israel will act to foil them. Then comparing the Israeli assassination program to the mission of the American soldiers in Afghanistan, Gissin said: “we are exercising our right to self-defense on the basis of Article 51 of the U.N. charter!”
It was so “kind” of him to compare the dirty job Tsahal is doing in the Palestinian territories with the mission of the American soldiers in Afghanistan! And if some honest Americans find the comparison awkward, they ought to recall that this is not the first time it has occurred. Sharon himself has likened bin Laden with Arafat many times. Besides, Gissin dared mention the article 51 as a justification for the Israeli assassination program! Israel is though the last state in the world to abide by the U.N. charter and resolutions, which it has ignominiously ignored for about 34 years. And it is well the United Nations, which lately reminded Israel of some of these ignored facts, through Mrs. Mary Robinson’s statement delivered on December 5, 2001, to the Conference of High Contracting Parties of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Speaking about the Israeli collective punishments – such as prolonged siege and closures of the territories and destruction of homes and agricultural land-, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said: “ these actions on the part of Israeli authorities cannot be reconciled with several articles of the Fourth Geneva Convention, nor with international human rights law”; not to add anything about the Israeli assassination program!
Indeed, the State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said it was Mr. Powell who “ asked senior adviser Anthony Zinni to return to Washington for consultations”. But according to the Israeli newspaper Maariv, Zinni was marginalized by Sharon himself: “ He thanked me for my efforts, and made me understand that I have nothing more to do in the region at this time”, Zinni reportedly told State Department officials.
Actually, it was not much practical for Sharon to have Zinni on his back while he was determined to go to the end of his warfare logic. His declaration about cutting ties with Arafat was just a stage in the unfolding of that logic. Whether the last speech of Mr. Arafat calling for a cease-fire and ending suicide operations will have any effect on Sharon’s escalating logic or not, is perhaps of less importance to know than the fact that this is no longer a fight between Israelis and Palestinians in general, but rather a “ bras de fer” – or a personal clash- between Arafat and Sharon.



________________
- 6 -
___________


Reactions (1)
December 18, 2001 Palestine Chronicle ; Middle East News Online.
So, the U.S. and Israel’s officials reacted to Mr. Arafat’s speech by asking him for deeds not words. Otherwise, shut up and show us to which extent you can go in relaying the Israelis for repressing your own people! Well-done gentlemen! Bravo! That would teach him a lesson about playing a double game!
Now, either he will comply with Sharon’s conditions and make himself the accomplice of the Israeli serial killer, or he will find himself on the unemployment list! Of course, it is obvious now that either way, he will be a loser! For if he does exactly what Sharon has been asking him to do since he came to power, he will lose credibility among the Palestinians. And if he stops at the stage of speaking without further steps including the dismantlement of "Hamas", "Jihad», "FPLP", etc…as required, he will be of no use for the US-Israeli alliance. The trap was well hidden, and he headed straightforward into it! A fine scenario, that is! Trouble is that the U.S. and Israel’s officials were not alone to quickly react to Arafat’s speech. Both Israeli army and Hamas answered the elder Chairman. The first by killing three Palestinians, including a boy; and the second by issuing a declaration reminding him that they have never sworn allegiance to him. For Hamas, " the call contained in Arafat’s speech to the Palestinian people and its factions to stop the resistance to the Zionist enemy even if the executioner Sharon continues his aggression… leaves the door wide open for him (Sharon) to continue his extermination campaign against our people… We are confident we will triumph by pursuing our jihad and our legitimate resistance to the occupation." That is to seal the deal even before it starts! It means that Hamas will neither accept Arafat’s authority nor allow him to dismantle its network. And we may as well say the same thing as regards the other Palestinian organizations. Thus, if Arafat is willing to confront these factions instead of confronting Sharon, that would reduce enormously his chances of negotiating a viable peace agreement with Israel. Such dissensions between the Palestinians are not new. In Arafat’s own Tanzim, -Fath – life was not always easy and contrarily to an erroneous idea propagated by the Israelis, the Palestinian militants are not a flock executing sheepishly the orders of the leader. Democratic institutions still exist, and Arafat will never be able to make his own choices those of the Palestinian majority if he is not convincing. Now, what assets did the Americans put in his hands in order to convince his people? The fact that the official position of the U.S. government lines up almost automatically behind Sharon does not make the task easy for Arafat. Each time the latter steps forward and extends his hand towards the Israelis and the Americans, they recuperate whatever he proposes and ask for more, while continuing the same policy. What do they want more? Would a civil war between Palestinian factions satisfy them? Are they sure that more a credible, more a viable, and more a conciliating leadership, would emerge out of it? Would they negotiate with Hamas if this organization and its allies win? Are they sure that a blind repression against the Islamists and their allies would strengthen the moderate and the laics, with a man like Sharon on the other side? Mr. Bush used to ask Arafat for one hundred per cent efforts in order to obtain better results. Well! Why does he not ask Sharon for the same thing?
________________
-7 -
______________
REACTIONS (2)

December 23, 2001 Palestine Chronicle ; Middle East News Online.

Whereas the Arabs are - as usual- diving in deep waters of confusion about the schedule and the agenda of the pre-announced reunion of the Foreign Ministers, expected to support the Palestinians, all the other parties seem to know what they are standing for, in respect of the same subject. It has to be noticed that, for this time, it is neither the Israeli position nor the American that causes such confusion among the Arab states, but rather Mr. Arafat himself! No wonder! Differences over the position to adopt concerning his last speech could torpedo the meeting, if it is not already done. Today, there are those who see his speech as tactical and necessary, and those who think that he had completely dropped the mulberry leaf and stood naked before the Israelis and the Americans! The first hope that if the next Arab meeting endorses Arafat’s position, which would encourage the resumption of U.S. Peace mediation. The second think that if such endorsement happens, it would be like a complete surrender of the whole Arab world, without any guarantee from the Americans.
In fact, the effect of Arafat’s speech on the Arab world sounds much more resounding than its echoes in Israel and the United States. Indubitably, it would be excessive to pretend that there are now two different periods: one before the speech, and the other after it. Some observers sound ready to working things out in this direction, though. We can already read commentaries suggesting that « before Arafat made his speech, things were different »! Or: « the meeting was convened before the speech, and subsequently the reasons for holding it have changed »! Etc.
Nonetheless, claiming that there are two Yasser Arafat - two men in one, that is! -, one before the speech and another after it, is pushing the cork too far. Why not three men, by the way? Would we omit the Arafat who was uttering the speech at the moment between the « before » and the « after »?
Meanwhile, neither the Americans nor the Israelis shifted positions. Maybe the unique incentive for Arafat came from Paris, when just after his speech President Chirac called him for a « little chat » on the phone. On December 19, the Quai d’Orsay spokesman condemned again the continuing violence and renewed « the appeal the European Union heads of state and government made in Laeken » last weekend for the two parties « to implement the commitments required of them ». The spokesman noticed that « while Chairman Arafat gave clear signs of his commitment to stop the violence in his speech on Sunday, the Israeli government also has its share of responsibility to contribute to this. »
Coming from the official representative of the French Foreign Minister, this is actually not a useless statement. Besides, he emphasized that the heads of government in Laeken were perfectly clear: « Arafat is an elected president, there’s no question of disputing it ». Such a stance
is meant to remind Sharon- or whoever supports his plans for getting rid of Arafat - that the latter’s position inside the Palestinian political spectrum depends only on his people’s will. The French spokesman made sure that Paris considers that any obstacle or threat against Arafat, -for example his going to Cairo- would be a violation of the Oslo agreements. « We don’t see that it would be useful to prevent Mr. Arafat from traveling. It could only lead to insecurity. May I remind you », he added, « that the European Union has asked Israel to lift all the restrictions imposed on the Palestinian people. There is no reason for Mr. Arafat to be prevented from moving around ».



____________
-8 -
___________

CATCH!

