by Hichem Karoui
It is not obvious how
security and political problems are to be practically parted when we
come to talk of the Mideast dossier, neither it is more obvious to
say why policy and security become distinguished topics precisely
when the situation explodes and grows unbearable, whereas the
common-sense assumes we just acknowledge that security loses
strength only when policy collapses in absurd, ineffectual nonsense.
And since this is the case- if ever acknowledged-, it would have
been much more useful that the American government helps to
understanding and handling the reasons which caused the present
deadlock. For it is not that difficult to announce a one- sided
cease-fire, particularly when it concerns State apparatus - : army,
police forces, etc...-, but the real difficulty is about how to
transform it into a status-quo and to build upon that. Some
commentators have actually talked about a " one-sided
cease-fire" - the Israeli of course- since a few days, as if in
the front of Israel on the other side there is an army whose
commandment is refusing any advise to cease fire too! Now, people
world-wide knows that no such an army exists on the Palestinian
side, and what Arafat has announced concerns only his "special
forces" and "Fatah"... who - as a matter of fact -
have never penetrated Israel or led an offensive over there. So,
these organizations are not those who are really concerned with the
cease-fire, but rather "Hamas" and the "Islamic
Jihad" and alike organizations who are actually opposing Yasser
Arafat, and Israel, and the whole Oslo process. The point is however
that these people do not recognize Arafat authority or at least are
not obedient to the PA. We know, for example, that during the
marches commemorating the 1967 war, they raised slogans asking
Arafat not to join the security negotiations with Israel and
America, and appealing to continuing the Intifada and the suicide
operations inside Israel, until its army withdrawal from the
occupied territories and the freeze on settlement. These are in fact
what the Israelis call "the political conditions" which
blocked the former security negotiations.
On June 6, - the day of the CIA
chief George Tenet's arrival to the region- Mr. Abdelaziz Alrentissi
- Hamas spokesman - declared to an Israeli radio that at the last
meeting with Yasser Arafat, the latter did not order them to stop
the military operations.
Would he have done so, he added,
Hamas was under no obligation to carry on his orders, for it is an
independent movement , with its own strategy and goals. On the same
day, the "Washington Post" reported about " divisions
among Palestinians " that " may undermine peace
efforts." If a group of supporters were still loyal to the
chief of the PA, the islamists were shouting in the streets against
the cease-fire. Another Hamas spokesman - Mahmud Zahhar - told
reporters in Gaza: " We are not changing our policy. Resistance
means to attack the Israelis everywhere by all means."
That is why it is
convenient to remind ourselves of this framework in order to insure
some relativity in our analyses and appreciations. It is noticeable
that some commentators did not hesitate to compare Tenet's mission
to the dove from Noah's ark : " he is being sent to see if
there is any dry land , any place to start"! But this kind of
talk is, at the present time, more resembling to a delirium than to
anything else. And this is not only because it is hard - if not
merely impossible - to figure out that at the head of the CIA there
is a "dove", but also because the" Agency" is
not innocent as regards the tragedy that unfolded since months. For
it has been actually associated to the three cornered game that led
Israel and the PA - under Washington supervision first, then after
its apparent withdrawal - to the current deadlock. Mr. Tenet has
accomplished at least ten alike missions in the Middle East during
Clinton's administration, and when President Bush decided to
distance the policy of his predecessor, he froze the role of the
CIA, as it was rumored . Yet, under the pressure of the events, it
seems that he decided not only to maintain Tenet in his post -
against the wishes of his own party hard-liners- but also to send
him out again in what sounds to be " an impossible
mission" in the Middle East.
Now - if we exclude the
fools - nobody doubts that Mr. Tenet holds in his hands enough
assets enabling him to give an important boost to the former
process. For he has data and connections, and he is thus as influent
in Washington as in the Mideast, albeit the kind of influence he is
able to exert cannot be precise or even compared to the influence of
the State Department , or the Pentagon, or even the White House, at
the same time that all these institutions and others cooperate with
his "Agency" and need some of its varied services. Yet,
once again the question is still unanswered : What is the point of
trying to separate policy from security?
Everybody knows though that the
real problem between Israelis and Palestinians does not consist in
violence or counter-violence. These are only the results. The true
problem is the political deadlock that issued from The Israeli
refusal of withdrawing from the occupied territories and freezing
the settlements. And the conflict is , despite its complication,
quite simple if we want to sum it up : For the Arabs, changing the
current Israeli policy is the way that insures security, stability,
and peace. But for the Israelis, granting security, stability, and
peace is the way that insures changing the Israeli policy towards
the Arabs.
Obviously, there is no exit from
this maze. But here is the need to extern, neutral parties that can
mediate and exert a moral influence in order to soften the extremist
positions and wipe out the sclerotic paranoia. But let's ask now:
who are these neutral parties? Is it the CIA ? Or the White House ?
Is it the European Union ? Or the United Nations?...
Hichem
Karoui is a writer and journalist living in Paris, France.
Source:
by courtesy & © 2001 Hichem Karoui
by the same author:
