الجزيرة

News Archives 

Arab Cartoonists

Columnists

Documents

Editorials 

Opinion Editorials

letters to the editor

Human Price of the Israeli Occupation of Palestine

Islam

Israeli daily aggression on the Palestinian people 

Media Watch

Mission and meaning of Al-Jazeerah

News Photos

Poetry

Book reviews

Public Announcements 

   Public Activities 

Women in News

Cities, localities, and tourist attractions

-

Timely Advice
Arab News 20 February 2003

-

-

Anti-Americanism or Anti-Unilateralism?
By Fawaz Turki, Special to Arab News
-

-

Playing the ‘Terrorism’ Card
Norman Solomon • Creators Syndicate
-

These days, it’s a crucial ace up Uncle Sam’s sleeve. “Terrorism” is George W. Bush’s magic card. For 17 months now, the word has worked like a political charm for the Bush administration. Ever since the terrible crime against humanity known as 9/11, the White House has exploited the specter of terrorism to move the GOP’s doctrinaire agenda. Boosting the military budget, cutting social programs and shredding civil liberties are well underway.

-

-

“3 Palestinians killed and 25 injured in Nablus” say the headlines.  Tells you nothing at all…

I have just come from Raffidia Hospital on the North Mountain in Nablus, formerly the most beautiful and prosperous city in the ancient, cultured and peaceful land of Palestine, where most of those 25 people were taken and where one of the injured, FERAS  MABROUKI aged 21, has just died of the wounds he sustained a few hours earlier.  Also under the sanitized ‘3 dead’ heading come AYMAN KAMAL abu ZANT aged 20, and MOHAMED-SAMIR TAKRURI, aged 35.  All, I am told, murdered by shots to the head - all human beings with families suddenly and grievously bereaved tonight.  Three more innocents murdered - three more Martyrs in Nablus.

Under a continuous, year-long, brutal, illegal military occupation, the suffering of the people of Nablus goes on day after day in ever-escalating terror inflicted upon them by what the people here can now only describe as the crazy and totally evil Jewish-Israeli soldiers.  Today demonstrated that, in the most terrible fashion.  The desperately injured and the dead in the Hospitals of Nablus are witnesses-without-a-voice to the murderous assault upon an innocent civilian population on a sunny, shopping-eating-laughing Sunday afternoon. 

At 1.30 pm, a massive force of occupying soldiers swept into the City Centre, in huge tanks and armoured personnel carriers bristling with weapons of very large calibre.  I wonder how readers out there visualize these friendly-sounding vehicles, the APC’s, which are actually like a smaller version of the tanks, lacking only the 800 mm cannon.  They are bringers of death just like the tanks, but can move faster and go down narrower streets.  There were many Hummer “Officer Class” jeeps, many jeeps laden with soldiers, and still more navy-blue jeeps with the psychotic Druze police in them.  Just like a Western film, they came in firing from the hip, completely indiscriminately.  All this armoury was to arrest one man – Mr. Tayseer Khaled, a prominent public figure and a member of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organisation.  He was arrested with 3 members of his staff.

The situation then turned ugly when the soldiers started to fire on youngsters jeering and throwing stones.  In answer to a call for help I rushed to the Midan al Hussein, the formerly beautiful gardens of the City Centre (destroyed by tanks which rolled over them for no reason).  Skirting the Midan, I saw an armoured vehicle fire at a car coming towards me.  It sprayed the brain of the driver over the front of a parked car and onto the wall across the street.  On the other side sprawled the remains of a car, from which the driver had narrowly escaped before a passing tank rolled over it.  And a third car, over whose offside rear a tank had careered.  It’s a helluva use for US tax dollars.

As I turned into Sharra Sofian my heart turned to stone at the sight of a homicidal soldier discharging his gun into the side of our UPMRC Ambulance at close range, and then shooting in through the open near-side window at the driver, Feras al Bakri - almost universally acknowledged here as the best and the bravest.  Caring and always courteous, even at the most dreaded checkpoints, competent in all situations, cool and calm under fire, courageous and conscientious beyond the call of duty, Feras’ total integrity has earned a respect I have seldom felt for anyone. 

Feras’ head, heart and hand were within some 30cm of each other as he drove the Ambulance but, thanks be to God, this time it was his left hand which was hit, the bullet exiting through the offside window.  I had to thank Allah, even though I do not believe in any God.  The first bullet, through the side of the Ambulance, had seriously injured an unusually beautiful young Volunteer, Mohamed Ka’abi, aged 21, from Balata Refugee Camp.  21 years old and he has been shot through the testicles – imagine the pain and the consequences for his life.

