Sharon's blow to Bush's plans

Financial Times ^ | April 14 2002 20:34 | Quentin Peel

[Lessismore]

Events in the West Bank are hindering the US president's Iraq strategy - and could threaten the anti-terrorism coalition, says Quentin Peel

If Saddam Hussein ever says his daily prayers, he must surely be saying a fervent thank you for the behaviour of Ariel Sharon.

The actions of the Israeli prime minister, in launching and now ruthlessly pursuing the current onslaught of the Israeli Defence Force on the Palestinian towns and villages and refugee camps of the West Bank, have almost certainly upset the plans of President George W. Bush for "regime change" in Iraq.

Anger throughout the Arab world, demonstrated on the streets from the Gulf to Rabat, has made practical planning of any large-scale military operation against Baghdad - an exercise that would anyway require months of preparation - incomparably more difficult.

Even such a loyal US ally as Bulent Ecevit, the Turkish prime minister, whose country would have to provide an essential base for action against Iraq, has been moved to denounce the Israeli action as "genocide". That seems certain to aggravate Turkish doubts about US policy, already seen as potentially strengthening its own Kurdish dissidents.

Pro-American Arab regimes, such as Jordan and Bahrain (not to mention Saudi Arabia, where demonstrations have been forbidden), could easily be destabilised by the backlash on the streets. The single issue that most unites and infuriates Arab popular opinion is the Israeli attacks on Palestinian settlements. The second most inflammatory question is the suffering of Iraqi civilians. To combine the two could be devastating.

That is the problem facing Middle East policymakers in Washington. No wonder they are in a terrible muddle. Their confusion is in danger of undermining the entire US-led campaign against terrorism. For even if the conflict in Israel was not the root cause of the terrorist attacks on September 11, resolving that conflict will determine the success or failure of the response.

Colin Powell's latest trip to the region starkly demonstrated the confusion and indecisionin Washington. He came with a mandate to call on Mr Sharon to pull back his armed forces from the Palestinian towns. Yet almost as soon as he had arrived in Israel, another suicide bomb caused him to hesitate and put the onus instead upon Yassir Arafat to stop the terrorism.

Mr Sharon seems to be blithely ignoring both the US secretary of state's calls for restraint and the distant sound of Mr Bush stamping his foot. It was one of the more blatant diplomatic snubs an Israeli premier has ever inflicted on a US president.

The fact is that too few in Washington are prepared to admit what a rotten ally Mr Sharon is in its fight against terrorism. He is not just undermining the Bush plan to remove Mr Saddam. He is alienating Arab opinion. He is causing a backlash in Europe. And he is pursuing a no-hope policy for Israel that will do far more damage to his own country in the long run than it will to his neighbours.

The only good thing that can be said of Mr Sharon's use of tanks to terrorise the Palestinian people is that it will eventually discreditthe use of military force as a tool against terrorism. But the short-term cost to Israel and the Palestinians is terrible.

A few doubts about the Sharon actions are creeping into US public opinion, with concern for the humanitarian crisis precipitated on the West Bank. The polls suggest that the majority in favour of the Israeli military action has narrowed - with more than 40 per cent now doubting its justification. But Mr Bush's criticism of Mr Sharon has remained half-hearted, and Mr Arafat still attracts the main force of his anger.

One of the problems may be that Mr Bush has had no Middle East adviser on his National Security Council staff in the White House since he came to power. That has given the Pentagon Middle East hawks, such as Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defence secretary, disproportionate influence against Mr Powell's more reasonable doves in the State Department.

When it comes to Iraq, however, the determination to overthrow Mr Saddam seems to have become almost an obsession for the president and his closest advisers - to complete the business that his father left undone at the end of the Gulf war. His concern about the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction is real, because of the potential for Iraq to arm future terrorists. But this is more. It is also personal.

There are even voices suggesting that Mr Bush should press ahead with action against Baghdad before trying to calm the situation on the West Bank. The argument is that he will never get US political support to restrain Mr Sharon until he has a big Middle East success under his belt - and that means Iraq.

It is the sort of argument that ignores the reality on the ground in the region, and takes the whims of US politics as paramount. It is disturbing. And it is the kind of thinking that is causing heartache to Mr Bush's allies in Europe.

Even Tony Blair, the prime minister, that most devoted of European friends, doubts the wisdom of pressing ahead with action against Baghdad without first stopping the blood-letting in Israel and the occupied territories. He admits that nothing is likely to happen till the end of the year at the earliest. But the other EU leaders insist nothing should happen without full United Nations backing. It is an argument that seems to carry little weight in Washington.

Why is such a gap opening up across the Atlantic? It is not new, of course. Tensions date from long before September 11, as the reality of America's status as the solitary superpower, and its inclination to unilateralism, made the Europeans feel like second-class citizens. The terrorist attacks temporarily reversed the trend, but not for long.

