Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, May 2002, pages 55-56

The European Press Looks at the Middle East

 

Arafat Has “Lost His Administrative Capacity” But Gained “Moral Authority”

By Lucy Jones

Television pictures of Yasser Arafat besieged by the Israeli army at his headquarters in Ramallah provoked furious reaction across Europe—not only in the press but also on the streets. Synagogues were attacked in France and Belgium. Germany’s Frankfurter Rundschau wrote on April 1 that the incidents provide sufficient argument for Europeans to take the initiative in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “Anti-Semitic attacks in Europe,” the paper said, are a “direct response to the escalation of violence in the Middle East” and demonstrate the “absurdity of the notion that conflict between Israelis and Palestinians can be limited to the Middle East.…If only out of pure self-interest,” it argued, “the EU states must coordinate their foreign policy and throw their diplomatic weight in the balance.”

France’s Liberation on the same day called for the perpetrators of the synagogue attacks to be severely punished, saying that the Jewish community has become a “scapegoat” for all the “injustice” felt by these “marginalized and ghettoized” young attackers, “who are often from immigrant families.” Germany’s April 1 Berliner Zeitung, however, wrote that American and European “inaction” in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is largely colored by “the insoluble nature of the conflict,” as well as by disunity among EU members. “Americans and Europeans will have no effect with appeals, diplomacy, lamentations and telephone conversations,” the newspaper concluded. “If they want to stop the bloody goings on they will have to get more involved than before.” The Slovak daily Pravda of April 1 described NATO as the only international body capable of stopping the spiraling violence in the occupied territories and Israel.

Several papers worried that Israel had erred in humiliating Yasser Arafat by trapping him in his Ramallah office. Spain’s El País of April 1 said the Palestinian leader had become “a symbol of resistance.…Arafat has lost his administrative capacity, but he has gained moral authority,” it concluded.

Britain’s Guardian the following day placed some of the blame for the current outbreak of violence at the feet of U.S. President George W. Bush. “Mr. Bush’s sense of how Europe, let alone the even more vital Arab and south Asian worlds, feel about his foreign policy is distant and bloodless, refracted through the briefings of his advisers,” the paper editorialized. “The current deterioration in the Middle East, which has a direct impact on his options over Iraq, can be laid directly at the door of this neglect. Isn’t it time for the man who wields such power over the rest of the world to discover at closer hand how that world feels about his strategy?…His unwillingness to travel is very eloquent of a wider insensitivity. It suggests once again that all that matters to this president is America. Mr. Bush never seems to think about how the other guy might feel. It would do him good to find out,” the newspaper advised.

Prominent British Jews Call for Withdrawal of Israeli Troops From Occupied Territories

The wife and daughter of Lord Levy, British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s Middle East envoy, added their names to a statement by British Jews accusing Israel of oppressing the Palestinians, reported The Times of London on March 27. Lady Levy and Juliet Levy were among 300 prominent Jews who signed a statement in London’s Jewish Chronicle calling on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. Lady Levy said she had signed the statement in a personal capacity. “I happen to believe in what it says,” she told the Chronicle. “My views on both Britain and Israel are known to be on the Left. What is happening now is a disaster.”

British television personality Esther Rantzen and actress Miriam Margolyes are among the other signatories to the statement, which declares: “The moral foundation of the Jewish state is being destroyed by the occupation.” It calls on the Israeli government to act unilaterally to dismantle settlements in Gaza and the West Bank. “While Lord Levy himself did not sign, the fact that his family have endorsed it will not go unnoticed,” noted The Times. “The Levy family have a home in Israel and close ties with the country.”

Palestinians React to Arab League Summit, Saudi Peace Initiative

Expectations had been high that the Arab League summit which opened in Beirut, Lebanon, on March 27 might jump start the Arab-Israeli peace process. The meeting was the first gathering of Arab leaders since Sept. 11 and the subsequent fall of the Taliban. (Last October’s meeting of the Organization of the Islamic Conference in Doha, Qatar, included many non-Arab nations). The main focus of the summit was Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah’s peace initiative, which offers normalization of Arab relations with Israel in exchange for Israeli withdrawal from the territories occupied since 1967, the recognition of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, and a “right to return” for Palestinian refugees. “Past Arab League summits have tended to be greeted with bored yawns in the West,” declared Britain’s Independent on March 26. “The summit that opens in Beirut, however, could be different.”

Although the Arab leaders meeting in Beirut unanimously endorsed Saudi Arabia’s peace plan, Israel was quick to register its rejection of the initiative. Stated Israeli Foreign Minister Emanuel Nachson,“We cannot accept on the one hand to have negotiations for the creation of a Palestinian state, an independent Palestinian state, and on the other hand have all the Palestinians come into Israel.”

The BBC reported on March 28, however, that, in the eyes of many observers, “the Saudi proposal will carry little weight in the absence of the Palestinian, Egyptian and Jordanian leaders.” Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat had decided not to attend the summit to protest Israeli conditions that he declare a cease-fire before they would lift a travel ban confining him to the West Bank. Israel, however, would not promise to allow him to return to Palestine. “While no one liked to see the Palestinian leader humiliated by Israel and his travel plans curtailed by the Sharon government, few Palestinians believed his presence at the Beirut summit would have meant a positive outcome,” said Kylie Morris, the BBC’s Gaza correspondent. “Many Palestinians feel let down by their Arab neighbors and are ready to believe that any deals done will do them no favors—and that includes the Saudi peace plan,” she reported.