Feras rushed him to the Hospital, and then received limited first-aid for his own shot hand.  He did not go back for proper treatment, but continued to work all afternoon, taking the dead and injured to Hospital without thought for himself.  Of the 24-25 patients, Feras carried 12 or 13 in our damaged Ambulance.  There were many other ambulances around, but the carnage was inside the ring of firing - only he was courageous enough to come through every time to the very centre, where the street was covered with blood that ran in rivulets into the gutter.  It was always only the UPMRC Ambulance which entered the dangerous area, driving right up to the tanks to pick up the youngsters where they lay amid the spreading blood - bullets coming from every side and ricocheting off the walls all around.

One particular instance stands out.  A boy was hit by a tank advancing from the Sharra Feisal.  As he lay there, the tank kept on coming – huge in the city street.  From the other direction came Feras in the much-loved Savannah with its UPMRC markings – suddenly looking quite small, faced with the cannon and guns of the tank.  Ambulance and tank stopped side by side with only centimetres between them; Feras, one-handed, leapt out to help get the boy inside.  Shooting was coming from every side, including the continuous fire of machine-guns.  This is not hearsay – I was actually in the middle of it for the whole time, and I could not hear for several hours afterwards, deafened by the proximity of the firing.  Each time Feras came back to rescue another wounded soul, I stood by his door in the hope that the presence of an international might stop a gunman firing at him.  Afterwards, Feras said he had been working so much on autopilot that he had not seen nor felt my hand on his arm. 

So many persons involved in the events of the afternoon expressed the same words, with a few minor variations, that they should be recorded – “Look, where are the other ambulances?  Who is here – Feras, always Feras, in April the same.  He is a hero.” 

The centre of the attack was the 9-storey building where the PLO have their office.  I would remind you here that this is a perfectly legitimate office and that, under International Law and Convention all occupied/oppressed peoples have the right to struggle for their rightful freedom.  Many people had been trapped in there, and we were able to get them out.  As we did so, two IOF ambulances arrived - we wondered if some of their gunmen had been injured in a separate attack upon Palestinian freedom fighters.    

At every junction there were tanks, APC’s, jeeps (singly or in combination) forming a ‘ring of fire’ around the city centre.  In the streets of a large city on a sunny Sunday afternoon they look like the scenario for a science fiction movie.  With two other Internationals I was able to help evacuate a large building in which there was much firing, and to escort a few people to safety on the street; we were also able to help some shopkeepers close-up to save their stock.    

Quite suddenly after about two and a half hours, at 4.00 pm the attacking gunmen, tanks and APC’s left and, within five minutes the city resumed its normal life - until, of course,  the illegal lock-down curfew at 6.00 again cleared the streets.

As I write this in the late afternoon sun of a beautiful day in Nablus, I stand in pools of blood being hosed from the Ambulance floor, its stretchers, lockers and footwells  surrounded by young Volunteers in blood soaked clothing - the road strewn with discarded surgical gloves dyed red by the endless blood they have handled.  I notice that someone has drawn a circle in blood around the new bullet-hole in the near-side of the Savannah.  However much water is hosed over the interior, the next time I look blood has seeped from everywhere again.  Later, when we take some of the Volunteers home the floor is still stained.  So much blood.

THE INJURED I SAW THIS EVENING IN RAFFIDIA HOSPITAL

12 –year-old Magdi F’tijan is under intensive care, lying on his blood-soaked bed with blood still pouring from his nose, watched over by his silently-weeping mother.  We hugged each other wordlessly for a long time.  Magdi has extensive injuries to his face from a large-calibre bullet which has blown away part of his nose and maxillary bone, torn out the base of his tongue, cut a hole in his neck.  In addition, there is extensive loss of soft tissue and part of the hard and the soft palate.  With massive oedema, he is on a respirator, and Insha’Allah, he may live.  If he does, he faces years of pain and suffering in reconstructive surgery.  He threw a stone.  AT A TANK.

Moussa abdul Rahman, 25, from Qalqilya has a serious injury to his jaw.  All of his tongue is seriously damaged with facial palsy, the result of an explosive bullet inside his mouth.  His face is appallingly oedemic.  An exploding bullet against a man in the street.  Sheher abu Eishe (a proud name in Nablus) was hit by an M16 bullet, still in his upper left arm because the hospital was too busy to operate tonight.  He is from Beit Wasser village and was just going out for tea.  Mohamed B’Sharra, 19, was shot by Druze police in his left arm - he was just standing on the street.  Abdul Abbas, 20, from Askar Refugee Camp - his leg was broken when it caught a casual bullet as jeeps just shot everywhere.  Ahmed Mohamed, 27, has two injuries – an extensive wound in his leg, and serious injury to the scrotum.  Saleh Aslee, 21 - In a hail of machine-gun fire he took four bullets to the left leg which is smashed, swollen and suppurating; one bullet to the right leg, one to the right hand, and one to the left.  Six months ago he was also extensively injured, leaving him with a series of livid scars. 

Dear heaven, what a use for tax-dollars. 