December 24, 2001 (MMN) ; Palestine Chronicle ; Middle East News Online.
With all his millions, his friends, his allies, his followers and the rest of the “team”, bin Laden is apparently not yet ready to let himself being captured and dragged before a court, like Milosevic… if he is still alive, should we add! If he is not, the only problem consists in finding his corpse among the debris of the American bombing. As we know, without such an evidence, the man would be considered still living, even if he had died three hundred times under hundreds of bombs. Which means that the American headache is today the physical existence or extinction of the man. Both issues have to be materially proved. Thus, dead or alive, bin Laden has grown to become a kind of heavy load on the stomach of Mr. Bush. Alive, he would confuse the American administration and still challenge it. He may even-though unsolicited- intervene into the internal political game, and prevent Mr. Bush from being re-elected next campaign. Dead, without sepulcher, he would still poison the American life for many years to come.
The fact is that the man we recently saw on the videotape, may be bin Laden himself or his double! How would you know? Some sources propagated the idea that there are no less than four doubles of the same man! If such “clones” exist, where on earth have they vanished? Maybe it is not easy to find a single man, but what about the four others? Not a clue? This is then a legend that circulated widely in the world. Behind it was indubitably the same man. The un-anesthetic, insolvent, yet ethereal bin Laden!
Again, nothing proves that he has fled Afghanistan. At this very hour, when everybody is looking for him under each stone of the Afghan mountains, he might very well be sheltered somewhere on the same land, at the nose of the American soldiers! After all, this is not the first time they failed to reach him. Bob Woodward and Thomas E. Ricks have reported how the CIA in 1999 secretly trained and equipped approximately 60 commandos from the Pakistani intelligence agency to enter Afghanistan for the purpose of capturing or killing Osama bin Laden. “ The operation”, they say “ was arranged by then-Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his chief of intelligence with the Clinton administration, which in turn promised to lift sanctions on Pakistan and provide an economic aid package.” It was neither the first time nor the last that a plan was set in motion with that purpose. The record of failures and missed opportunities, if it does not impress the present administration, enhances the legend of a man gifted with an incomparable sixth sense that has, so far, made him invisible, if not invincible! Compared with him, the mythical Che Guevara seems almost a kid. An Arab dictum says: If you know how to steal and do not know how to hide, you know nothing! Apparently, bin Laden is a professional in both activities!
In 1999, the clandestine operation – decided less than 12 months after U.S. cruise missile strikes against bin Laden’s training camps in Afghanistan- was part of a broad action including massive bombing raids and Special Forces assaults. Curiously enough, the man who in October 1999 aborted the plan and refused any involvement with the Americans for its execution is the same man who in October 2001 – observe the amazing concordance of the dates! – accepted to work hand in hand with Mr. Bush to carry out a broader operation! It was actually General Pervez Musharraf whose coup against Nawaz Sharif put an end to the aforementioned plan. Furthermore, he refused to continue the operation after overthrowing Sharif, despite substantial efforts by the Clinton administration to revive it.
The war against Taliban, which started on October 7, was not meant to end terrorism, - neither Mr. Bush nor any of his men rocked themselves with such a lullaby- but only to fight it on one of its numerous domains. Even before the defeat of Taliban, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged the difficulty of seizing bin Laden. Recent history shows that it is not always easy to catch one or even a dozen men on their own territory. In this context, it is not unlikely that the true reason behind stopping the Desert Storm’s machine short of overthrowing the Iraqi government in 1991, was rather the impossibility to reach Saddam than the fear of being considered as an invading force, as Bush (the father) pretended. Moreover, neither Saddam nor bin Laden are the first “wanted” men to escape the American hunters. If we begin with Nasser in the sixties, for instance, we would find a long record of “missing” men on the list of the “wanted”! Those “missing”- if they are not naturally dead today- are still running, and generally in good health. Not only they have challenged the mighty America, and deliberately failed to answer “present” when they were pressured to, but their own record proves to whoever takes the time of thinking it over, that they could live and sometimes even prosper with a Damocles sword hovering on their necks.
Men like Cuba’s Castro, or Libya’s Kaddafi, or the late Syria’s Assad, or all the Palestinian leaders with Arafat – America’s new friend! - at the top of the list, not to say anything of the Russians, the Chinese, and of so many Asiatic, or African “damned” – like Mandela – who, at some period were not acceptable to the American establishment.
This is neither to justify their behavior nor to belittle America’s power, but just to put politics in the sphere of men’s relative acts. In our time, so many naive people are prone to believe that political actions belong to eternity. Thus, their leaders are kind of half-gods, or saints, or supermen! Mr. Bush himself talked about a “crusade” against Taliban, then retreated and explained that he did not mean it in the religious sense, which almost everybody in the Islamic world have understood. Yet, we can observe that some players put the strain on the “religious nature” of some political conflicts. To follow them on this ground is to embark for an endless trip across a dark tunnel leading nowhere, but to a blind chaos.
