Articles

Cairo December 13-14, 2003

Clearing the Way for United States Israeli Imperial Domination of the "Middle East"

Sherif Hetata

Paper presented to the Second International Conference on United States Hegemony and War
Cairo 13-14 December 2003

Introduction

I am writing this paper in the living room of my apartment on Peaks Island, near the coast of Maine in the northeastern corner of the United States. From my window I can see the waters of the Atlantic Ocean calm, and blue under the shining sun of this October month.

Farther away at a distance of fifteen minutes by ferry ride is the small city of Portland where I arrived at the beginning of September from Cairo to teach at the University of Southern Maine. The course which I designed is entitled "Breaking Down Barriers." It grew out of my experience as a writer and a novelist, the realization that true knowledge arises by abolishing compartments and destroying dichotomies, out of my understanding of human solidarity, out of the popular resistance to corporate militaristic globalization, out of "Porto Alegre."

When I read through the summary of the three conference topics, and the twenty one issues for discussion listed below them, I wondered if there could be a way of condensing them into something more precise and more concrete to avoid getting lost in generalizations and abstract discussions. But I decided to keep these observations to myself realizing that in the process of preparation many things would be crystallized and made clearer, to get on with my task and write this paper about "Palestine and Supporting Resistance against Israeli Occupation Encouraged by the United States."

The first question that came to my mind when I started to think about "supporting resistance" was whom are we going to support? "Arafat" and those who are around him? Other factions of "Fath" led by Abou Mazin more pliable to Israeli? The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine? The Democratic Movement for the Liberation of Palestine? The Islamic "Hamas" and "Jihad"? Or the Palestinian people in general, for whatever that means, after all the changes that have taken place on the Palestinian scene? What solutions are we going to support? A "Palestinian State" we say but what "State" and where and how? Can we continue to repeat what is being said after the "Intifada" has been snuffed out, after Sharon and Bush and the "road map," after the "global war" on terror and the occupation of Iraq?

This paper is an attempt to open up a discussion about support to the Palestinian cause as related to the plans now being implemented by the United States for "Imperial" domination of the so-called "Middle East."

1. Making the "Middle East" safe for Israel
"Kanan Makiya" an Iraqi who has lived in the United States for many years is based in Georgetown University Washington D.C. and is a member of the Iraqi National Council headed by Ahmed Chalabi. Commenting on the projected war against Iraq a few months before it was launched, he said

"The removal of Saddam Hussein presents the United States in particular with a historic opportunity that I believe is going to prove to be as large as anything that has happened in the Middle East since the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the entry of the British troops into Iraq in 1917."

In 1996 a group of neo-conservatives with declared Zionist leanings and links to the Israeli Likud Party joined together to prepare a report for "Benjamin Netanyahu" the Prime Minster of the Likud government who had come to power in the recent elections. The group was headed by "Richard Perle" a former Assistant Secretary in the State Department when "Regan" was President of the United States and a member of the Defense Policy Board which advises "Donald Rumsfeld." It included "Douglas Feith" who is now an Assistant Secretary for Policy in the Ministry of Defense, "David Wurmser" from the International Association for Security Policy Studies, its President "Robert Loewenburg," "Myrav Wurmser," David Wurmser's wife from the Middle East Research Institute run by retired Israeli military and intelligence officers which includes as one of its functions the translation of the Arab media and statements made by Arab politicians and statesman. "Jonathan Torop" from the Washington Institute for Near East Policies, as well as other high level political experts with overt Zionist links.

The report was prepared for the high powered Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) which serves as a coordinating body for the activities of the various Zionist organizations in the United States. Its recommendations presented to "Netanyahu" were as follows:

1) To make a "clear break" with the policies of negotiating with the Palestinians and the attempts to exchange "land for peace."
2) Israel should shape its "strategic" environment by weakening, containing and even "rolling back" Syria.
3) Iraq's future can be made to affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly.
4) The principle of "preemption "should be reestablished.

These guidelines for Israeli policy are being put into practice by the present United States administration under "George W. Bush," and by the government of Israel under "Ariel Sharon." As regards the principle of "preemptive strikes" it would not be far fetched to say that it is in part "Likud" inspired if we remember that the first "preemptive" strike on an Arab country was directed by Israel against the Iraqi nuclear reactor more than twenty years ago.

The presence of a powerful Zionist influence in the American administration is not new. However in the present administration high level posts and influences have gained a striking ascendancy, and have eliminated any Arab leanings to speak of, even though the "oil" connections of the "Bush" family, of the vice president "Dick Cheney," of the National Security Advisor "Condoleezza Rice" and others continue to play an important role. Neo-conservative Zionist politicians, experts and intellectuals today occupy key positions. Top of the list comes "Paul Wolfowitz, " he is the most influential of this neo-conservative Zionist group. He is the deputy undersecretary to "Donald Rumsfeld" yet is considered by many to be more influential than him. Others are "Richard Perle," "Lewis Libby" Cheney's Chief of Staff, "Douglass Feith," "Peter Rodman" and "Dov Zakheim" who both occupy a sub cabinet rank in the Ministry of Defense, "John Bolton" undersecretary for arms procurements in the State Department. "Eliot Abrams" an Iran Contra convict appointed by President Bush to be in charge of Middle East Affairs in the National Security Council, "David Frum" who coined the term "Axis of Evil" for Bush's speeches. "James Woolsey" former head of the CIA and "Jeane Kirkpartick" Reagan's Ambassador to the United Nations. The last two with Richard Perle are members of JINSA. "Dick Cheney," "Douglas Feith" and "John Bolton" were members of JINSA but left it when they entered Bush's administration. Also, William Kristol the editor of the "Evening Standard" (owned by "Rupert Murdoch" the Australian media magnate who owns Fox News T.V. with over 100 million viewers), and a co-founder of the neo-conservative imperial "Project for a New American Century."