Later, I again was privileged to be allowed to sit at the bedside of some severely injured young men at the Nablus Special Hospital - to hear the extent of their pain and to ask what they were doing when they were so illegally shot.  Without exception, they were doing nothing except going home, going to meet a friend or standing in the street looking at the tanks. 

Alaa Joudat Mohamed abu Sharkh, aged 21, lies very critically ill in a deep coma from which he is not expected to recover because his brain has been terribly injured by a 25mm bullet.  He was operated on, but later developed a massive haematoma in the brain and underwent a further operation.  He had simply been walking in the street.

In the Intensive Care Unit of the same Hospital I was permitted to peep quietly at 20 year old Bashar Iya'esh - a horrific 25 mm bullet injury to the chest.  As I stood with his brother, he opened his eyes and whispered ‘Anna’.  He reminded me that I had saved him from an Israeli gunman during another attack on civilians at the Sharra Amman - was it three weeks ago, I don’t remember - I felt very humble that he should remember me in these terrible circumstances.  I spoke with Dr Ray’yan about him, and he told me that the bullet tore through Bashar’s liver and right lung.  He suffered very severe bleeding, losing 3 litres of blood - 5 pints. 

These young men were shot as they went about their lawful, peaceful business because, presumably, the Israeli gunmen become quite frenzied when they see a Palestinian anywhere in the vicinity of their designer American weaponry. 

After the horrific day, Feras could take no more of this and so we left.  I watched as he stood beside the Ambulance, very quiet and traumatised, holding his heavily-bandaged left-hand.  This has been a day in which the murdering Israelis plumbed the depths of terror, and Feras al Bakri reached the heights of heroism.   

Anne Gwynne works with the Union of Palestinian Medical Relief Committees in Nablus

-

ZIONIST PLAN C *PIC*

By: Art Bishop, Rumor Mill News .

-

(PINR) – When the Bush administration took office, international diplomacy received an injection of power politics. Beginning with the declaration that North Korea, Iran and Iraq comprised an "axis of evil," and culminating in the current aggression toward Baghdad, Washington has relied on the threat of military and economic force in order to further its perceived national interests and geopolitical goals.

While in the past Washington has been able to rely on persuasion or "soft force" as an effective tool of international diplomacy, the Bush administration's unilateralist policy has failed to convince former allies of the global benefits of current U.S. geopolitical strategy in the Middle East. President Bush alluded to this forceful approach in his recent State of the Union Address when he affirmed that "the course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others."

France and Germany, once bulwarks of U.S. foreign policy, have both broken away from their traditional supporting roles and are directly challenging Washington's aspirations of removing Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq. Buoyed by support from Russia and China, the intensifying Franco-German alliance has withstood U.S. economic pressure and sharp criticism by Bush administration officials who have labeled France and Germany as being part of "old Europe," following "shameful" policies which risk France and Germany's "diplomatic isolation." In addition to the current U.S. administration, Capitol Hill is also fused with anger as members of the U.S. Congress are calling for withdrawal of U.S. troops stationed in Germany, along with trade sanctions on French imports such as water and wine. As U.S. Representative Peter T. King of New York recently said, "Anything we can do to hurt [France and Germany] without hurting us, I support."

Despite economic pressure from the United States, France and Germany have remained steadfast against the notion of a preemptive strike on Iraq. Instead of supporting current U.S. plans, Paris and Berlin have called for a boost in the number of U.N. monitoring teams working inside Iraq. Washington responded, calling the proposal "useless."

The motivations for French, German and Russian refusal to participate in Washington's Middle East policy are two-fold: economic concerns and the prevention of an unrestrained U.S. foreign policy.

Both Russia and France have economic stakes in the current Iraqi government. Russia, for example, has been granted tremendous oil contracts. LUKoil, the second largest Russian oil firm, has signed a multi-billion dollar oil production deal with Saddam Hussein, giving it a majority stake in West Qurna, a gigantic Iraqi oil field holding 11 billion barrels of oil.

TotalFinaElf, the French oil giant, was granted a deal giving it rights to Iraq's largest oil field, the Majnoon, affording the company a 15 percent stake in Iraq's 112 billion barrels of oil reserves.

With the removal of Saddam Hussein by the United States, LUKoil and TotalFinaElf would most certainly lose some of their potential profits as the new Iraqi government, directly supported by the United States, would possibly renege or at least forcibly renegotiate oil contracts established under Saddam's regime.

Aside from economic concerns, the main factor motivating France, Germany and Russia is their angst toward U.S. power politics perpetuated through the Bush administration's unilateralist approach to foreign policy and the U.S.' attempt to project power into the Middle East. Significantly, these three powers are no longer persuaded that U.S. national interests are synonymous with their own. With Washington now warning that neither the U.N. nor NATO will block their national strategy, France, Germany and Russia have become diplomatically hostile toward what they perceive to be growing U.S. nationalism.

