אם לא מתאים לפורום הזה, נא לא להעביר לפורום סקופים אלא לנעול.
Arabs disappointed, many see conflict

By Jonathan Wright
Reuters

CAIRO — Middle Eastern peoples, with the exception of Israelis and some Iranians, reacted with resigned disappointment on Wednesday to US election results that gave President George W. Bush four more years in power. One consolation for them was that few had high hopes from Democratic challenger John Kerry, who attacked the way Bush has handled the occupation of Iraq but did not promise action Arabs wanted to see on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Many said they feared another four years of Bush would bring more conflict and bloodshed to the Middle East, which has borne the brunt of Washington doctrine of preemptive attacks. A few said Bush was preferable because he now knew the region and would have time to adjust his policies, or because of his campaign for political reform in the Arab world.

Imad Shuaibi, a political science professor at Damascus University, predicted "four years of nightmare again" on the assumption that Bush would not learn from his first term, which has made the United States more unpopular than ever among Arabs.

"It is likely to mean more violence in Iraq, in Afghanistan but not only there. Other hot spots could blaze up like Sudan, Iran, Syria. Dark clouds are gathering," said Ali Ammar, a leading lawyer and journalist in Morocco.

Jasim Ali, a Bahraini analyst, said: "This is not good news for the Middle East. Bush could take this as a sign that his foreign policy in the region is a success and he may harden his positions. There will be more killing and bloodshed."

"Four more years means ... more innocent people will be victims. Unless he has more sober people around him I don't know what is going to happen," added Khaled Maeena, editor in chief of the Saudi newspaper Arab News.

"All the Saudis I've seen so far are disappointed. We spoke to more than 30 people. They are disappointed that Bush has been awarded victory," Maeena added.

The only immediate official Arab comments came from Yemen, which has cooperated with Washington against militants despite its reservations about overall US policy.

Yemeni Foreign Minister Abubakr Al Qirbi told Reuters his country would continue to cooperate with the US.

But he added: "After Sept. 11 there was unfortunately a violation of human rights of Arabs and Muslims in America, and Washington did not act on the bloody situation in the Palestinian territories, which led to anger towards the Bush administration, in addition to the war in Iraq which turned out to be completely unjustified."

He said it made no difference whether Republicans or Democrats were in power because "each will try to strengthen the United States' hegemony militarily and economically."

The Bush administration has brought America's standing to record lows among Arabs, mainly because of its invasion of Iraq and neglect of the Palestinian problem.

Even his campaign for reform and democracy in the Middle East had not been well received because of suspicions that it is an attempt to impose US interests in the region.

There were pockets of pro-Bush sentiment in Israel, the closest US ally in the region, and paradoxically in Iran despite quarter of a century of frigid relations.

Bush has worked closely with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and appeared to agree with Sharon that cracking down on Palestinian militants was part of a joint "war on terrorism."

Israel Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said: "There is no doubt that this was a serious chemistry (between Bush and Sharon), and President Bush's friendliness was very great."

"But in the case of President Bush and the candidate Kerry, there is no significant difference when it comes to their warm support for Israel," he added.

Mohammad Ali Abtahi, an adviser to Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, said a Bush victory was preferable despite his "wrong policies.”

"By the mistakes he made in the Middle East he has more knowledge about the region than Kerry, who needs time and money to reach Bush's conclusions," Abtahi said.

Ordinary Arabs and politicians reflected the divide between those who had hoped for Bush's humiliation, those who saw some slight advantage in a Bush second term and those who consider all leading US politicians as hopelessly biased.

"Bush is the most hated man in the region... His mentality is naturally against Islam and Muslims... Kerry is better for the plain reason that he is not Bush," said Dia El Din Dawoud, head of the left-wing Nasserist party in Egypt.

Thursday, November 4, 2004

Bush's and Kerry's difference on Israel

By Mitchell Plitnick

Jordan Times, November 2, 2004



While neither a George W. Bush nor a John Kerry administration would challenge the `special relationship ' between the US and Israel, the outcome of this election will likely make a real difference in the amount of death and destruction visited on both sides, but especially on Palestinians. There are, to be sure, significant differences between presidential candidates Kerry and Bush. But when it comes to the Middle East, the differences are difficult to spot. In contrast to the 2000 election, however, when the direction each candidate would take if elected was not entirely clear, we can be pretty certain what the policies of Kerry and Bush will look like.

What Bush might do in another four years wouldn't be different in substance from his terrible first term, but it would be magnified, with potentially disastrous results. As for Kerry, his inclination towards a return to negotiations and a reduction of violence wouldn't bring peace or justice much closer, but would likely mean some lessening of the killing and destruction.

A Kerry presidency

As Kerry began his campaign, he was in a paradoxical position. Most of America's Jewish voters were quite anti-Bush, and could be counted on to vote for a Democrat. But the major Jewish organisations clearly saw that Bush's stand on Israel was much more to their liking than Kerry's. While most American Jews make presidential choices based on priorities other than Israel, these large Jewish organisations emphasise Israel above all, and they, rather than Jewish voters, are the players candidates try to win over (note: recent polls reinforce this. Most American Jews believe that Bush is more favourable to Israel, yet 75 per cent are still projected as voting for Kerry). Because of this pressure, Kerry has moved away from earlier more reasonable positions, such as his criticism of Israel's wall in the West Bank.

