Examining Arab Strategy, or Lack Thereof

In a conversation with a respected Palestinian official months ago, I was told that the reason the Palestinian Authority (PA), "keeps coming back" seeking a more active US role in the Middle East conflict is because the US is the only viable broker. Only a few countries and international bodies are capable of pushing the "peace process" forward, able to persuade both sides to "compromise", and particularly, able to exert "pressure" on Israel.

The logic seemed odd, considering the unquestionable one-sidedness the US has exhibited in the Arab-Israeli daunting conflict. One doesn't need to spend a great deal of time and effort researching for US bias in archived official statements and news that goes back to the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948. Just one look at the US selective practices in the United Nations says it all. The United States government has vetoed an estimated 68 UN Security Council resolutions throughout the years, blocking numerous attempts by the international community to impose disciplinary measures on various, if not all past Israeli governments, for violating international law, time and again.

The official US justifications for alienating itself from the rest of the world to rescue Israel varied, but often centered around the same anemic idea that such UN resolutions will only hamper the peace process, and that negotiations alone can solve the Middle East conflict. For an outsider, the justification is appealing, even wise, but for those whose know a thing or two about the Middle East conflict, it's ridiculous to depict a peaceful Middle East, at least at this current stage without the presence of a fair-handed arbitrator, a frame of reference of international law (not the Israeli Supreme Court or Knesset that justifies the assassination of Palestinian activists), and certainly a power with the will and genuine interest to find a just solution to the bloody conflict.

As far as Israel is concerned, the United States is certainly the right power for the job. Of course, a country like the US which pours several billion dollars into Israel's military machine annually, provides Israel with political cover to apply its backward imperialist practices on the Palestinians, with the help of the US media to clean up the mess along the way, is certainly a country that is qualified to be the "honest broker" in the Middle East.

But why is the Palestinian leadership holding the same perception?

The Palestinian Authority, despite all of its ailments has no illusions that the US is only a broker, but certainly not an honest one. Take for example, President George W. Bush's insistence not to meet with the PA Chairman Yasser Arafat, at a time that he frequently met Israel's Ariel Sharon at the ranch, both smiling to the cameras like the best of pals. Put the official justification aside: "Arafat needs to prove to me that he is genuinely interested in fighting terrorism," since at the time that Arafat has exerted some sincere efforts (once out of his besieged office) to halt the violence, even from one side, Sharon would openly share his regrets with the media of not killing Arafat when he had the chance.

Only in a fantasy world does Sharon emerge as a "man of peace", as Bush dubbed him, and Arafat as a "Mafia boss" as described by retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, US special envoy to the Middle East.

The US Defense Secretary, certainly a powerful man, decided to reconstruct the Middle East conflict in a way that would suit his way of thinking, leaving jungle law in charge of what should have been handled by international law. Here is what Donald Rumsfeld had to say, speaking at a town hall meeting at the Pentagon on 6 Aug., 2002:

"My feelings about the so-called occupied territories are that there was a war; Israel urged neighboring countries not to get involve in it once it started. They all jumped in, and they lost a lot of real estate to Israel because Israel prevailed in the conflict."

Now, Rumsfeld proceeds to share his view of the Jewish militant outposts or settlements:

"In the intervening period, they've made some settlements in various parts of the so-called occupied area, which was the result of a war, which they won."

Such a simplified, poor approach in analyzing a conflict, extending through the 20th and 21 century, reminds us of fiery speeches of Christian Coalition leader Pat Robertson or "God's new banker?" as some British media have recently describe him. But in Rumsfeld's case, one doesn't have the privilege of turning the "700 Club" off. Rumsfeld is a leading figure in a powerful country, and is only a reflection of right wing policies carried out by his government.

While the ultimate victims of such a right wing are the American people, should Arabs, but most importantly Palestinians simply look elsewhere for answers, for another broker, an honest one, for a change?

While Rumsfeld has the whole Middle East conflict (or the so-called Middle East conflict) all figured out, the Arab masses have no illusions about the detrimental role played by the US government in keeping Israel's occupation of Arab land, and of the subsequent  persecution of the Palestinian people.

"It has to be a slip of the tongue by the US defense secretary, as he was speaking spontaneously and not from a written speech," this is what Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher told reporters when asked about Rumsfeld's "so-called occupied" remark.

Maher is an educated man and is certainly aware that Rumsfeld's remarks are not qualified to be categorized as a "slip of the tongue." Most Arab governments, and the Palestinian leadership knows, they must know, that the United States' support of Israel was a leading reason for the Israeli government's arrogance and defiance. Yet they continue to dub the US government as a friend and an ally.

My conversation with the Palestinian official flashed again in my head on Tuesday, Oct 1, when the US Congress passed legislation, that was ratified by President Bush which implicitly recognized Jerusalem, including Arab East Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

True, a "barrage" of condemnation by a "chorus" of leaders (this is how some media phrased it), was heard and seen, loud and clear. But by the end, the Arab strategy is still the same. While the US government and Congress have openly submitted to the right wing elements of the US government and media, the pressure of the Israeli-Jewish lobby groups and to the will of the Israeli government, the official statement of the PA, although clearly reflected outrage, said that the decision "harms the credibly of the US as a peace mediator." If The PA still anticipates a positive US role in the Middle East, then there is a serious issue for debate, an issue that has been ignored for such a long time.

One has to remember that the Palestinian leadership (considering the might of its enemies, the gigantic influence of the US and the negative use of that influence, the fragmentation of the Arab world and its inability to reshape an overall Middle East policy) is in a very difficult position. Ignoring the US role can hardly change things for the better for the Palestinians, and gambling on the happy day in which Washington is a kinder Washington is more of a daydream, at least for now.  Continuing with this vicious cycle, in which Arabs are slapped at the face, almost everyday, yet remain faithful believers in the American government's virtue, will maintain the status quo, in which Israel will remain the greatest, or only beneficiary. 

There has been little or no efforts in refining existing strategies or building new ones to combat the US government's bias toward Israel. There has been no serious efforts put forth to reach the ordinary American, to back those who dare to confront the ever demanding Israeli lobby in the Congress (and who as a result are losing to the Israeli-backed politicians). There has been little or no efforts to influence the media (except of the greatly admirable efforts of independent groups). There has been no unified Arab front in serving Arab causes, or in using strategic Arab wealth to influence US polices, of saying enough is enough, when such a call is needed.

I do remember my conversation with the Palestinian official, and I do sympathize with his statement: 'the Palestinian Authority (PA), "keeps coming back" seeking a more active US role in the Middle East conflict because the US is the only viable broker.' But feeding on such an observation, without any real attempt to find alternative brokers or turn the only "viable" one into an honest one, has been a major component responsible for today's catastrophic foreign policies, and I don't mean American foreign policies, but Arab and Palestinian policies. Too bad the US decided to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, but the real challenge is knowing what else can we do about it, aside from registering our opposition with a few official statements and expressions of regret.