Besides these three powers, smaller nations are also concerned over U.S. nationalist foreign policy, especially Middle Eastern states who fear that the Bush administration is trying to reshape the Middle East in a form that will benefit the United States. Washington has publicly expressed its disdain for the governments of Iran, Libya, Jordan, Syria and Saudi Arabia, causing these nations to react cautiously to any form of increased U.S. presence in the region.

Many of these Middle Eastern autocratic governments are also having to take into account their own civilian populations that are overwhelmingly against not only a U.S. invasion of Iraq but of any cooperation between their government and the United States. Middle Eastern rulers are beginning to fear Islamic revolution, as Islamist groups in the Middle East have gained credibility in the eyes of civilians who are starting to believe that aggressive U.S. "imperialism" is threatening their way of life and needs to be repelled.

These factors are but only some of the most important that combine to explain why there is so much resistance to U.S. foreign policy. Both France and Germany, much closer allies to the United States than Russia and China, perceive a unilateralist United States, free from the restrictions of international restraining organizations such as the United Nations and NATO, to be a direct threat to their own national interests. This time around, Paris and Berlin may not back down.

Erich Marquardt drafted this report. He is the editor of YellowTimes.org

(YellowTimes.org) – If the United Nations is "irrelevant," it's only because the United States has made it so. Yet the complexity of the situation requires us to examine the dynamics very closely to reveal that this is indeed the case.

When an observer remarks, "The U.N. is irrelevant" or "...may become irrelevant," what do they actually mean? What evidence is leading them to this conclusion? Perhaps most importantly, what criteria are being used to form such an opinion?

For example, our observer might say, "The U.N. is irrelevant because it is incapable of enforcing the mandates it establishes via resolution." Another might say, "The U.N. is irrelevant because of the overwhelming force wielded by the U.S. in the context of the U.N., which in turn nullifies the democratic nature of it."

Let's take the first example. This is the logic and philosophy generally espoused by those in the Bush administration; in fact, it was the focal point of Bush's address to the United Nations General Assembly on September 12, 2002. Bush said, "The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. … All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?"

Here the U.S. strategically links the enforcement of Security Council resolutions with the relevancy or effectiveness of the U.N. -- it's their argument's defining criterion. In other words, if the U.N. can't enforce resolutions, they're irrelevant.

But if we apply this same logic and approach to all countries, conflicts, and resolutions, we begin to see inconsistencies, even hypocrisies very quickly.

First question: "Is this method of evaluation applied consistently and universally?" Answer: No. Because other countries are in violation of U.N. resolutions, as is Iraq, yet nothing is done or even said. The only case in point needed is Israel. Since the inception of the United Nations, the number of resolutions issued because of Israeli aggression are literally too numerous to mention, but a small sampling is warranted nonetheless.

Resolution 242: November 22, 1967 -- The Council emphasized "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" and that "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territory occupied in the recent conflicts" was part of the "establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East."

Resolution 248: March 24, 1968 -- "Condemns the military action launched by Israel in flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter and the cease-fire resolutions," which was of a "large-scale and carefully planned nature."

Resolution 256: August 16, 1968 -- "Condemns the further military attacks launched by Israel in flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter and resolution 248 (1968) and warns that if such attacks were to be repeated, the Council would duly take account of the failure to comply with the present resolution."

Resolution 298: September 25, 1971 -- "Deplores the failure of Israel to respect the previous resolutions [Security Council resolutions 252 and 267, and General Assembly resolutions 2253 and 2254]," and "confirms in the clearest possible terms that all legislative and administrative actions taken by Israel to change the status of the City of Jerusalem, including expropriation of land and properties, transfer of populations and legislation aimed at the incorporation of the occupied section, are totally invalid and cannot change that status."

Resolution 347: April 24, 1974 -- "Condemns Israel's violation of Lebanon's territorial integrity and sovereignty and calls once more on the Government of Israel to refrain from further military actions and threats against Lebanon. … Calls upon Israel forthwith to release and return to Lebanon the abducted Lebanese civilians."

Resolution 515: July 29, 1982 -- "Demands that the Government of Israel lift immediately the blockade of the city of Beirut in order to permit the dispatch of supplies to meet the urgent needs of the civilian population and allow the distribution of aid provided by United Nations agencies and by non-governmental organizations."

Resolution 573: October 4, 1985 -- "Having noted with concern that the Israeli attack has caused heavy loss of human life and extensive material damage … Condemns vigorously the act of armed aggression perpetuated by Israel against Tunisian territory in flagrant violation of the Charter of the United Nations, international law and norms of conduct."

Resolution 672: October 12, 1990 -- "Condemns especially the acts of violence committed by the Israeli security forces resulting in injuries and loss of human life; calls upon Israel, the occupying power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War."