Since then, public opinion on both sides has drifted apart. Many if not most Americans, and certainly most of the present administration, believe they are at war. They are not bothered about the causes of terrorism. They are bothered about the consequences.

Europeans do not think they are at war. They see the problem of terrorism far more in terms of tackling causes. In the Middle East that means focusing every effort on ending the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, not on launching a pre-emptive strike against Iraq.

It is a fundamental difference. Mr Sharon - who knows he is at war - has brought it into sharp perspective. Mr Bush has a tough choice to make: between backing the Sharon tactics, or preserving a broad anti-terrorist coalition. He cannot have it both ways.

[McGavin999]

Yeah, right! That's going to help a lot on staging areas. I believe that Israel has a right to defend itself, but it's defending itself at the cost of the US. If the US gets nuked or hit by bioterrorism, what's Israel going to do all alone in the world?

[arkfreepdom]

A "realistic defeat of the Arabs" is a pipe-dream, especially when you consider that something like 60% of them are under the age of 18. This may be hard for people to accept in aging countries like Israel and the United States, but these Arabs are here to stay and will be a force to be reckoned with in the 21st century.

You must be joking. The Arabs can't even rule themselves...much less any of the world. Also, despite being blessed with oil-wealth, they show every sign of wasting it all. They are only dangerous because they are weak. They are seriously in need of their own "Age of Enlightenment", but are unlikely to develop the cultural courage to start one.

[RamsNo1]

I disagree. Just look at the US Congress. They have pledged overwhelmingly their support for the Israeli cause.

[garbanzo]

The only good thing that can be said of Mr Sharon's use of tanks to terrorise the Palestinian people is that it will eventually discreditthe use of military force as a tool against terrorism.

So you guys are going to release all your IRA terrorists in jail? Well it seems as if they've grown accustomed to capitulating to terror in the UK and think it's a good policy worldwide. Or maybe just for the Jews...who knows - it's impossible to understand anyone's moral reasoning nowadays.

[krogers58]

A "realistic defeat of the Arabs" is a pipe-dream, especially when you consider that something like 60% of them are under the age of 18. This may be hard for people to accept in aging countries like Israel and the United States, but these Arabs are here to stay and will be a force to be reckoned with in the 21st century.

A little cesium and strontium could cure that problem. They are a cancer on humanity.

[Alberta's Child]

I didn't say the Arabs were going to become captains of industry or lead an effort to eradicate cancer -- I said they were a force to be reckoned with. And if people like you can't see that even now, then I have every reason to expect that events like September 11th are going to occur with boring regularity in the U.S. over the next few decades.

[Alberta's Child]

I was really thinking about the kind of reflective people who you'll find at the State Department. The problem with elected officials is that most of them have no pronciples except those of their financial supporters.

[whadizit]

Now I'm confused as to which of my posts you are referring to being confused by. LOL!!

[Alberta's Child]

They are a cancer on humanity.

If they are such a "cancer on humanity," then why are they such an important part of Israel's labor force? When Lenin said that "they will sell us the ropes we use to hang them," he sure knew what he was talking about.

[arkfreepdom]

I didn't say the Arabs were going to become captains of industry or lead an effort to eradicate cancer -- I said they were a force to be reckoned with. And if people like you can't see that even now, then I have every reason to expect that events like September 11th are going to occur with boring regularity in the U.S. over the next few decades.

And I never said they weren't dangerous. They are not a force, however....more like a nuisance. There may very well be another 9/11, but if the Arabs don't get their house in order quick they will be destroyed by the fire they started.

[whadizit]

Yeah, that's the ticket! We should stop electing people to positions of authority. Elections, pshaw, who needs them. Now, you take Venezuela for instance. That's a fine model. What does a coup every now and then hurt? And, besides, we all know how our "pronciples" are "reflected" in the State Dept.

[Lessismore]

It would figure that a guy named Quentin would write a piece like this.

Emma Peel is far more fetching.

[kcvl]

04.02.02 - Quentin Peel comments on Bush' speach

Quentin Peel comments in FT on the first State of the Union speech of George Bush. As somebody already said: a great speech, but lousy politics.

Mr Bush bracketed Iran and Iraq, two implacable foes in the Middle East, in the same conspiracy. By then throwing in Hamas, Hizbollah and the Islamic Jihad, all anti-Israeli organisations, as three of his four named members of a "terrorist underworld", the president caused alarm bells to ring in all the Arab states of the region. His speech reads like a blueprint for US policy designed by Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister.

[krogers58]

If they are such a "cancer on humanity," then why are they such an important part of Israel's labor force?

I suspect, that they haven't been contributing very much to the Israeli economy for the past 2 - 3 months. Moreover, I believe that Israel, when they do withdraw from the west bank, will erect a "Berlin" type wall, and sever all their ties to the palestinians.