An ex-adviser to Pakistani Prime Ministers Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto, wrote: “ if US strikes bring the Taliban regime down but fail in getting their real target, the terrorist network and its alleged leader, it would be only a spurious victory.” Is this what is happening today? “ Osama bin Laden and his associates”, he added, “ will probably slip outside Afghanistan and find a less welcoming base of operations. Their network will have to pay greater attention to evasion and concealment. But their operations will probably continue.”
Such a possibility may be an American nightmare, if additionally the rumors concerning bin Laden’s nuclear weapons reveal to be true. Do we need to remind anybody that it was the White House itself that recently gave some credibility to these rumors? In the ceremony marking the 100th day of the U.S. war on terrorism, President Bush announced steps to freeze the assets of two groups accused of having links to terrorists: the Umnah Tameer E-nau (UTN), which can be translated as “Islamic Reconstruction”; and the Lashkar –I- taiba (LAT). According to MSNBC, The White House alleges in a fact sheet on Islamic Reconstruction that Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood, a Pakistani nuclear scientist, met with bin Laden weeks before September 11 and provided detailed information about how to make a nuclear weapon and the effects of a nuclear blast. In one meeting, says the report, a bin Laden associate claimed to have nuclear material and wanted to use it to make a “ dirty bomb”, also known as “ the poor man’s nuke”. Mr. David Albright, of the Institute for Science and International Security, declared: “ It’s within the reach of many, many groups to fashion a dirty bomb”!
Now, what if al-Qaeda owns such a nuke? Where would bin Laden go with it?
A recent article of the Times tries to answer partially the second question. Pakistan, Kashmir, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, and even Saudi Arabia are mentioned as possible destinations. In all these countries and in others as well, bin Laden may find supporters indeed. But to find a sanctuary is perhaps more difficult, at least momentously. Thus, in Pakistan “ several Taliban leaders have already sought refuge, with the tacit support of elements in the Pakistani Intelligence services”. And if some of those places are hard to reach, because of the American and British naval vessels patrolling the Arabian Sea, or for any other reason, the fugitives may still wait some time until the conditions become propitious to relocating. Thus, The Times suggests for example, that bin Laden can escape during the hajj pilgrimage to Mecca, “ posing as one of the 120,000 Pakistani pilgrims”. The suggestion is based on the hypothesis that “ he is regarded as a national hero by many citizens», and that “ the authorities would be afraid of triggering a popular backlash by arresting him and turning him over to the Americans.” Mr. Beeston does not even omit the “audacious alternative” of hiding among the Arab population of great Western cities like Paris, London, or Frankfurt!
Thus, if while walking on the Champs-Elysées tomorrow, you catch a glimpse of someone resembling bin Laden, don’t be amazed! It is really he! And above all, don’t allow the surprise to disable your reflexes: the man is worth $25 million price!
Anyway, with all his millions, his friends, his allies, his followers and the rest of the “team”, he can afford not only to change of country but also of face. Why not? If he has the audacity of attacking America would he not be enough bold – and preventive – as to pay for a new look? Aesthetic surgery can do miracles nowadays. We had had so many versions of Michael Jackson that we forgot the original! If bin Laden makes this choice, all the Western Intelligence agencies and all the cops of the world can always try to find a needle in a sheaf of hay! It would be easier than catching him.
However, in this modern witch-hunt, two facts are quite astonishing. The first is that it is not really Mr. Bush who decided to freeze al-Qaeda presumed funds and assets. The story is somewhat older. Actually, President Clinton’s August 20,1998 Executive Order 13099 amended an earlier January 23,1995 Executive order (12947) by naming al-Qaeda and its aliases (the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders, the Islamic Army for the Liberation of the Holy Places, the Islamic Salvation Foundation, and the Group for the Preservation of the Holy Sites), as an FTO (: Foreign Terrorist Organization). According to CRS Report for Congress , the effect of the order was to ban U.S. financial transactions with bin Laden’s organizations and to allow U.S. law enforcement to freeze any bin Laden assets in the United States that can be identified. The order also named bin Laden as an SDT (: Specially Designated Terrorist), along with Rifai Taha Musa, of the Egyptian Islamic Group, and Abu Hafs al-Masri (Mohamed Atef). Atef and the guerilla leader Ayman al-Zawahiri were indicted with bin Laden on November 4, 1998 for the Kenya/Tanzania bombings.
The question is therein: How come that Mr. Clinton’s Executive Order has never been executed? For if it has, what is the point of making Mr. Bush issue another quite similar decision?
We can find a relative answer in the aforementioned CRS report, which says in a paragraph entitled “blocked assets”: “ No assets have been firmly linked to bin Laden, in the United States or elsewhere, and hence none are frozen at this time, according to the Treasury Department’s report on terrorist assets for 2000.” And this is the second astonishing fact. For the question is: how did they find them now?
Thus, on September 10, - the precise date of the CRS report’s first issue- nobody in the American administration knew a clue about these assets! But one day later, the same administration was able to know everything related to this subject and to take the measures that, apparently for unknown reason, have been delayed!
Can anybody explain this puzzle?

