| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"JPL Verhey" |
| Date: |
04 May 2004 08:25:58 AM |
| Object: |
The Middle East After Arafat - Fareed Zakaria (Newsweek, april 9,2001) |
The Middle East After Arafat
The Palestinian leader cannot bring peace. What can be done without him?
By Fareed Zakaria
We have grown accustomed to his face. Yasir Arafat's unshaven visage,
wrapped with a checkered head scarf, is the most enduring image of the long
conflict between Israel and the Arabs. In substantive debates as well Arafat
remains at its center. The Clinton administration was criticized for being
too close to him. The Bush administration is being berated for keeping its
distance from him. Presidents and pundits are constantly urging him to
accept plans, denounce terrorism, make speeches, as if this one man's
actions can end 50 years of fighting. But it should now be clear that this
one man will not--or cannot--bring peace in the Middle East. A realistic
strategy for the region must look beyond Yasir Arafat.
In an interview last week, Dennis Ross, until recently the perpetual
negotiator between the Palestinians and the Israelis, finally concluded that
Arafat was not capable of negotiating an end to the conflict: "What is
required of him is something he is not able to do." It is not that Arafat
could not give up a few acres in the West Bank. It is not even that he could
not abide the partitioning of Jerusalem. What Arafat could not do at Camp
David and still cannot do is abandon the founding claim of the PLO--that
Palestinians displaced by Israel in 1948 be allowed to return home.
From its beginnings in the late 1940s until 1987, the Palestinian cause
meant one thing and one thing only--the right of return for its refugees,
who number about 1 million and now live scattered around the Arab world. The
PLO was created as a vehicle to represent this Palestinian diaspora, and
Arafat was the leader of the exiles.
It was an all-or-nothing struggle and--since Israel has never accepted the
right of return--by the early 1980s it looked more like nothing. Battered by
Israel's growing strength and its quarrels with other Arabs, the PLO had
literally nowhere to go. Then in 1987 everything changed with the uprising
(intifada) in the West Bank and Gaza. Palestinians living under Israeli
occupation began demanding independence. They caught the world's attention.
They also caught Arafat off guard. The PLO had always treated the
Palestinians in the occupied territories as second-class citizens, docile
folk who conveniently presented the world with suffering images for the
cause. Scrambling to take control of a movement that threatened to get away
from him, Arafat took the reins of the protest and, for the first time,
began negotiating seriously with the Israeli government in Oslo.
Ever since Oslo, Arafat has had a choice; he could shift from an
unattainable demand (the right of return) to an attainable one (Israel out
of the occupied territories). The switch would give his people a state,
national independence and the beginnings of normalcy. But he couldn't do it.
The leading scholar of the region, Fouad Ajami, explains, "Arafat could not
say to his people, 'I bring you peace but the dream of Palestine is gone.
Jaffa is gone, Haifa is gone.' He preferred the language of heroic
resistance to a painful compromise."
By refusing to sign away the dream and accept a reduced reality, Arafat has
retained his hold on Arab hearts. But symbolics aside, this makes him a
marginal figure in the region's future. Arafat's power came from his
potential to make peace or make trouble. The former we now know he will not
do; the latter Hamas and other terror groups do better than he can. Without
his credibility as a peacemaker the world has much less need for an ailing
72-year-old revolutionary who seems content to die the virtual leader of a
virtual state.
The attitude of benign neglect adopted by the Bush administration toward
Arafat may not work but it is worth trying. Certainly the other
approach--White House visits, American handholding, security
cooperation--has been exhausted. It was a noble effort but it did not work.
Perhaps a cold shoulder will force Arafat into adjusting his strategy. But I
doubt it. Instead the Israelis and Palestinians should begin a process of
separating their two nations. Israel could annex the small contiguous
pockets of the West Bank that house 80 percent of its settlers. The PLO
should declare independence and go about the business of turning its corrupt
kleptocracy into a functioning state. Richard Haass, one of Colin Powell's
chief aides, outlined such an approach in an article in Newsday last
October.