When Lenin said that "they will sell us the ropes we use to hang them," he sure knew what he was talking about

Are you talking about the same Lenin, who predicted this about Communism's triumph over democracy? If so, you should, perhaps, open a newspaper once in a while, and see the results of your idol's prowess with predicting the future.

[kcvl]

Airstrikes will not bring lasting peace. Only concerted diplomatic effort can resolve the conflict that breeds fanaticism, says Quentin Peel

Published: October 14 2001 19:50

World peace is in terrible danger. As US missiles rain down on Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network issues new calls for a holy war, seldom have Kofi Annan and his United Nations peacemakers seemed so isolated.

Quentin Peel

The international coalition brought together in horror and sympathy over the atrocities of September 11 is very fragile. Moderate Muslim opinion is torn between fear of fundamentalism and revulsion at civilian casualties. Vital US allies such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia could face revolutions if the bombing lasts too long. There is a rising sense of panic in the US over anthrax.

And yet precisely because the present moment looks so bleak, it could and should become an extraordinary opportunity for peacemaking. It is time to attempt once more to resolve the conflicts labelled "too difficult" - the festering sores that have bred despair and given the fanatics the excuse and the environment from which to plan murder and mayhem.

If it does not sound too callous, Afghanistan is a side-show in the real campaign against global terrorism. This is just Phase I of a long conflict. Victory or defeat will only be determined by how and where Phase II is fought.

There is a powerful lobby in Washington to carry on in a military vein. Conservatives within the administration want to finish the job started at the end of the Gulf war and forcibly remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. They would like to turn America's fearsome military machine on other countries accused of "harbouring" terrorists.

There is more but I refuse to copy it.

[DentsRun]

Presumpuous? No, It's the essence of ignorance. The writer chooses to ignore that the relationship between the USA and Israel is more than strategic or political, it is one written in blood.

Once before, the US neglected its reponsibilities to the Jews, turning away refugee ships so that the occupants could be sent to the death camps and then refusing to bomb the camps themselves.

Thank all that is holy that there will be no more betrayals. Bush can prevaricate and waver but, ultimately, he knows where his obligations reside -- unlike FDR.

If you think America did nothing to help European Jews in WWII, who do you think provided the troops and equipment to defeat Hitler? When you look at all those rows of crosses stretching out into infinity in military cemeteries, don't you ever feel a little bit of gratitude for their sacrifice, giving that they were fighting the greatest enemy the Jews every had? When you look at the upwards of $80 billion American taxpayers have given to Israel over the last three decades, don't you feel the slightest appreciation for what working Americans (most of them Christian) have done for Israel?

No, instead you insult America by saying it has "betrayed" the Jews. Let me clue you in. The U.S. has no religious, moral or legal obligation whatsoever to support Israel. We do it because we choose to. If you don't like the quality and character of America's support for Israel, fine. Move to a home for the congenitally ungrateful. But don't tell us we owe anybody anything. We've done far more for other countries and other peoples than they've ever done for us.

[DentsRun]

Presumpuous? No, It's the essence of ignorance. The writer chooses to ignore that the relationship between the USA and Israel is more than strategic or political, it is one written in blood.

Once before, the US neglected its reponsibilities to the Jews, turning away refugee ships so that the occupants could be sent to the death camps and then refusing to bomb the camps themselves.

Thank all that is holy that there will be no more betrayals. Bush can prevaricate and waver but, ultimately, he knows where his obligations reside -- unlike FDR.

If you think America did nothing to help European Jews in WWII, who do you think provided the troops and equipment to defeat Hitler? When you look at all those rows of crosses stretching out into infinity in military cemeteries, don't you ever feel a little bit of gratitude for their sacrifice, giving that they were fighting the greatest enemy the Jews every had? When you look at the upwards of $80 billion American taxpayers have given to Israel over the last three decades, don't you feel the slightest appreciation for what working Americans (most of them Christian) have done for Israel?

No, instead you insult America by saying it has "betrayed" the Jews. Let me clue you in. The U.S. has no religious, moral or legal obligation whatsoever to support Israel. We do it because we choose to. If you don't like the quality and character of America's support for Israel, fine. Move to a home for the congenitally ungrateful. But don't tell us we owe anybody anything. We've done far more for other countries and other peoples than they've ever done for us.

[rmlew]

This would be far moire believable if the FT did not take an editorial stance against invading Iraq.

[rmlew]

US involvement in the European theater had nothing to do with Jews. At first it had to do with American finiancial and military support for the British. Then Japan attacked the US on December 7th and shortly there after Germany declared war on us.

[willyone]

Who cares what you take with a grain of sand. You have no say in anything so go crawl back under your rock. If you just plain don't like Jews just say so and not b.s. around with a bunch of nonsense. If your family and friends were being blown away by a bunch of so called martyrs even you would probably respond in a forceful way as the Israelis are doing.