Opinion, July 2003, www.aljazeerah.info
Human Price of the Israeli Occupation of Palestine
Israeli daily aggression on the Palestinian people
Mission and meaning of Al-Jazeerah
Cities, localities, and tourist attractions
American style and substance in the Middle East
The Daily Star, 7/30/03
President George W. Bush’s meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel
Sharon at the White House Tuesday generated American statements that
combined clear messages with soft language. When the American president
urges the prime minister “to carefully consider all the consequences of
Israel’s actions as we move forward on the road to peace,” he delivers
a rather explicit policy statement, but does so by using rather mild
rhetoric. The honest observer could take this in either of two ways: The
substance of the policy overrides the style of the rhetoric, or the other
way around.
It is too early in this process of re-engaged American peace-making in the
Middle East to know which option is the operative one. The issue matters,
because recent history provides compelling evidence that American style
and Israeli actions are often closely linked. When Washington pushes hard
to preserve its interests or promote a fair deal in the Middle East,
Israel will usually comply. A tenderly soft American approach to Israeli
actions in the Middle East, on the other hand, routinely prompts Israel to
ignore the American position. President Bush himself is a new phenomenon
in this situation, and something of an unknown quantity as to the
relationship between his substance and his style.
If Bush genuinely objects to and wants to reverse Israeli actions, such as
expanding settlements, building the Apartheid-vintage separation wall in
the occupied West Bank, and harassing and obstructing the free movement of
Palestinians in their daily lives, he can start this process by making
known Washington’s opposition to Israel’s actions. If he has decided
that a soft public approach to achieving this end is, in fact, the best
way to achieve it, we should give him the benefit of the doubt and the
time to make this policy work. Bush did not get to this point lightly, and
his statements about ending the Israeli occupation and achieving a
sovereign Palestinian state represent a worthy goal that all should work
for diligently.
However, there is also the fear that Bush’s low-key criticism of the
separation wall and Israel’s other oppressive actions against
Palestinians could remain so low key that it never moves any further or
generates any Israeli compliance. The people of this region and most of
the world notice the sharp differences in tone, style, and action: The US
forcefully instigated a mini-regime change in Palestine when it opposed
the policies and person of Yasser Arafat, but so far it has offered only
mild public rebukes to the Israeli policies that it opposes, such as the
separation wall.
We hope that George Bush’s easy-easy public posture on the wall reflects
his firm belief that this is the best way to generate eventual Israeli
compliance. If not, we face the ugly prospect of the US backing off after
meeting stiff resistance from Israel, and not pushing beyond the stage of
the delicate words. This is the moment for the US to act with resolve in
the pursuit of a fair, negotiated peace in the Middle East, and we hope
that its soft public criticisms of the Israeli separation wall mark the
start of a decisive process to tear down that wall.
 |
| Earth, a planet hungry for peace |
 |
| The Israeli apartheid (security) wall around Palestinian population centers (Ran Cohen, pmc, 5/24/03). |
 |
| The Israeli apartheid (security) wall around Palestinian population centers in the West Bank (Ran Cohen, pmc, 5/24/03). |
|