Resolution 1322: October 7, 2000 -- "Deplores the provocation carried out at Al-Haram Al-Sharif in Jerusalem on 28 September 2000, and the subsequent violence there and at other Holy Places. … Condemns acts of violence, especially the excessive use of force against Palestinians, resulting in injury and loss of human life."

Resolution 1435: September 24, 2002 -- "Alarmed at the reoccupation of Palestinian cities as well as the severe restrictions imposed on the freedom of movement of persons and good, and gravely concerned at the humanitarian crisis being faced by the Palestinian people."

These facts clearly show that countries other than Iraq have challenged and flouted the authority of the Security Council and, indeed, still do so to this day. On dozens of occasions, the Security Council has demanded that Israel comply with former resolutions, so, like with Iraq, there's resolutions designed to enforce other resolutions. Obviously, after a time, the issuance of resolutions becomes quite moot.

What the Bush administration and their promoters are really saying is that the U.N. is "irrelevant" only when it does not hold countries accountable that the United States wants held accountable -- only when not in agreement with the U.S.' selective application of the rules. Countries that the U.S. has no interest in holding accountable like, say, Israel can cross and dismiss the Security Council at will.

The current platitudes regarding the "disarmament" of Iraq are calculated propaganda to sell the idea of an accountable U.N. However, it is a dishonest misrepresentation of the facts and relevant historical context by the Bush administration and especially the supposed "moderate" Colin Powell based on see-through logic.

The U.S. is not concerned with the integrity of the United Nations in general or of the Security Council's resolutions specifically. The Bush administration is only concerned with whether the U.N. dutifully follows its every wish. If they don't, then they are "irrelevant"; if they do, then they are "meeting a great challenge."

It seems like the second reason given in the opening for the irrelevancy of the United Nations is more plausible: "The United Nations is irrelevant because of the overwhelming force wielded by the U.S. in the context of the U.N., which in turn nullifies the democratic nature of it."

Every time the U.S. vetoes a resolution disciplining Israel, they are acting hypocritically. How can an apologist even hope to reconcile this? The U.S. goes out of its way to shelter Israel from the authority of the United Nations when Israel commits grave legal and human rights offenses. The U.S. then turns around and demands that other countries approve similar measures directed at countries other than Israel -- the very same procedure they've just obstructed. Only this time, it's against Iraq, Syria, or Sudan, so everybody better jump on board.

Those who believe the U.S.' recent manipulation of the U.N. is "giving it teeth" are difficult to understand. With regard to the Israel/Palestine conflict and the horrific sanctions on Iraq, the United States has done everything in its power to ensure the impotence of the U.N. as an authoritative international body. How can the U.S. be "giving it teeth" when they've worked so hard to defang it for decades, making the U.N. a mere puppet through overarching influence and an all-inclusive veto power? This "giving of teeth" is more a selective bullying than anything else.

The relevancy of the United Nations will not be determined by its willingness to support a U.S military strike on Iraq but whether the United States will honor the decision the U.N. has made, a highly unlikely event considering the recent past.

[Matthew Riemer has written for years about a myriad of topics, such as: philosophy, religion, psychology, culture, and politics. He studied Russian language and culture for five years and traveled in the former Soviet Union in 1990. In the midst of a larger autobiographical/cultural work, Matthew is the Director of Operations at YellowTimes.org. He lives in the United States.]

