[PAA-Discuss] FW: [PACUSA] Time to say no(for Arab "moderates")

Lee Loe leeloe at igc.org
Sun Feb 11 18:14:06 EST 2007 

 

  _____  

From: PACUSA at yahoogroups.com [mailto:PACUSA at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
CharlieChimp1 at aol.com
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 3:38 AM
To: al-awda-london at yahoogroups.com; pmwatch at yahoogroups.com;
pacusa at yahoogroups.com; Al-Awda at yahoogroups.com;
efreepalestine at yahoogroups.com; al-awda-universalist at umich.edu
Subject: [PACUSA] Time to say no(for Arab "moderates")




"It is mistaken to believe that what is happening in Iraq, Lebanon and
Palestine are civil wars or even the beginning of civil wars. They are
political conflicts fuelled by the US-Israeli drive for regional hegemony."
 
It is time for those co-operating,colluding with US/Israel to face reality.
Hopefully, the unity government agreement is confirmation that Abbas(and the
Saudi rulers) have done so.
 
Chris  
 
 
 

Time to say no

To continue kowtowing to the US administration's demands over Iraq, Iran,
Syria, Lebanon and Palestine would be suicidal, writes Hassan Nafaa*
<http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/print/2007/831/op2.htm#1>  
  _____  


Gaping wounds in some of the most sensitive areas of the Arab world, most
notably in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine, have begun to suppurate. The current
American administration, headed by a clique of anti-Arab Islamophobes, will
stop at nothing, out of deference to Israel and commitment to the
Christian-Zionist preaching in which they believe so fervently. This same
administration believes the fact that neither the president's nor the
vice-president's running for re-election gives them greater freedom of
movement, at least until the electoral campaigns officially kick-off in
February a year from now. Until then they will steamroll through measures in
an attempt to complete an enterprise refuse to admit they have failed. And
such is the catatonic stupor into which Arab regimes have fallen that they
are prepared to allow the same doctor who caused the disease to treat their
wounds.

Two factors forced Bush to re-adjust his policy and plans for Iraq and the
region. The Baker- Hamilton report, drafted by a joint Democratic-
Republican commission, concluded the administration's policy was a fiasco
and demanded changes. Then, the Republicans lost their majority in both
houses of Congress just as the growing anti-war movement was reminding the
American public of the failings of the Vietnam era. In response, Bush dug in
his heels. Instead of cooperating with Iran and Syria to restore an element
of calm in order to pave the way for an honourable withdrawal, as the
Baker-Hamilton report recommended, he did the opposite, ordering 20,000 more
US troops to Iraq, two aircraft carriers to the Gulf, and furnishing his
friends in the neighbourhood with anti-missile defence systems. Such moves
were obviously in preparation for a military strike against Iran and the
tightening of the siege around Syria, yet Bush was confident of his allies'
support. Just in case, though, he sent Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
on another tour of the region.

Here was the envoy of supposedly the greatest democracy on earth appealing
to foreign friends in order to tip the scale of American public opinion back
in favour of the executive after Congress had won the first round. The close
observer might have detected Rice's inward sneer as she discovered how
immeasurably more malleable decision-makers in this part of the world are
than lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Certainly she shed no tears. Quite the
opposite: she was delighted, full of confidence, pleased to see eight Arab
foreign ministers climbing over one another in Kuwait to declare their
support for America's "new" plans for Iraq and for the region. She had
grounds for her confidence. She knows, after all, that she is the only
person capable of getting this number of Arab foreign ministers to meet in
any place she designates, in the Arab world or abroad, at the snap of her
fingers. Perhaps, too, she felt a measure of malicious glee as she watched
them fight to win her favour, in the full knowledge that while each and
everyone of them is a member of the Arab League they would never come
together on their own initiative in order to develop an independent policy
to further their common interests.

When the rush of Arab governments to support an American policy that
American society itself deplores stirred angry reactions among sectors of
Arab public opinion, various diplomatic quarters tried to stem the damage.
Some Arab foreign ministers, for example, tried to convey the impression
that their support was qualified, that it was contingent upon results on the
ground. 

