Share this story!            

EDITORIAL: Bush’s Middle East blunder

US President George Bush has endorsed Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon’s highly controversial plan to unilaterally pull back from Gaza and part of the West Bank while denying that he is taking sides in the long-running conflict. This is a travesty, as was clear from the words of a beaming Mr Sharon during the joint conference when he told Mr Bush that no US president before him had gone as far as he has in support of Israel. What it is that Mr Sharon wants and which Mr Bush in the election year has given him to earn the support of the powerful Jewish lobby in the United States?

Mr Sharon’s has proposed a ‘disengagement’ plan that includes a provision for Israel to pull out all Jewish settlements from Gaza and all except six blocs of Jewish settlements from the West Bank. The backbone of the disengagement part of the plan is the Wall that Mr Sharon’s government has been building and which cuts through Palestinian land depriving the latter of approximately 45 percent of their richest farmland. The plan accepts no Palestinian claim over Jerusalem or the right of return of Palestinians to areas that comprise Israel, though it does not bar them from returning to a Palestinian state.

What does this mean? Essentially, that none of the sticking points that have so far prevented the two sides from clinching a deal are addressed by Mr Sharon’s plan. The issue of settlements remains unanswered; indeed, Mr Bush’s acceptance of Jewish settlements as part of the “realities on the ground” means he is indicating to the Palestinians to take it or leave it. The plan also does not address the very sensitive issue of Jerusalem’s sovereignty; neither does it resolve the problem of their right of return. But the most disingenuous part of the plan is that Mr Sharon has cloaked this aggression in a withdrawal from some Palestinian areas. Mr Bush has conveniently eschewed the fact that by this device Mr Sharon wants to grab more Palestinian territory by keeping the settlements and building the Wall.

Small wonder then that the Palestinian chief negotiator Saed Erakat as well as the Palestinian prime minister Ahmed Qorei have rejected the plan outright. Mr Erakat has clearly said that the US acceptance of Mr Sharon’s plan would deliver “a severe blow to the peace process” and amounts to rewarding Israel for stealing Palestinian land. Mr Bush’s tacit acceptance of the settlements is the first instance of a US president supporting an idea that goes against the UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338.

Where do things go from here? More violence is definitely on the cards and for good reasons too. Mr Bush’s handling of the whole affair is a slap in the Palestinian face and comes on the heels of Israel’s cold-blooded murder of the spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. Rather than being hauled over the coals for taking disastrous steps, Mr Sharon is being feted by Mr Bush. Secondly, this development signals to the Palestinians that negotiations alone will not do. If there are indeed ‘realities on the ground’, which Israel has created through use of force, and if they are to be worked into an uneven agreement, then the Palestinians can argue that the only way to an honourable peace is for them to try and change the ground realities. And that can only happen on the ground. Corollary: more violence.

Mr Bush’s reputation as an honest broker lies in tatters. He might have done it for domestic reasons but the repercussions of his action go far beyond the US and are likely to boomerang on the US. *

Iran’s smart Iraq policy

Iran has played its cards well in Iraq. As the United States grapples with ongoing violence in that country, Tehran has sent a delegation to Najaf to get Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shia leader of Mehdi Army, to make peace with the Coalition Provisional Authority. The Iranian delegation was sent following a request by the United Kingdom to Iran to intervene to bring the situation under control. Al-Sadr is considered close to Iran and in recent days has taken a hard line against the American occupation army. Things came to a head after al-Sadr’s newspaper was closed down and a warrant issued for his arrest for having a rival Shia cleric killed last year. But what is Iran’s angle in all this?

Iran was, and remains for the US, part of the so-called ‘axis of evil’. The United States does not have diplomatic relations with it and Switzerland serves as an intermediary between the two countries. Iran considered the US threat seriously after the latter attacked and occupied Iraq. Tehran has also been developing a clandestine nuclear weapons programme. It was primarily US intelligence that led to recent disclosures about the Iranian programme. Iran had to make a deal with the Euro 3 — Britain, France and Germany — to wriggle out of a difficult situation and prevent the US from taking the issue to the UN Security Council.

This is why the Iranians got the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, an Iranian-born Shia cleric, to negotiate with the US in Iraq through the UN. Tehran did not want the US to accuse it of fomenting trouble for it in Iraq. However, in recent weeks, the US has again been putting pressure on Iran through the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency. This forced Iran’s hand to turn up the heat on the US in Iraq. For this, Iran appears to have used al-Sadr, who is not only close to Iran, but is also linked to the Iran-backed, Lebanon-based Hizbullah group. Interestingly, all the while that al-Sadr has been giving grief to the CPA, Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani has stayed on the sidelines and advocated a peaceful settlement. This has been a smart policy, forcing the Americans to ask Tehran to intervene, as indicated by the Iranian foreign minister Kamal Kharrazi. However, Iran sent its delegation only after the UK requested it to do so. This is again a clever move since it allows Iran to deal with the business in Iraq through the UK, besides giving the UK leverage with the US. The Iranian policy on this is also underscored by the fact that the UK has developed differences with the US on Iraq policy.

Seen from this perspective, chances are that we are likely to see the Shia insurgency ebb in the next couple of days. But if the Americans try to attack Najaf and take out al-Sadr, this calibrated policy could spin out of control and lead to events on which Iran may not have control. *

Home | Editorial

Share this story!