Matthew Riemer encourages your comments: mriemer@YellowTimes.org

The massive anti-war demonstrations that swept Europe and the rest the world last weekend were noteworthy for more than one reason. The sheer size of these protests, particularly in the West and within countries whose leaderships have been staunch supporters of the seemingly imminent war on Iraq, refute the prevalent argument in the Middle East and in Muslim countries that the war is a “crusade” pitting the Christian West against the Muslim East. Clearly, the vast majority of protesters were not Muslim. Therefore, the notion that Christians are about to launch a new crusade against Islam has proven to be a misnomer and an inaccurate conclusion regarding President Bush’s intentions. Arabs and Muslims would be well advised to understand this. Otherwise, they would be lending support to bin Laden’s claims that the battle is between religions and making his claim of a “clash of civilizations” a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The 3 million protesters in Italy, the 2 million demonstrators in France and the nearly 4 million who marched in various Spanish cities were not excommunicated Catholics, nor heretics. Neither were the 2 million marchers in London or the 3 million protesters in Rome or in other cities necessarily out to defend Islam against a Christian crusade. Moreover, the repeated statements by the Holy See denouncing the war and urging a peaceful resolution of the current crisis over Iraq as well as the statements by the World Council of Churches and other church bodies are ample evidence that the probable armed conflict has nothing to do with a war among religions but a political war with a plethora of other objectives.
Instead, the millions of protesters and the various senior Christian clerics were honorable people denouncing what they saw as a needless impending attack against a country transparently justified by hitherto unsubstantiated claims for political and economic reasons that, in their opinions, do not justify the killing of a huge number of innocent Iraqi civilians and members of the attacking parties. All of them ­ and the vast majority of Arabs and Muslims, for that matter ­ agree that Saddam Hussein is evil. The debatable and unacceptable issue is the right of a foreign government to topple him and at such a great expense in lives and property and in destabilizing international peace.
As statements made by several protesters made clear, most of the marchers were protesting what they perceive as double standards that justify attacking a country that is suspected of owning weapons of mass destruction (WMD) while appeasing countries like North Korea that flaunt having similar weapons, or rewarding Israel, which is widely believed to have WMD, with billions of dollars in aid.
The argument that Saddam Hussein has used chemical weapons and, therefore, deserves to be punished is unconvincing when Israel has repeatedly used internationally banned cluster and napalm bombs in its aggressions against various Arab countries ­ not only without retrieve, but it continues to receive all levels of support from the US each year.
So much for the flimsy theory of a clash of civilizations or a war between religions. The many millions of Christian protesters made it very clear that this is a figment of the imagination of the likes of bin Laden and Samuel Huntington. It is a political war intended to change the political map of the Middle East, as none other than the US secretary of state himself admitted at a recent congressional hearing.
The other noteworthy observation is the meager number of demonstrators in Arab countries compared to the millions of marchers elsewhere around the world despite the imminent danger to the safety and dignity of every Arab in one way or another, as well as the sense of solidarity with a brotherly Arab nation that is undoubtedly on every Arab’s mind. There are various interpretations for this apparent apathy that merits thorough study. It should not, however, be misinterpreted to diminish or deny the magnitude of Arab rage at the prospect of a war on Iraq.
Nevertheless, it certainly reflects the profound despair among most Arabs and the sense of futility of any effort to stop what they regard as an inevitable strike. Moreover, the absence of democracy in most Arab states leaves the public, which is painfully aware of the complicity of most leaders in the planned strike, scared to voice their opinion and to risk the wrath of their states. Furthermore, since they have little if any experience with democratic practice, they do not appreciate how far the power of the people can go in changing policies ­ and they are too afraid to try to try to find out.
Irrespective of the full reasons behind the meager number of Arab protesters, it is a sad testimony to the muted level of free expression in the Arab world and the absence of democracy that continues to plague most Arab countries. It is also sad and ironic to note that the leaders of France and Germany, for example, are pleading with Arab states to take an initiative that could forestall war instead of Arab leaders themselves urging foreign states to support an Arab effort.
The only common thread among the millions of global demonstrators and the meager number of brave Arabs that dared to speak out is that while they denounce the war and prefer a peaceful solution, they all detest the Iraqi leader. It is hard to find anyone who does not agree that he is a tyrant who has set his country back decades, and indeed the entire Arab nation along with it, and wasted billions of dollars in useless defense spending and megalomaniac schemes that could and should have gone to much-needed social and economic development.
Everyone wishes that his people would topple him and free his country from the reign of fear he has imposed on it. But by the same token, nearly everyone rejects the right of other nations to interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign country, particularly when there is no convincing argument to support such intervention other than what remain unsubstantiated claims when similar crimes are flagrantly present in other nations that nevertheless get praised for their so-called democracy and respect for human rights. The hypocrisy is unnerving.
 
Adib F. Farha, a member of Lebanon’s National Audio-Visual Media Council, wrote this commentary for The Daily Star. He can be reached by e-mail at adibfarha@yahoo.com