Europeans Still Fear U.S.-Led War on Iraq

American Vice President Dick Cheney’s 10-day tour of the Middle East in March had the European papers convinced once again that the U.S. administration is determined to strike against Iraq. The Times of London predicted on March 13 that Cheney’s attempts to win Arab support for military action against Baghdad “will be greeted…by a solid wall of resistance in the nine Arab capitals he visits.” Continued the newspaper: “Even moderate Arab leaders, such as King Abdullah of Jordan and King Muhammad of Morocco, are unequivocally opposed to war with Iraq. Saddam has changed tactics since the Gulf war, where his intransigency alienated the Arab world. In recent months, his $25,000 payments to each Palestinian family that loses a ‘martyr’ have increased his popularity.”

Guardian columnist Christopher Hitchens wrote on March 20 that war with Iraq could have devastating results for the Palestinians: “Many Arab governments fear that if the U.S. attacks Iraq, and if Iraq responds by hitting Israel, and if Palestinians are again shown applauding the attack, then the Israeli right will seize the moment to reoccupy or even ethnically cleanse the West Bank.” Hitchens continued: “In other words, [Prime Minister] Tony Blair and [British Foreign Minister] Jack Straw are failing in their duty if they do not insist that any drastic action in Iraq comes as part of a regional settlement. What is the point of the U.S. being a superpower if it cannot discipline a government for which it is the armorer and paymaster? The current pseudo-Augustinian answer—that we all wish for a Palestinian homeland, but not yet—is utterly inadequate.”

Veteran Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk of Britain’s Independent pointed out in a March 13 op-ed, “Privately, pro-Western leaders in the Arab world have grave concerns about the Bush theory of ‘regime change.’ For if Iraqis were helped to overthrow their dictatorial government, what if Egyptian or Saudi citizens also decided on a little ‘regime change’ of their own?”

Britain’s Daily Mirror on March 13 called Saddam Hussain “mad”: a “bar-room brawler, he sneers at President Bush the equivalent of: ‘Come on, big boy, let’s see how tough you are.’ Saddam believes he cannot lose,” the tabloid said. “He will either force the U.S. to back down or suffer such terrible destruction of his country that Arab sympathy will be with him.”

But the Financial Times on the same day focused on the practical difficulties of bringing down Saddam. “Policy experts,” it noted, claimed that a ground operation would involve at least 200,000 troops, bringing the risk of extensive losses on both sides. “Also, there is no obvious candidate to replace Saddam,” the newspaper continued. “Iraq’s Kurdish and Shi’i opposition movements are too weak to mimic the Northern Alliance’s role in the Afghan war against the Taliban; what’s more, the 400,000-strong Iraqi army is well-equipped and well-trained. The second option of a U.S.-encouraged army coup is also unlikely to succeed.”

A Western diplomat told the paper, “Saddam rules very effectively by fear, which means that until people in the military or the party see a movement that is absolutely guaranteed to succeed, they will not turn against him.”

Britons Asked to Assume Risks in Afghanistan U.S. Soldiers Are Not?

The March 18 announcement that 1,700 British marine commandos soon would be sent to Afghanistan led to concerns that Britain is heading into a “quagmire.” The marines were tapped because of their mountain training, to be put to use “mopping up” the remaining Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters who have taken to the hills. Britain’s Guardian of March 21 said the deployment represents a “significant perilous deepening of direct British military involvement in America’s global war” against terror. “Britain has been riding shotgun on George Bush’s anti-terrorist stagecoach since the U.S. began its armed response to the Sept. 11 attacks last October,” the paper editorialized. “Now it has been promoted to deputy sheriff.”

Wrote the Independent the same day: “The confusion surrounding the most recent U.S. operation creates the impression that [British marines] are required not only for their special expertise, but also to take on risks that have been deemed too great for American troops. In other words,” the paper continued, “that Britain has agreed to act as a U.S. surrogate in highly dangerous operations that could otherwise have become a military and political liability to America, if not at home, then abroad.”

Other British papers rejected this accusation, however. Responded The Times on March 22, “Suggestions that the Marines have been deployed because the Americans are unwilling to risk more casualties in the harsh terrain are as false as they are contemptible.”

The Daily Telegraph on the same day answered critics who worry that Britain’s troop commitment is open-ended: “It would be a mistake to place a time limit on such a deployment, because our intelligence appears to be insufficient to gauge the strength of al-Qaeda and Taliban forces, who may still number up to 10,000. This does not mean that the purpose is vague: it is to annihilate the enemy.”

The March 22 Financial Times echoed this sentiment, observing, “[T]he alternative of failing to defeat the Taliban and al-Qaeda is worse. That would allow the terror networks to regroup and launch further murderous attacks, perhaps using weapons of mass destruction.”

Even the staunchest pro-American papers conceded that Britain’s involvement in both fighting and peacekeeping operations was potentially problematic, however. The Guardian pointed out March 22 that last autumn the Pentagon had determined that the two tasks were incompatible. A Labor MP told the paper, “I am not clear why it is right for Britain to be involved in a dual role in Afghanistan and yet it is not acceptable for the U.S. to be involved in a dual role.”

Bin Laden May Be Online

A London-based Arabic newspaper said it had received an e-mail purporting to have come from Osama bin Laden, reported the BBC on March 29. It was unclear whether the e-mail sent to Al-Quds Al-Arabi, paying tribute to Palestinian suicide attacks against Israel as well as the September 11 attacks from Osama Bin Laden, was genuine. Should it prove to be, said the BBC report, it would be the first proof that Bin Laden had survived U.S. bombing raids against the Taliban and al-Qaeda networks in Afghanistan.

< Prev		Next >