_________________
-9-
___________


Haunted!


January 2, 2002 Palestine Chronicle ; Middle East News Online.

In a recent interview published by The Guardian (Nov. 7), Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, while maintaining – as usual- Arafat as the main responsible for the plight of his people, boasted that Israel “ is the only democracy in this part of the world”, which is not much original as an idea. The interviewer suggested thereupon, with that British phlegmatic commonsense, that the Palestinians in the occupied territories don’t see much democracy. Sharon’s answer was characteristic of the man’s well-known profile as an unsubtle, uncompromising, stubborn “bulldozer”, as he is nicknamed. He said merely: “there is one man, only one, to blame and that’s Arafat”!
This obsession with Arafat is abnormal. All the other Israeli leaders who, at a moment or another, had to deal with the Palestinian chairman have never reached this level of “obsessive fear” and unrelenting distrust, albeit none of them was able to hold a long-standing agreement with the Palestinians. Most striking is the fact that Sharon knows that his own image is not very reassuring. He acknowledged to the Guardian’s journalist “ even the sheep are afraid of me”! So, why is he so afraid of Arafat?
Maybe should we try to find a relative answer to this question in the past events, and more precisely in Sharon’s Lebanese military adventure of the eighties, which, in relocating the PLO failed to destroy it. The results of the invasion were disastrous for the Israeli army as well as for the government policy. Israel was condemned by the international community, and Yasir Arafat emerged really at that turn as the most credible Palestinian leader. It was certainly painful for Sharon to see the man whom he would have much liked to kill, boarding the ship for Tunis under the protection of the Americans, the French, and the British! However, Sharon’s own failure was even greater than that of his army. For a little time after his brutal manners succeeded to make of Arafat – long considered as a terrorist – the main interlocutor for the Western governments, he was forced – in 1983- to resign as defense minister under Menahim Begin after an inquiry found him responsible for the slaughter of hundreds of civilians in the refugees camps of Sabra and Shatila. Thus, the inevitable question is: has Sharon ever forgotten his greatest defeat, - indirectly at Arafat’s hands- when he was precisely thinking that he had led the Israeli army to one of its great victories in besieging an Arab capital?
We need hardly to answer this question, and you know why. Sharon is still experiencing the bitter effects of his misdeeds that backfired from Sabra and Shatila slaughter. He is presently spending millions in order to avoid the shameful scandal of being indicted as a war criminal by a law-court. This is actually the same obsessive fear that has been haunting him since the eighties, when he was being condemned and forced to resign by his own people. No wonder that he holds Arafat as responsible for Israel’s problems. Would he ever forget that the latter is the cause of his own pains as well?



________________
-10 -
___________


AMERICAN GROPING

January 6, 2002 (MMN) ; Palestine Chronicle ; Middle East News Online.


