The Hindu : Dismantling an accord

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Jun 05, 2002

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

Dismantling an accord

By Qamar Agha

Palestinians in the changed global scenario are no longer victims of Israeli aggression alone; they are pawns in the new American oil wars.

AFTER ISRAEL'S attempt to destroy the Palestinian Authority and the marginalisation of Yasser Arafat, the Americans are once again talking about a "Palestinian state". With Washington now busy fighting an oil war in which Israel and not the Palestinian state matters for it, this seems a difficult proposition. Things have changed since the Clinton-brokered Oslo accord. Now, what is keeping Washington from delivering on its own promise of a Palestinian state? The story goes back to the Arab-Israeli peace talks at Camp David in 2000 and culminatesin the latest round of the American war against terrorism.

Ever since the Camp David talks failed, violence has been raging in the region. The Palestinians launched Intifada-2 hoping it would bring international pressure on Israel to withdraw from the Palestinian territories of East Jerusalem, West Bank and the Gaza Strip, which it occupied in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. But this has not happened, because of the suicide bombings by the Islamic militant organisation against Israeli targets in response to the Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon's "iron-fist" policy in dealing with the Palestinian uprising. It has only helped Israel gain more support among the Western nations.

Mr. Sharon has accused Mr. Arafat of involvement in the violence and dubbed him the head of an "empire of terror". He called for the destruction of "the infrastructure of Palestinian terrorism" and invaded territories administered by the Palestinian Authority under the "land-for-peace" deal or the Oslo interim accord signed in 1993. After inflicting heavy losses on the Palestinians, Mr. Sharon withdrew his army to announce that the Palestinian Authority was a "rotten and dictatorial regime of terror", and that the Jewish state would not enter into any peace negotiations until it could "sit down with a different Authority". This meant the death of the Oslo accord.

Mr. Sharon has imposed tough conditions for a fresh round of peace talks which neither Mr. Arafat nor any other Palestinian leader can fulfil. Israel wants the whole of Jerusalem to be its "eternal capital" and the West Bank (the Judea and Samaria, a biblical land) where 180,000 Jews are settled since its occupation. The Likud Party, to which Mr. Sharon belongs, has already adopted a resolution against the establishment of a Palestinian state. This is nothing new. Many in Israel, cutting across party lines, are opposed to the idea of a Palestine state. However, Mr. Sharon's concern about international opinion forced him to talk of "permanent peace, that we all hope for after a lengthy intermediate stage of calm", lasting for at least 10 years. Meaning: no negotiations with the Palestinians for at least 10 years.

Mr. Sharon himself was an advocate of the theory that "Jordan is Palestinian"; he promoted Jewish settlement programmes in the occupied Arab territories. He was also blamed for the disastrous 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, and he is reviled for his role in the massacres of Palestinians in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila. His visit to a holy Muslim site in East Jerusalem sparked the latest Palestinian uprising.

Mr. Sharon's position as Prime Minister has added a new dimension to the volatile situation. He is determined not to negotiate with Mr. Arafat. He also believes that "the Oslo accord no longer exists". His attack is mainly directed against the Palestinian Authority and Mr. Arafat. In effect, it torpedoes the peace process. The Palestinian Authority is the target because it is the most important institution of the Palestinians, recognised by the international community. No matter what Israel claims, the Palestinian Authority had, in a short time, built several institutions of governance and was quite successfully running the show.

As for Mr. Arafat, he is the only undisputed Palestinian leader and consistent champion of the cause. Mr. Arafat wants to establish a secular and democratic state in the occupied Arab territories of West Bank and the Gaza Strip; East Jerusalem will be its capital; he believes in peaceful co-existence. His credibility among the Arabs increased further when he refused to compromise on territories at Camp David. Mr. Arafat is an Arab nationalist to the core and it is feared that he will not hesitate to oppose the U.S. move to topple the Iraqi regime. He is the only Arab leader who has the capacity to build a pan-Arab movement against the U.S. moves in the region.

The September 11 terrorist attack on America has provided Mr. Sharon a big opportunity to fulfil his dreams. Israel has emerged a strategic ally of the U.S. war against terrorism. The Bush administration, therefore, looked the other way while he destroyed the Palestine Authority and tried to eliminate Mr. Arafat. It is as important an alliance as the anti-communist ones the West used to have in the Cold War era.

The U.S. war against terrorism is not just against militant Islamic organisations; it wants to establish a new order in the Islamic world. It seeks to establish a Turkey-model `secular system' in the region. In the post-Cold War era, the Saudi-backed Wahabite movement, which supported the conservative Arab regimes, has lost credibility to the gain of anti-West militant Islamic organisations which threaten local rulers. Therefore, the U.S. is encouraging its allies in the Islamic nations to adopt liberal Islamic values. The U.S. cannot afford to lose the support of the Arab countries on which it is increasingly dependent for its oil. Meanwhile, it is not willing to pay higher prices for petroleum products as that would mean a negative impact on its economy. Ensuring oil supplies to the West on its own terms has always dictated U.S. policy in the regionThe Western oil cartels, particularly from the U.S., are keen on gaining entry into Iraq, Iran and Central Asia. The Bush administration has already declared its intention to change the regime in Iraq. Iran is next on the list. Iran is important for America strategically; it is well connected through an extensive pipeline to Turkey. Besides, Central Asian oil can be pumped to Europe via Iran. But the oil cartels are not prepared to spend billions of dollars on an alternative route just to bypass Iran. Thus the U.S. war on terrorism is essentially an oil war. It aims to dominate resources and control markets in the volatile West and Central Asia.

The U.S. cannot fight without the strategic support of its allies in the region. Therefore, it is increasingly dependent on Israel. European reluctance to endorse U.S. initiatives in West Asia has made Israel all the more important to it. Israel understands this fully well and is exploiting it to its advantage. Resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict is no longer the U.S. priority. Any hope of an independent Palestinian state in this environment seems a far-fetched dream. Palestinians in the changed global scenario are no longer victims of Israeli aggression alone; they are pawns in the new American oil wars.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Tilting at Windmills

The verdict in Goa

Losing strategic credibility

Dismantling an accord

Did U.S., Osama talk?

Give up n-weapons

Next President

Wasteful expenditure

Politics and suicides