Saudi Arabia seems to be pulling the plug on an emergency summit

Under the guise of a diplomatic tiff between Kuwait and Lebanon over the conduct of last weekend’s Arab foreign ministers’ meeting in Cairo ­ particularly the statement issued by the conferees urging Arab states to deny base facilities to any American war on Iraq ­ the inter-Arab row over Iraq appears to be escalating.
Saudi Arabia joins the fray with a statement by an anonymous “informed Saudi source” berating the Cairo meeting and suggesting it may now be pointless to convene any emergency Arab summit on Iraq.
In remarks published prominently in the kingdom’s flagship pan-Arab daily, Asharq al-Awsat, “the source” does not spell out Saudi Arabia’s grievances but says the meeting typified the Arab world’s “lack of seriousness and credibility” and the need for it to be “reformed” as proposed by Crown Prince Abdullah
He adds that Saudi Arabia has “candidly made it plain to the Arab states that the danger is real and that war is coming,” and that it could lead to anarchy in Iraq. “Some 150,000 American soldiers won’t be able to maintain the security which 2 million Iraqi soldiers uphold today,” he argues.
The source goes on to urge Iraq to “make ‘genuine’ moves to protect itself from the looming danger” by cooperating fully with the UN arms inspectors, warning that the European countries opposed to war “have begun drawing closer to the hawkish camp.” He concludes that “all the signs point to getting rid of the current regime in Baghdad,” adding that President Saddam Hussein is unlikely to survive long given the “accelerating pace of escalation in the region.”
Asharq al-Awsat’s Kuwaiti columnist, Ahmed al-Rabei, pens a sharp attack on Syria for depicting the foreign ministers’ closing statement as an undertaking by all the Arab states except Kuwait not to aid or facilitate a US invasion of Iraq.
Was any such commitment made, he asks, and did anyone bother to consult Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar or Oman?
Rabei criticizes Syrian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Buthaina Shaaban for claiming Qatar approved the statement. The Qatari foreign minister himself described it as a “lie,” declaring that neither his country nor any other Arab state were capable of “preventing or ejecting” the US forces deployed on their territory. “So who expresses the Qatari viewpoint?” he asks: “the Qatari foreign minister, or madame the head of external information at the Syrian Foreign Ministry?”
Accusing Syria of manipulating the Cairo meeting to get the statement issued in contravention of Arab League rules, Rabei warns that this kind of conduct risks destroying trust between Arab states and undermining joint Arab action. And he asks: “Can someone explain to us what evidence they have when they say that holding an Arab summit now is an Arab conspiracy? Or are we going back to old habits, and using hollow slogans as a substitute for employing our brains to understand the world and consider our interests with a little wisdom?”
Lebanese columnist Samir Atallah, in his daily column for Asharq al-Awsat, writes that some Arab governments went reluctantly to the Cairo meeting ­ as they will do to the proposed summit ­ because they know they are incapable of matching public expectations over Iraq or forging a unified stance.
While all oppose war and fear its consequences, their attitudes to the survival or departure of the Baghdad regime differ, he writes. Some, like Kuwait and Qatar, have made up their minds to host US forces, while Syria is totally opposed to war, and Egypt “doesn’t want war but at the same time probably wants a change in the situation,” he writes. Others think war would be a disaster, but at the same time don’t feel compelled to strike a pro-Iraqi posture.
Atallah writes that this leaves Lebanon in a dilemma as current holder of the Arab League’s rotating presidency. It is committed to Syria’s policy “but doesn’t want to anger Kuwait, upset Saudi Arabia or annoy Egypt.” Yet Kuwaiti MPs have been threatening to cut off aid and recall the Kuwaiti ambassador, as though merely by chairing the meeting Lebanon determined its outcome. It may have committed a “procedural error” with regard to the issuing of the statement, but not one that warrants the kind of verbal abuse the Kuwaitis normally reserve for Iraq.
“Kuwait’s problem is not with Lebanon,” says Atallah. “The problem is that the Arabs are divided among themselves. Some of them fear for Iraq as much as they fear the regime. Their problem, and they are perhaps the majority, is indecision. For others, like Kuwait, the problem is that they cannot call in the Americans against the Iraqi regime and then take an anti-war stand at the summit. The Gulf states’ problem is that they fear the regime but also fear for Iraq. And no one is capable of saying openly where they truly stand on this side or the other.”
The Arab states also know that their views are immaterial “and that nothing can change anything other than a move made by Iraq and that won’t happen,” Atallah says. “The countdown is quickening, and (Saudi Ambassador to Washington) Prince Bandar’s trip to Cairo certainly wasn’t for a holiday.”
The Qatari daily Al-Sharq echoes Kuwait’s sharp criticisms of Lebanon in an editorial penned by managing editor Hassan Haidar, accusing Beirut of abusing its position as chairman of the Cairo meeting to take sides “on someone else’s behalf.”
Such behavior is an embodiment of “confusion and erasure of the borders between principles, convictions, and interests in the policies of a country that could have been expected to emerge wiser from a long and destructive civil war,” he writes.
Haidar goes on to warn Beirut that it cannot afford to alienate Arab states at times like these.
“Once again, the government in Lebanon has demonstrated that it is affiliated with some of the Arabs but not all of them, at a time when it badly needs the support of all, as regional repercussions loom for certain that could extend principally to it after Iraq,” he says.
Abdelbari Atwan, publisher and editor of the pan-Arab daily Al-Quds al-Arabi, takes a dim view of the “rabid” Lebanon-bashing campaign initiated by Kuwait, characterizing it as both arrogant and misdirected.