It was hardly convincing. Governments generally formulate policies on the
basis of considerations and expectations that have not yet been put to the
test. When other governments come out in support of those policies they are
committing themselves, as partners, to working for its success regardless of
what the future may bring. And just as they anticipate sharing the fruits of
the policy, should it succeed, they must also be prepared to sustain their
share of losses should it fail.

The Bush plan entails actions hostile to both Iran and Syria. To support it
is to side unequivocally against these two countries. The same applies to
the fact that the plan is opposed by the majority of the American people,
not to mention powers such as China, Russia and the EU.

Bush's reckless adventurism is well known and the tide of opposition to his
policy will swell further, both at home and abroad. While this makes failure
even more likely it will not forestall the disasters that will undoubtedly
be inflicted on Arabs and Muslims. So certain is the prognosis that it is
only possible to wonder at the considerations upon which Arab regimes base
their support of US policy. The most obvious premises for their behaviour
are probably the right ones: first, they think Iran's expansionist designs
more dangerous than the Zionist version, and second, they believe the need
to placate the US in order to sustain their strategic relationships with
Washington outstrips all other regional and international considerations.

Without underestimating the potential threat to the Arab world of Iran's
growing power and influence, it is impossible to accept this presents a
greater peril than the Zionist enterprise. The best way for the Arabs to
confront Tehran's regional power bid is not to fall in with US-Israeli plans
to strike Iran but to establish a unified Arab policy towards Iran. This
would involve opening a dialogue with Tehran, to which end they would have
to rely on Syria. A strike against Iran, by the US and/or Israel, may weaken
Iran temporarily but it will not strengthen the hand of any Arab power. It
could easily plunge the entire region into a state of chaos, triggering any
number of local civil wars if not a full-fledged regional war. 

Arab leaders who believed the claims that ridding Iraq of Saddam Hussein
would eliminate one of the greatest impediments to regional stability should
look at what has in fact been eliminated. It is Iraq as a state that has
been destroyed. And who, apart from Iran and Israel, has gained from the
catastrophe that has befallen Iraq? Does it not also follow that the sole
beneficiary of any war against Iran will be Israel, for whom the destruction
of Iran would come as the most crucial step towards realising Israel's dream
of re-organising the Middle East into disparate sectarian-based statelets as
it transforms itself into the engineer of their multi-farious rivalries and
alliances? 

As important as the strategic relationship with the US might be, Arab
leaders should realise that Bush and his gang of neo-conservatives are not
synonymous with the United States. They are a band of thugs bent on steering
the world to unmitigated disaster, a fact grasped by the majority of the
American people upon whom it has dawned that this administration is no less
fanatical and racist than Hitler and the Nazis. Nor can a strategic
relationship be founded upon handing over the determination of the fates of
our peoples to the White House, regardless of whether its incumbent is a
Democrat or Republican, an extremist or moderate. The US is a mighty power
and acts as mighty powers mostly do: it respects the strong and crushes the
weak once it can dispense with their services. When will Arab rulers open
their eyes to the reality that their current weakness and disarray is
hastening the day when the US finds them too much of a burden and drops
them? When will they realise that they will never be able to make the
transition from a dependent to a partner or build a strategic relationship
that is truly mutually beneficent until they demonstrate their ability to
effectively play what few cards they have left to their advantage?