But campaign promises and actual policies are not the same. They often don't even resemble each other much. Statements made by both Kerry and his running mate John Edwards have raised concerns among observers and have convinced many that the policies of a Kerry administration will be little different from a second Bush regime. Of course, no administration will challenge the “special relationship ” between the US and Israel, and the flow of aid and political support for Israel will remain intact no matter who wins. This will be true until American citizens come out in sufficient organised numbers demanding a change. But within that framework, there are differences which, while perhaps not mattering much in terms of attaining a just peace, do make a big difference in the level of death and destruction for both sides, but especially for Palestinians.

Rather than listen to the campaign propaganda, one might do better to look at the people Kerry has assembled around him. These include Sandy Berger, Martin Indyk and Dennis Ross, all veterans of the Clinton years. These are, of course, some of the key figures responsible for bringing about the current state of affairs . Ross in particular played a central role in propagating the myth of the “generous offer”. That is the notion that at Camp David in 2000, the Palestinians were offered virtually everything they wanted, but refused this, opting instead for a violent assault on Israeli citizens. This is far from a fair description of the events at Camp David, and the charade has caused a great deal of damage. Israeli and American belief in this myth makes peace much harder to achieve, and it will surely be reinforced in a Kerry presidency with Ross involved.

Still, all these men, while certainly not disposed towards any kind of even handedness, did generally favour keeping some kind of control over what they might see as “the occasional excesses” of the Israeli government. And they all strongly supported continued engagement with both the Palestinians and Syria. Their inclinations are more towards the Labour side of Israeli politics.

That view favours a negotiated settlement and a Palestinian state, albeit a settlement where Israel retains control over most or all of Jerusalem, some kind of ongoing Israeli military presence in the West Bank and absolutely no return of any Palestinian refugees. It is far from the evenhanded approach that is needed; that approach would dictate that Israel end its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and that both sides negotiate in good faith over the outstanding issues. There is no hope of that in a Kerry administration.

Indeed, until we who oppose the occupation of Palestinian territories marshal the serious political force we are capable of assembling, there will never be an administration that will take that approach. But Kerry does favour working diplomatically, and is quite likely to exercise some restraint over Israeli actions in the territories, just as Clinton did.

This does not mean things will be the same. The shortsightedness of the Bush administration, its near-complete refusal to act to slow Ariel Sharon's aggressiveness and the intense violence of the past four years have changed the playing field greatly since Clinton left office. But the inclination of a Kerry policy will be towards a return to negotiations and a reduction of violence. It won't bring peace or justice much closer, but it is likely to mean some lessening of the killing and destruction.

A second Bush term

Many assume that a second Bush administration will be much like the first. But some strong differences are likely to emerge.

A second Bush term might be called “Bush unleashed”. It would mean four years of “we ain't seen nuthin' yet”.

In his first four years in office, Bush has fundamentally altered the diplomatic playing field in Israel/Palestine. He has given Israel a guarantee that they would never have to return to the borders as they existed before the 1967 war and that there would be no return of any Palestinian refugees into Israel. Crucially, this means that the US has decided this in Israel's favour without any discussion with the Palestinians.

While it has long been understood by many that this was America's outlook, the public proclamation of these points reverses decades of American policy which stated that such sensitive issues need to be dealt with in direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

Bush has endorsed Sharon's unilateralism, something America has generally opposed. He has in fact done more to change the basics of Middle East diplomacy than anyone since Henry Kissinger's policy of “stalemate”, which permanently removed the United States from the international consensus formed around UN Resolution 242, the basis of “land-for-peace” reached in the wake of the 1967 war.

The major likely change would be the appointment of a new secretary of state. Many believe that Colin Powell will not be back in that office if Bush is reelected. Powell has often looked quite uncomfortable while spouting the party line, a line he often knew to be absurd or even dangerous. And it has been clear for some time that Powell and the State Department have been resigned to a secondary role in policy formation behind Donald Rumsfeld and the Defence Department.

Powell, for all of his own hawkishness, has been a voice of comparative reason amid a cacophony of neoconservative voices. Should the new secretary of state be someone who is more closely aligned with the Rumsfeld/Cheney camp, there would be even greater aggression, not just in Israel/Palestine but everywhere around the world. The UN would not even be an afterthought anymore. Nor would any allies but for the few closest ones that stay in line, as England and Israel have. There can be little doubt that the close relationship with Sharon would be even closer in a second term.

There are also some indications that the Pentagon is growing increasingly uneasy with the neocon programme. Sources have said the FBI investigation into Douglas Feith's office and into AIPAC was initiated at the behest of the Pentagon. Feith has even hinted he may not be back for the second term if there is one. But at this point, Rumsfeld and Cheney are sufficiently schooled in the neocon programme, and are sure to continue to rely on the neocon clique for guidance, whether they are in office or not. In any case, it seems overwhelmingly likely that any departing neocons will be replaced by others from the same school, though perhaps less well-known ones.

In short, four more years of Bush working hand-in-hand with Sharon could elevate this conflict to levels of violence never thought imaginable.

The writer is director of policy and education, Jewish Voice for Peace. He contributed this article to The Jordan Times.

http://www.jordantimes.com/tue/opinion/opinion3.htm

האפשרות היחידה שעומדת לרשותם להפגין אכזבה מתוצאות בחירות, היא רק מבחירות במדינות אחרות....