The United States must recognize that its core interest in the Middle East
now--outside of Israel--is to stabilize the moderate Arab states that are
its longtime allies. Countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan have been
rocked by the recent terrorism and counterterror attacks in Israel. The Arab
populace in these lands, frustrated by the regimes that rule them, have
always latched on to the romance of the Palestinian cause.
In this climate America must show its unequivocal support to these countries
(and not just their regimes). Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has
apparently made a decision--until now unreported--to draw down American
troops in the Sinai. (When he sprung this on Prime Minister Ariel Sharon the
latter reluctantly acceded to the demand.) This would be the wrong
withdrawal, at the wrong place, at the wrong time. Now is also the right
time to begin rethinking the unworkable and morally obtuse sanctions policy
toward Iraq. Moderate Arabs would be relieved not to have to defend two
unpopular American policies simultaneously.
It is even possible that a different Palestinian leader--rooted in the West
Bank not the diaspora--could make a genuine accord with Israel. But to do
that he (or she) will also have to trade dreams for reality, image for
substance and, to coin a phrase, land for peace.
http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/040901.html
.
|
|
| User: "InsuranceBroker" |
|
| Title: Re: The Middle East After Arafat - Fareed Zakaria (Newsweek, april 9,2001) |
04 May 2004 08:54:24 AM |
|
|
Subject: The Middle East After Arafat - Fareed Zakaria (Newsweek, april
9,2001)
From: "JPL Verhey"
Date: 5/4/2004 9:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <409799b9$0$41749$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl>
The United States must recognize that its core interest in the Middle East
Is Oil
now--outside of Israel--is to stabilize the moderate
Israel is really not a core interest to the United States. Israel has powerful
positioned people who make it look like we have an interest in Israel but it is
not true. If Israel was gone tommorrow nothing would change in the United
States.
In this climate America must show its unequivocal support to these countries
Actually the United States should do exactly the opposite. The United States
should back away from everyone in the middle east. Let the people of the
middle east solve there own problems.
(and not just their regimes). Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has
apparently made a decision--until now unreported--to draw down American
troops in the Sinai
Rumsfeld is a dual citizen of the United States and Israel.
(When he sprung this on Prime Minister Ariel Sharon the
latter reluctantly acceded to the demand.)
The forces were there to keep the Israel from invading Egypt. It was a bad
idea because Israel has already repeatly attacked Egypt.
Israel is in a bad position. They are losing the ally of the United States.
Many would say that is not true but the immigration to the United States is
almost totally from nations which could careless about Israel to actually hate
Israel. Eventually Israel will lost many of the support of the elected
officers of the United States. The arabs have the baby war won. It is just a
matter of time till the Israeli have more arabs than anyother group.
Doing Insurance business in the Garden State
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
TRANSCRIPT OF CONDOLEEZZA RICE TESTIMONY, APRIL 8,2004
Saturday. April 10: U.S. Airman Killed, 2 Wounded at Balad Air Base
'Tax Freedom Day' is April 11, Earliest in 37 Years
Madison WI Tax Protest this Thursday, April 15! Join us!
83 American troops have died in Iraq in April and it's only half over.
Consumer sentiment falls in April
Saturday, April 24: Four U.S. Soldiers Die, Seven Wounded in Rocket Attack
Thursday, April 29 update: 8 U.S. Soldiers Die in Iraq
| Friday, April 30: Two Marines killed, 6 wounded in Fallujah attack
Statistics of INDIAN State Terrorism & Genocide for April 2004
America... leaderless since April, 2004, as Bush focuses totally on re-election campaign
Wednesday, April 13: U.S. soldier killed in Ramadi
Saturday, April 16: 2 U.S. soldiers dead in Iraq action
Sunday, April 24: 2 U.S. soldiers, 1 sailor killed in action in Iraq
Friday, April 29 update: 3 U.S. soldiers killed, 2 wounded in IED attacks
|
|
|