Since the media began talking about the return of Mr. Zinni to the Middle East, the sentence “ pressure on Arafat” has been repeated so many times that it became inevitably the main – if not the only- significant synonym of the U.S. envoy’s mission. If this is not enough to disturb the cold-minded backbenchers of the American Middle-East policy, the public opinion should be reminded though that ultimately the former Marine general is, in that perspective expected to play the role of an Israeli ambassador! Has he been sent to the region with another kind of agenda and another perspective? Then, he will be very skilful if he acts in consequence.
Mr. Zinni had been confused once when Sharon “thanked” him for his efforts. Unless he does not learn from his last experiences, the “pressure” he came to put on Arafat had been instilled into his own mind by Sharon’s refusal to cooperate. Now, we are told that he came back to try again what he had already tried vainly! Just let us ask what is the problem of the Bush administration? Is it Arafat or Sharon? Is it both? Or is it terrorism? Well, today they say Mr. Bush is decided to fight all the terrorists everywhere. Fine! The Arab governments have also announced that they are willing to join the American’s efforts for the same purpose. As a few among them do not consider themselves as allies or potential allies in an economic and political partnership with the Western nations, we should normally see them ranging alongside the “boys», either in Afghanistan or elsewhere. But this is not what happened. And one of the causes of this failure is psychological rather than politic, albeit we cannot really dissociate them.
I mean that there is a frame of mind presently prevailing in the West, which is not easy for the Arabs to cope with. I know that Mr. Zinni went back to Israel and the Palestinian territories with the idea of succeeding in implementing a cease- fire, in order to resume the political process. And everybody knows that the success of such a delicate mission is far from being granted in these hard times. Yet, there is a chance. And if it is the only chance remaining on 99 repeated failures, it has to be tried, honestly and seriously. However, to put more assets in his pocket, Mr. Zinni has to translate on the field what Mr. Boucher, State Department’s spokesman, expressed in his comment about this new mission: “ It’s not a question of endorsing one or the other side’s criteria or ideas. It’s a matter of working with both sides to get them to take steps that can effectively end the violence.”
Both sides! We are agreeing. There is no misunderstanding about that.
Still, while analyzing the same topics, many of our colleagues thought that the second visit of Zinni was meant only to pressure Arafat. And when we push the exploration of the same question further, we will discover that they are not misleading their readers. For in what consists the pressure? We are told that the main purpose of Zinni is to” focus the Palestinian Authority on combating terror and dismantling the terrorist infrastructure “.
That would work only at a condition: Sharon’s agreement to withdraw his troops completely from the Palestinian areas and to stop his slow nibbling of the West bank. Indeed, he understood what is required of him. That’s why he ordered a partial redeployment at the eve of Zinni’s visit. But when asked about that gesture, Arafat declared that it was only meant to deceive the American envoy. Make-believe of some kind!
Nonetheless, even with the complete fulfillment of this condition, Mr. Zinni would not be able to ease the tensions accumulated since about 15 months. This is not only a security problem, as some people are prone to believe. This is also – more than ever – a political struggle that requires all the resources of good-willed men. Unluckily, Sharon is not in such a disposition of mind, if he ever had been! Moreover, the whole atmosphere in the region is poisoned with fear and obscure threats. Nobody today in the Arab world is able to say whether the West is fighting against terrorism or against Islam. More significant is the fact that even laic, leftist, or liberal intellectuals that have always condemned radicalism in the region, find it hard to justify the American-Israeli easy combination between terrorism and resistance movements against the Zionist occupation, such as Hamas. The message of those intellectuals is: Stop the Israeli occupation, thus you will nullify any claim of organizations such as Hamas, Jihad, Hizbullah.
Those Arab intellectuals do not understand why is it so easy for the West to oust Saddam from Kuwait, and to bomb Afghanistan and to overthrow the Taliban, whereas nobody in the West sounds ready to stop the daily Israeli attacks on the Palestinians. Why Israeli crimes are called “self-defense”, and Palestinian self-defense is called “terrorism”?
But obviously, the Arab elites are not alone to see these distortions in the Western mind. The results of the last survey conducted by the Pew Research Center and the International Herald Tribune suggest that a change is presently occurring in the West. From 275 interviews with influential people in politics, media, business, culture and government, emerged a new picture of the public opinion, which can be summed up as follows:
- “ A huge gulf of disagreement exists between American elites and opinion leaders in other parts of the world about the causes of terrorism and the sources of resentment and respect for the U.S.”
- “ Opinion leaders in most regions say U.S. policies are believed to be a principal cause of the Sept. 11 attacks”.
- “ While they recognize that U.S. power is resented, opinion leaders in the United States believe America’s support of Israel is also a big problem.”
- “ There is a broad consensus among elites that if the U.S. pressured Israel to create a Palestinian state, terrorism would be reduced. 67% of American leaders subscribe to that view, as do 74% of those overseas.”
Now, when considering the Pew Global Attitudes Project’s statements in respect of America’s image, the first remark is perhaps: If the Bush administration is not convincing the American and the Western elites, how would it persuade the Arab and the Muslim intelligentsia? Indeed, it is not enough to send soldiers and jets to bomb Afghanistan, in order to end or even to reduce terrorism. Neither it is very useful to pressure Arafat as if he is the cause of all the Israeli – American troubles. The true problem is elsewhere. It is in the inability of the American administration to recognize what the majority of the elites – not only the Western- acknowledge as long- standing mistakes of the Middle-East American policy. It is the American leadership that is suffering from this situation, not only the friends and the allies.
What is perhaps more grave is the fact that after the Sep. 11 attacks, the relations between the USA and some of its Arab and Muslim allies have gone so tense that the worse is feared. The distortions and the ill-intentioned stereotypes about the Arabs in the West are not born in the aftermath of Sep. 11. They have always been there, hidden or declared. Scholars and media commentators have analyzed a lot of them. Thus, we are not discovering a new Western mind, but rather unveiling what have been shamefully discarded from it, as indecent and unfit to our modern times as well as to the values of the Western society itself. Yet, when we see how some people react towards Islam today, and when we see how some media treat their Arab allies, we wonder whether those old, dark stereotypes have ever disappeared.
That’s why the American groping for peace in the Middle East sounds so dubious to many people out there. Actually, many Arab observers agree that the American administration is not serious in its so-called quest for peace. For them, the Americans are only trying to gain time in order to make Israel still more powerful in a regional order dominated by fear and injustice.





_______________
-11 -
_____________


ARAFAT PROMOTED !



January 7, 2002 (MMN); Palestine Chronicle; Middle East News Online.

Let’s begin by the worse and assume as true that the 50 tons of missiles, mortars and mines stocked aboard the Karine A, were destined to the Palestinians in the supposedly-P.A’s controlled territories! Why not after all? Those people are day and night under the Israeli fire since Sharon climbed upon his compatriot’s chronic paranoia to power. Who among them would ever forget how under his supervision about two thousand civilians had been butchered in Sabra and Shatila refugees’ camps? If there was a justice in this world, people like Sharon should be serving a life sentence in jail, not glorified and honored as heads of government. But if some Israelis were enough cynical and self-hating to elevate a warmonger and a criminal to the rank of Prime Minister, why should the Palestinians not have the right to defend themselves? Would they be more acceptable to the International community if they allow Sharon’s soldiers to destroy them without raising a hand to defend their children, their women, their parents and their houses? Should they behave like sheep and allow the over-armed Israel to crush them in order to satisfy the hypocrites who are talking about peace and stuffing Israel with all kinds of weapons, since about half a century? Why should the Palestinians feel guilty for wanting to protect themselves from the madness of that butcher disguised in Prime Minister, whereas nobody in the hypocrite “international community” finds it abnormal that the Israelis are still occupying the territories they had recognized them as belonging to the P.A.? What has the “international community” done to show that the Peace Process, with its numerous accords, still means a lot in this region? Why was it so difficult to send neutral observers and monitors of the cease-fire? And now would they blame the Palestinians for that shipment of weaponry and take Sharon’s word for biblical sayings?
What have the Israelis brought as evidence against the P.A’s involvement with that affair?
Nothing, but mere pretensions easily discredited. Israeli Chief of General Staff, Shaul Mofaz said: “ we have information all these weapons we see behind us were to be brought to the Gaza coast and from there to Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza strip”! Is it with such hollow phrases that he intends to persuade the world? The answer is yes. And his boss, Sharon, thought it wiser to remind the reporters and the diplomats, during the same “show” that “ Arafat chooses to buy long-range Katyusha rockets instead of investing in children’s education”! And nobody reminded Sharon that it is his army who took the responsibility of “educating” the Palestinian children in the streets, as schools have been closed if they escaped Israeli bombs and missiles!
Henceforth, please take notice of Arafat’s promotion: he is no longer merely “irrelevant”, but has progressed in Sharon’s eyes to become Israel’s “most bitter enemy”! Now, he is straightforward linked to “the center of world terror”, which is not Israel – loin s’en faut! - but Iran, who has just denied any knowledge of the shipment or the ship!