Although the Kuwaitis have been berating the Lebanese foreign minister over the Cairo statement, the fact is that he only chaired the meeting, he writes. The statement was co-authored by what the Kuwaiti press has taken to labeling the Arab “axis of evil,” which consists of Lebanon, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Yemen and Algeria. They all insisted that the communique be issued, and the Saudis agreed after adding a phrase opposing any aggression against Kuwait either.
“But because the Kuwaitis cannot attack Syria and don’t dare criticize Algeria or insult Libya, they picked on the weakest link, namely Lebanon, just as they turned Palestinian-bashing into an art form during the (1990-1991) Gulf crisis,” Atwan remarks.
The Kuwaiti media are afraid to berate Syria, the prime mover of the statement, or threaten it with an aid cutoff, so have vented their spleen on Lebanon, accusing it of ingratitude and demanding that it “grovel” in exchange for Kuwaiti aid.
Atwan finds the Kuwaitis’ wrath misplaced. Their country is not occupied and faces no Iraqi threat, but is hosting a massive American army that is poised to launch unprovoked aggression against its neighbor. Yet Kuwaiti officials and commentators brand everyone who supports a peaceful solution to the crisis ­ including millions of peace protesters worldwide ­ as hirelings in the pay of Saddam Hussein, he writes.
Lebanese columnist Abdelwahhab Badrakhan believes the “diplomatic crisis” between Kuwait and Lebanon has overshadowed the way various Arab states have been openly or tacitly dissociating themselves from the collective “policy” agreed at Cairo. They have been undermining the credibility of the communique, at best turning it into a “nonbinding” undertaking, he comments in the Saudi-run pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat.
The controversy over the issue makes it hard to see what common position the Arab states could adopt at a summit meeting, Badrakhan writes. If the collective message Arab leaders send out to the world does not reiterate the call for the US to be denied base facilities in Arab countries, they will be accused of having deceived their peoples. But if they do uphold that stand, that will exacerbate their disputes and divisions.
So he asks whether there is any point in a summit. It is bound to be divisive given the conviction of many Arab states that they are incapable of countering US pressure, and so there is no point in courting Washington’s enmity over Iraq.
“Perhaps the best that can be looked forward to from any Arab summit is an ‘Arab solution’ to the crisis. But no such solution can be suggested without a clear and intelligent ‘Iraqi initiative’ to sustain it,” and neither appears forthcoming.
“It’s true that the Arabs could, indeed have a duty to, declare a forceful and unambiguous anti-war position, but they know that the decision on war rests not with them but with the US. And if half the countries present at the summit are providing facilities to US forces, then their anti-war stance becomes worthless. They have clearly left it very late to start trying to develop a policy or an initiative aimed a stopping or preventing the war,” says Badrakhan.
Salaheddin Hafez, managing editor of Egypt’s semi-official daily Al-Ahram, stresses the need for the Arab states to take a strong stand against any US invasion of Iraq and argues that a commitment to deny US forces bases or military assistance should be an integral part of that stand.
He says the rest of the world is astonished by the vague and often contradictory postures struck by Arab states over a war that is set to hurt them most. While they know what a disaster war would be, the Arab governments are busy quarrelling over details such as if George W. Bush or Saddam Hussein is more to blame, and whether they should convene an emergency summit or a regular one. This while countries around the world do their utmost to prevent war, millions of demonstrators take to the streets worldwide, and the US continues its military buildup in Arab territory and waters.
“More is needed from the Arab summit than a mere anti-war declaration, professing innocence, and fudging the issues out of fear and terror of the Arab peoples on the one hand and US pressure on the other,” Hafez writes. “Practical steps are needed, not least the reaffirmation and implementation of the resolutions adopted at the March 2002 Arab summit in Beirut, which ruled out cooperation with or the provision of any Arab assistance or facilities to any foreign power that attacks Iraq or any other Arab state.”
Such a stand would severely undermine the war camp, he says. But anything short of it would be seen as tacit acquiescence to Washington’s designs, and deprive the worldwide anti-war movement of one of its most potent weapons: the collective and unambiguous opposition of the Arab world to military action.
“Despite our past bitter experience of vague and fuzzy Arab summit communiques, we hope the impending summit will rise to the historic responsibility facing it,” Hafez says. “At stake is not only the fate of Iraq and Palestine, but of every individual Arab country, regardless of whether they support or oppose war. For the Americans have let it be known that their strategic aim is, in short, to reshape and reorder the region ­ including by redrawing borders and restructuring ruling regimes ­ in keeping with US interests and in tune with the goals and policies of Israel, the biggest beneficiary of the whole crisis.”
In the UAE daily Al-Khaleej, Saad Mehio writes that Arab leaders should heed Mohammed Hassanein Heikal’s suggestion in his 2001 book, The Wandering Arab, that they conduct a critical reappraisal of their relations with the US, like Anwar Sadat did vis-a-vis the former Soviet Union in the early 1970s.
Heikal had remarked that if Arab-American relations continued along their present course, soon the only independent country left in the Middle East would be Israel, Mehio recalls.
Such advice is “not very tempting” to Arab leaders at the moment, he remarks. They have never been so fearful of incurring Washington’s rage, and with the Bush administration in ultra-aggressive mode they would rather keep quiet and weather the storm. “But this option is both short-term and shortsighted,” Mehio warns, “and it places the fate and capabilities of the entire region in the hands of unrestrained suicidal violence.”