|
Israel and Palestine
Bush recently endorsed a “peace” plan put
forth by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, involving
Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in exchange
for recognition of Israel’s right to parts of
the West Bank and an American rejection of the Palestinian
right to return — an old sticking point in the
negotiations involving the right of millions of refugees
from the Arab-Israeli war of 1948 to return to Israeli-held
territories.
It is unlikely that the Palestinians ever realistically
have expected to gain the entire West Bank or the right
to return. You will not hear them admit that though,
and with good reason: If they were to concede on that,
they would be conceding on all Palestinians. If anyone
could put themselves in the Palestinians’ position
— even for a fraction of a second — it seems
impossible to view this development as anything less
than Bush spitting in the face of Arabs everywhere.
Not one ounce of Palestinian input went into this plan
or Bush’s endorsement. Michael Tarazi, a legal
adviser to the Palestine Liberation Organization, compared
Bush’s actions to Palestinians deciding to cede
California to Canada. Bush apparently has decided that
hearing the opinions of those whose lives he very gallantly
claims to be is largely unnecessary; paternal dictatorship
at the global level, at best.
Audacious? I think so. Surprising? Perhaps a little
less so, given this was the man who thumbed his nose
a year ago at the only existing institution whose entire
founding rationale — however flawed in practice
— was to preserve global peace and; he simply
decided that he knew better.
It has been cited how Bush’s move will create
a more centrist governing coalition in Israel, which
one American official says the Palestinians will be
“more comfortable with.” An Israeli official
goes further in lauding how this will provide the opportunity
for the Palestinians to “take matters into their
own hands and chart their own destiny.”
Could the White House be more condescending? Or the
Israeli government more ludicrous in suggesting that
what has happened gives the Palestinians more leeway
to decide their futures?
Bush will appear to be dealing only with Sharon and
treating the Palestinians like children to be seen but
not heard. What would one expect the reaction from a
Palestinian — no matter how rational or committed
to justice and peaceful means — be under the circumstances?
Fallujah and Mosul
Many registered surprise and shock when armed resistance
spread from the Sunni population to include the Shiites.
Why would the group so oppressed by Saddam, and with
the most to gain with him toppled from power rise up
against the Americans?
Is this blind hatred toward American infidels? Hardly.
I invite the bewildered once again to reverse the roles.
Imagine any foreign force occupying the United States.
It wouldn’t matter if they were seeking to abolish
poverty, better enforce civil liberties or anything
of the sort; any occupying force would be resisted,
and likely violently so. If said foreign force had tremendous
economic and geopolitical interests in the United States,
would any American trust them — pure as their
purported ideals may be — to hand over power in
a neutral and disinterested fashion?
I won’t even enter the argument regarding the
sincerity of America’s intent; it doesn’t
matter. Perception is all that is relevant in the final
analysis, and it’s going to take a lot more than
a few roads and schools to turn the “hearts and
minds” of people whose kith and kin still are
being shot at by overwhelmingly armed white people.
It is a strange, bitter mix of pain and strands of
triumphalism to see the Rumsfeld gang finally admit
that some of the generals were right about necessary
troop strength. Pumping in these extra troops without
eradicating the stubborn arrogance and narrow-mindedness
that seems to pervade the administration’s policy-making
prompts fears that we are sending those troops to die
at the hands of self-perceived freedom fighters, giving
terrorists another reason to want to blow people up.
Bin Laden and Terrorism
Speaking of people blowing things up: Bin Laden —
a bad, bad man — released a tape recently offering
a truce to the Europeans. He once again highlights the
connection between terrorism and Palestine; Bush never
makes this connection and it’s rarely mentioned
in the press, but it appears to be on the lips of every
suicide bomber, and every jihadist who sees this global
state of affairs as an Arab/Muslim struggle for survival
and dignity.
Bin Laden’s tape contained critiques of the military-industrial
complex (“We must take into consideration that
this war brings billions of dollars in profit to the
major companies … such as the Halliburton Company.”)
and deceitful political leadership (“… that
injustice is inflicted on us and on you by your politicians,
who send your sons — although you are opposed
to this — to our countries to kill and be killed.”).
The very same words could have come from the mouth of
most American leftists.
Needless to say, all parties rejected his offer without
hesitation. Not having an alternative of my own, I’m
hesitant to critique the anti-terrorism effort. Nonetheless,
I will offer this:
Every effort to weed out terrorism by use of an iron
fist brings with it the risk of inviting more; this
has been stated over and over again, and is experienced
daily by soldiers in Fallujah and Mosul, by Israelis
and Palestinians alike, and by every commuter who thinks
twice about boarding a plane or train.
The governments of the West continuously ignore the
most blatant factors that inspire people to blow themselves
up, that give them courage to take on the mightiest
military in the world in open battle. The White House
believes that the resistance can be crushed; that enough
hard-handed enforcement will eliminate every threat
and prevent every atrocity. If the administration has
any doubts, it isn’t sharing them. It’s
a tragicomedy to watch officials dance like fools to
keep their public statements in line with policy; people
with nothing to hide do not dance when questioned.
I do not share the convictions of the Bush administration.
I do not share them because I have walked in public
places, I utilize public transport and I do so with
open eyes. What my eyes see is the ease with which one
can realize mass murder. Hardware store chemicals, online
bomb-making instructions, the simplest of plans, box
cutters; it is absolutely staggering, that ease.
I cannot help but think that the only reason there
aren’t more mass murders is because most people
do not have reason to blow up a subway train, most people
do not want to drive car bombs into nightclubs; for
the majority of the world, it takes a lot to want to
kill someone (it took the likes of Timothy McVeigh,
Ted Kaczynski and John Allen Muhammad to find such reasons).
Once that intention exists, combined with little fear
for one’s own life, devastatingly little stands
between that intention and mass murder. Look around
and you’ll realize that in all truth, it just
requires is a little imagination. Ours is in fact a
fragile and exposed world; do Bush and gang realize
how little stands between murderers and victims?
It appears not; nor does he — in all of his wisdom
— seem to fully appreciate either the power of
intent and determination or the degree to which his
actions are feeding that determination. I’m not
sure if it’s because he thinks “evil”
people just aren’t as bright, or that having God
on his side (like many other famous leaders) assures
him victory, but the atrocities he seems to be inviting
on the West and on the American people with his convictions
is deeply troubling.
|