Would it be excessive to suggest that the current crisis offers Arab
countries that are on good terms with the US a rare opportunity to regain
some of their forfeited leverage? I don't think so. This is one of those
paradoxes of the current situation though to capitalise on it the ruling
elites -- contrary to what they seem to believe -- must summon the resolve
to convey to Bush a resounding no, and then enter immediately into talks
with Iran, Syria and, perhaps, Turkey. Such a dialogue would seek to promote
a range of interrelated objectives: an end to the internecine bloodshed in
Palestine, the creation of a national unity government and the immediate
lifting of the economic blockade on the Palestinian people; an end to the
Lebanese crisis by pressuring rival parties to return to the negotiation
table with the purpose of resolving their differences and safeguarding
Lebanese independence while simultaneously ensuring Syria's security
requirements; a reconciliation between rival Iraqi factions so as to
preserve Iraq's territorial integrity and set in motion a new political
process that will lead to a government that represents Iraqis regardless of
sectarian affiliations; establishing channels of communication and dialogue
with US leaders opposed to Bush's policies in order to generate pressure for
an international conference, in which all concerned parties take part, the
purpose of which is to resolve, in tandem, all the interconnected crises in
the Middle East, and to establish agreed-upon systems for collective and
humanitarian security so as to ensure the settlements are acceptable
regionally and internationally.

It is mistaken to believe that what is happening in Iraq, Lebanon and
Palestine are civil wars or even the beginning of civil wars. They are
political conflicts fuelled by the US-Israeli drive for regional hegemony. 

* The writer is a professor of political science at Cairo University. 


C Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved


Al-Ahram Weekly Online : Located at: http://weekly.
<http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/831/op2.htm> ahram.org.eg/2007/831/op2.htm 

__._,_.___ 
Messages
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PACUSA/message/7661;_ylc=X3oDMTM0cGpuaWQ4BF9T
Azk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzc3NzA5MzYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY0MzA5BG1zZ0lkAzc2NjEEc2Vj
A2Z0cgRzbGsDdnRwYwRzdGltZQMxMTcxMjMyOTYwBHRwY0lkAzc2NjE-> in this topic (1)
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PACUSA/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJwazlicmt1BF9TAzk3MzU5
NzE0BGdycElkAzc3NzA5MzYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY0MzA5BG1zZ0lkAzc2NjEEc2VjA2Z0cgRz
bGsDcnBseQRzdGltZQMxMTcxMjMyOTYw?act=reply&messageNum=7661> Reply (via web
post) | Start
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PACUSA/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlNWNra292BF9TAzk3MzU5
NzE0BGdycElkAzc3NzA5MzYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY0MzA5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3Rp
bWUDMTE3MTIzMjk2MA--> a new topic 
Messages
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PACUSA/messages;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMmczazRsBF9TAzk3
MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzc3NzA5MzYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY0MzA5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA21zZ3ME
c3RpbWUDMTE3MTIzMjk2MA-->  
All statements or articles posted represent the views of their authors and
not necessarily those of PACUSA.

All message are available for members at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PACUSA

Write your representative today!:
http://cflweb.org/congress_merge_.htm

 
<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkaW9mZW10BF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzc3N
zA5MzYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY0MzA5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMTcxMjMyOTYw>
Yahoo! Groups 
Change
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PACUSA/join;_ylc=X3oDMTJmZTZ0Y2E1BF9TAzk3NDc2
NTkwBGdycElkAzc3NzA5MzYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY0MzA5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3N0bmdzBHN0
aW1lAzExNzEyMzI5NjA-> settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) 
Change settings via email: Switch
<mailto:PACUSA-digest at yahoogroups.com?subject=Email Delivery: Digest>
delivery to Daily Digest | Switch
<mailto:PACUSA-traditional at yahoogroups.com?subject=Change Delivery Format:
Traditional> format to Traditional 
Visit
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PACUSA;_ylc=X3oDMTJkZnJrbXQwBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwB
GdycElkAzc3NzA5MzYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY0MzA5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2hwZgRzdGltZQMxM
TcxMjMyOTYw> Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> of Use | Unsubscribe
<mailto:PACUSA-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com?subject=> 
.
 
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=7770936/grpspId=1705064309/msgId
=7661/stime=1171232960/nc1=1/nc2=2/nc3=3> 
__,_._,___ 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://paa-tx.org/pipermail/discuss_paa-tx.org/attachments/20070211/dfb7c2f6/attachment.htm>

More information about the Discuss mailing list