________________
- 12 -
________________




GUILTY OF WHAT?

January 11, 2002 (MMN) ; Palestine Chronicle ; Middle East News Online.


It sounds that there is going to be a ” Karine A” affair besides the Israeli-Palestinian affair proper! We can already see the signs of such an obnoxious outgrowth: either in the Middle East region or outside it, everybody is now arguing about the origin, the destination and the object of the arms shipment. It seems that the Bush administration is prone to believe the Israeli version accusing Yasir Arafat of masterminding the whole operation. No wonder. Arafat is really capable of doing it. If he did, he likely thought that if the ship is seized before reaching its destination, he could still pretend that he knew nothing about it and order an investigation! Otherwise, what he just did!
Both Americans and Israelis should take it easy, though. The testimony of the ship’s captain, Omar Akawi, is not weighing enough as evidence against the P.A. Chairman. And if this is all what the Israelis hold as data, it proves only that they are blind as regards the results of their own acts. Many people want Arafat discredited. A new tone has recently surfaced in the American Press. In some commentaries, “ Arafat’s coalition of terror” is tightly tied to “Iran’s undeclared war on Israel”! Yet, at the eve of Mr. Zinni’s last visit to the region, Newsweek headlined one of its stories “Arafat is a traitor”, which was actually the slogan people in some Palestinian cities were shouting out. That happened just after Arafat, yielding to the American-Israeli pressure ordered some Jihad and Hamas militants to be arrested. Rarely the Palestinian Chairman has been so at odds with the street; but he accepted to run some risks. And we can say that he did so because he was still hoping in a pacific solution.
Then, nobody found it abnormal that Arafat who, really got nothing so far neither from the Americans nor from the Israelis, went to the extent of clashing with his own people. Of course not! Anyway, this is the Israeli-condition for resuming negotiations. For many Palestinian factions, both Americans and Israelis were keen on getting Arafat in that trap, at his own risks and perils. And apparently he headed into it, for it was part of the play. Thus, he appeared much more an American dummy to some of his compatriots – the Islamists to be sure- than the great national unionist leader he pretends to be. That is to explain the riots in the streets, the slogans against him and his police, and all the anger.
But obviously, Arafat is not “born from the last rain”, as goes the French dictum. As he took risks with his own people, he might as well have taken other risks to protect himself, in case the situation becomes unbearable for him. Since he was blocked inside his headquarters, and forbidden to move freely, while the Israeli pressure was growing more intense day in, day out … And since an Israeli missile missed his office of some yards, while Sharon never softened the tone of his speeches and never tried to mask how much he hated him… And since nothing showed that the Israeli violence was about to decrease despite the conjugated efforts of the U.S. and European envoys…And since neither the Vatican nor the peace-process sponsors appeared to have any weight in Sharon’s political balance… Well, after all, why not getting armed and preparing for the worse?
Whether Arafat was the man who ordered the weapons’ shipment or not, is not easy to know. But if he really did, so many of his compatriots will not find him guilty of anything. Better: they may even think that despite its failure the attempt was worth trying and deserves praise much more than the vain efforts spent for the satisfaction of Israel.
The situation has reached today such a level of tension, that even if Israel could really prove by a+b that Arafat ordered the shipment, it will only succeed in making him more popular inside Palestine and the Arab world. So, either way Sharon is the loser in this game, for if he attacks Arafat without enough evidence he will be condemned again for his excesses, and if he can prove really his involvement with the Karine A affair, he will only increase Arafat’s popularity and strengthen him.
Such a configuration could never have happened, to be sure, if there was a real will to reach an appeasement accord on the Israeli side, many Arabs think. But it is an established fact that the Israeli Prime Minister does not inspire trust and confidence to his assumed interlocutors. His excesses of language as well as his past and present acts make of him maybe the first Israeli Prime Minister off-the game for all what concerns the negotiations with the Arabs. If neither the Americans nor the Israelis perceived this truth yet, it is a pity!
Now, the whole question is about to know whether the USA is going to allow Sharon to intoxicate everybody with that affair of shipment, and thus not only to choke the peace efforts, but also to lead what is expected to be his ultimate operation long announced against the P.A. or to take more an “offensive” attitude privileging the pursuance of the purpose announced by President Bush: i.e. the creation of a Palestinian State. If Washington believes that the highest priority consists in finding out who is behind the “Karine A”, rather than to lay the basement of the future negotiations, in implementing a credible and durable cease-fire, and in pressuring Sharon to withdraw his troops from the P.A. areas, and most of all in agreeing on the demand of international monitors to survey this process, then the promise of Mr. Bush may be nothing more than a circumstantial talk. And if the next days reveal that this is actually the case, then how many people honestly could blame Arafat for not doing the necessary to uproot terrorism without feeling somewhat ridiculous?



