Succession of failures, By Octavius Pinkard

Aljazeerah Info Center needs your support

Send donations by check to: Al-Jazeerah Info Center, P.O. Box 724, Dalton, GA 30722-0724, USA.

THE BIBLE is a book of ethics, not geography. So said Yitzhak Rabin, but much of Israel chose not to listen. So says the world, but America prefers not to hear. The unfortunate reality is that the current leaders of both countries — Ariel Sharon and George W. Bush — are guided by religious considerations that are wholly incompatible with the pursuit of an equitable peace among Arabs, Israelis and Palestinians. Sharon appears motivated by what he views as a biblical mandate to seize all the West Bank for Israel. Bush is captive to a strand of evangelical Christianity that has never understood, nor tried to understand, either Islam or Muslim culture. As a result, American and Israeli policies in the region have contributed to the maintenance of an unacceptable status quo.

It is not surprising, then, that some prominent voices within Israel have begun to openly criticise Sharon for the reckless policies he has pursued.

Leaders of Shabak (Shin Bet), the Israeli counter-intelligence and internal security service, say that Sharon's approach has only exacerbated security woes for Israel and strengthened hatred on all sides. Six hundred military reservists now refuse to serve in the occupied territories. A number of pilots now refuse to fly targeted assassination missions. And military leaders, both retired and active, are making the case that there is no military solution to the problem. It has become clear to them what the world has known all along, namely that Sharon's policies have done more to jeopardise security for Israel than to provide it. In short, Sharon embodies the danger of power — once it is possessed, those who control it are inclined to use it, and often in an irresponsible manner. In 1982, he demonstrated how he would use power. The world should not be surprised at how he wields it now.

Even amidst a growing chorus of criticism, the international community should not expect much change from Sharon. In the past two weeks, he has vowed to permanently separate Israel from the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, and on Dec. 26, imposed a total closure of the West Bank and Gaza. Tel Aviv understands that any responses from Washington will be made with November 2004 in mind, which means that those responses will be both faint and devoid of substance. Neither Bush nor his Democratic opponents will be able to endorse any curbs on Israeli policy, nor will they be able to call on Israel to do what really needs to be done — return to Israel's pre-1967 borders. It is unfortunate that domestic political risks outweigh the humanitarian rewards of helping create a viable Palestinian state, but such has been the enduring predicament of American foreign policy.

While Americans celebrate the capture of Saddam Hussein, it is important that they recognise that the prospects for peace in the Middle East do not begin and end in Baghdad, but in Palestine. It is good that the US is giving real focus to terrorism, but someone may need to apprise both Bush and the American people that it is the Palestinians who have fallen victim to terrorism more often and more systematically than anyone else.

Hopefully, US policy will soon match US rhetoric when it comes to protecting the human rights of the Palestinian people. Successive American presidents have failed to do anything of substance to bring about a lasting, positive change for them. Instead, American leaders have continued to subsidise — intentionally or not — Israeli policies that repress and demean the Palestinians.

The time has long come and gone for the US to divorce itself from its traditional Judaeo-Christian bias when considering matters of foreign policy, especially when addressing the exigencies of the Middle East.

Countless scholars, such as Henry Siegman, have recognised what the Bush administration continues to tolerate but refuses to admit, namely that Israel has permission to impose peace on its own terms. Israel blatantly violates the tenets of all previously signed peace accords, and the response from Washington has been nil. The continued expansion of settlements proves that Israel is not serious about peace, as settlements and peace cannot coexist.

Washington, however, has done nothing to pressure Israel to discontinue settlement activity. All the while, the US openly criticises the Palestinians for not doing enough to counter terrorism, and has yet to deliver on an aid package that would allow the Palestinians to rebuild the institutions and infrastructure that Israel has destroyed. Apparently, Washington measures the Israelis and Palestinians by different criteria. The bias is clear, and has been for quite some time. This double standard has become the standard approach from the United States, and is a principal reason why there is such a disparity in Israeli and Palestinian quality of life.

Washington should be ashamed of itself for having forsaken the Palestinians for so long. Many in the United States tout the so-called “roadmap” as proof of an American commitment to Palestinian rights and a Palestinian state. Over time, however, the roadmap has been exposed for what it really was — a ruse by Washington to elicit support from Arab leaders for its war in Iraq. The American pretence of concern for the Palestinians was hardly convincing before the war in Iraq, and is even less so now. The roadmap called for Israeli withdrawal and a freeze in settlement expansion, but lacked any enforcement mechanisms to ensure that Israel would do so. Scepticism about this plan is warranted.

Bush and Sharon — what a dynamic duo. In the name of security, Sharon is doing to the Middle East what Bush is doing to the world — making it more dangerous for everyone. Bush is expected to lead a world he does not understand, and Sharon is expected to deliver peace when all he seems to understand is war. Distinguishing between the two is tantamount to drawing a dividing line between bad and worse. America and Israel can provide better, more responsible leaders. Hopefully they will soon come forward.

The writer is a professor of comparative and international politics, and assistant director of the Honours Programme at Christopher Newport University (US). He is a specialist in economic and political development in the Middle East and North Africa. He contributed this column to The Jordan Times.