________________
-13 -
_______________



SHARON’S SYNDROME

January 15, 2002 Palestine Chronicle ; Middle East News Online.

The last thing Ariel Sharon needs these days is General Anthony Zinni’s return to the region. This is so outright clear that even a blind would succeed to seeing it! The Israeli premier has used all the tricks he knows to get rid –politely- of the U.S. envoy, though. From disparaging Arafat on all the world media he got within his reach, to discourage the Americans from relying on him, to begin with, to effusively and hypocritically thanking Zinni thus purporting to make him understand that his efforts were vain. Meanwhile, he continued his daily provocations, while sticking to his mantra about seven days of quiet. At last, he managed to get a ship full of weapons in his hands and claimed that Arafat was the chief-smuggler! So far, nothing really alien to the man’s character and profile. For the more the situation goes rotten and worsens, the more Sharon feels he is at home with it. In this context, he needs Zinni as much as a man about to be hanged needs to admire a Picasso canvas!
The Americans are not in a hurry to send back their special envoy for peanuts, either. Mr. Boucher, State Department spokesman, said recently that no decision had yet been taken regarding Zinni’s return. And he suggested that the ship affair was weighing heavily on the issue: “ Arafat cannot avoid responsibility for the actions of his senior officials”, he added. Which means that – like it or not! – Sharon is perhaps not faulty! He is still waiting for the PA to arrest its financial manager, Fuad Shubakhi, whom Israel claims was responsible for paying for the Karine A weapons shipment.
Thereupon, the PA is also lingering: what is the point of respecting what nobody respects? The cease-fire has no existence. Even the security talks have not been allowed by Sharon, despite it was one of the most important goals of Zinni to make the Joint Israel and PA High Security Committee agree on steps toward implementing a cease-fire. Sharon opposes the council meeting.
Thus, the Israeli prime minister seems to be the only player with the broadest range of freedom, allowing him to pursue his objectives. But what are these objectives? Here is the answer given by an Israeli writer in Haaretz (January 15, 2002. Yoel Marcus):
“ Sharon doesn’t want to reach the point of face-to-face negotiations on the surrender of territories, much less the evacuation of settlements: That could mean the end of his government and his replacement by Netanyahu. One suspects he’s in no hurry to adopt the Mitchell plan either, because that would also force him to declare a freeze on settlement activity…”
The article is much longer, and its author thinks that Sharon is actually trying to lead Israel back to the situation that was prevailing twenty years ago with Lebanon.
Ostensibly, Sharon got a syndrome from his catastrophic involvement with the Lebanese quagmire. Trapped in that psychical blockade, he is like a drowned man gripping everybody and everything about him in a last attempt to survive. If the Americans allow him to do so, it is the whole region that he will drown with him… in blood.




___________
-14 -
__________


HISTORY

January 21, 2002 (MMN) ; Palestine Chronicle ; Middle East News Online.

The idea is widespread among the Arabs. It goes as follows:
At the basis of the relationship between Israelis and Palestinians there used to be, since the beginning, an unfair, unjustified, unrelenting connection between two parties not matching each other. This rapport de force was being expressed without restraint in all the wars Arabs and Israelis had had to fight. The Israelis never claimed the right to live in Palestine – the true name of that land prior to the creation of the Israeli state- peacefully. Since the beginning they forced their way to the territories then under the British mandate using guns and terrorism. It is in the terrorist brigades that all the Israeli leaders, leftwing and rightwing confounded, got their credentials as future rulers and political officials. It is well as bomb-makers that men like Sharon, Shamir, Begin, Rabin, Barak, Dayan etc, made their first steps in the Middle East political world. And it is well to fight against their violence that Ya