All these high level policy makers believe that United States interests in the Middle East coincide largely with those of Israel and as a result the policies of the present administration and the measures it takes should be directed towards making the area "safe" for Israel.

In the neo-conservative strategy papers drawn up six years ago "making the Middle East safe for Israel" meant "redefining Iraq" after "getting rid of Saddam Hussein and his tyrannical regime," the transformation of the Middle East by "redrawing its map," "regime changes" of governments in the area not completely in line with "American and Israel interests," "nurturing alternatives to Arafat" and "the end of the Israeli Palestinian peace process." The enthusiasm with which Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others have adopted this stance means that the United States is now throwing all its weight behind a "Pax Israelica," behind a total subordination of the Arab countries to the predominance of Israel as part of a new imperial plan. It means that Bush's declarations about two states, Israeli and Palestinian, or the "road-map," or other "non-proposals" of the kind are just smoke screens, or maneuvers aimed at gaining time until "Sharon" has done his job of "cleansing" Palestine, or of imposing total subjugation on a Palestinian "Bantustan." Meanwhile the United States thinks it can go on with executing the rest of the neo-conservative plan for a permanent military presence in Iraq, which will guarantee the flow of oil, with other "preemptive strikes" against Syria (where Sharon has already directed a "symbolic" raid), or against Iran, or any other country in the area where disobedience might grow, or which could constitute a potential threat to United States Israeli interests as visualized by the rulers in those two countries.

Although all these policy nightmares might appear to many people as exaggerated, what has happened since the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center (which gave the Bush administration the possibility to go ahead with these plans) should alert the peoples of our region and the world to how far the Bush administration is prepared to go. "Pre-emptive strikes" in the concept of those who developed them as a policy does not mean waiting until a country has developed nuclear, biological or chemical weapons capable of what is called "mass destruction." It means the right to strike at any country which has "the potential" to eventually produce such weapons, in other words at any country with a modicum of development, since the production of chemical and biological weapons in particular is not so difficult an undertaking. This is tantamount to declaring that our societies will not be allowed to develop any further, nor allowed to voice any opposition to the United States or else they can become victims of "preemptive strikes." They must remain "backward" and "obedient."

So after Iraqi oil has been privatized, the resistance of the Iraqi people quelled (if that is possible) and a permanent military base established the Bush administration can move on to another stage, or is perhaps even hatching plans to begin it now. A report suggesting military action against Syria was circulated and released three years ago. The signatures on the report included "Elliot Abrams" chosen by Bush to be in charge of Middle East Affairs. He will deal "with democracy and human rights" in the region according to his official job description within the National Security Council. Signing with him were Douglas Feith (Undersecretary for Policy in the Ministry of Defense), Richard Perle (Defense Policy Board and JINSA board member), David Steinmann (chairman of JINSA), David Wurmser and Michael Rubin (senior consultants to the Pentagon and State Department on policies related to Iraq). All these men are neo-conservative, Zionist supporters of Israel with strong ties to Likud.

During the month of August 2002 Richard Perle discussed a policy briefing presented by a study group commissioned by the Rand Corporation. The final slide in the presentation described "Iraq as the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia as the strategic pivot and Egypt as the prize."

On Monday 21 October 2003 Paul Wolfowitz the Deputy Undersecretary for Defense received an award from the Centre for Security Policy chaired by "Frank Gaffney" a notorious Zionist and neo-conservative. In his speech Wolfowitz concentrated on the "war against terror." Iraq he said had become a breeding ground for terror from which it could spread to "countries around" and to many other parts of the globe.

But things will not stop at Syria or Iran. Next can come changes in the geopolitical structure of Saudi Arabia, seizing of the oil fields and dismantling the Organization of Petroleum Exporting countries. Then or perhaps at the same time will come Egypt's turn, for Egypt with its population, with it potentialities, although weakened considerably, is still seen as a threat to Israel. Maybe a North Egypt, South Egypt divide built on fomenting religious strife can be considered worth trying. For then and only then in the minds of neo-conservative empire planners can U.S./Israeli domination rule undisturbed and the Pax Israelica become a fact of life.

What might appear to us as only the fantasies of a neo-conservative group now in power, and of the military industrial complex in the United States with little social support within the country enjoys the full approval of a sizeable, active sector of American society. Zionist circles are now closely allied to a powerful fundamentalist movement which has grown noticeably since Reagan was in power, more than twenty years ago. This coupled with the relative passivity of a silent majority in the United States which has not yet started to move increases the dangers we face in the Arab countries.

The most zealous Christian supporters of the Likud in the Republican electorate are Southern Protestant, Baptist, Evangelical and other fundamentalist followers. By the 1994 Congressional elections Christian conservatives cast two of every five Republican votes. This religious right believes that God gave all of Palestine to the Jews. Fundamentalist congregations and fundamentalist business circles have collected hundreds of millions of dollars to subsidize Jewish settlements in the occupied territories. The Zionists in the Bush administration have helped to speed up the growth of a messianic strain of Christian fundamentalism which considers warfare between the Israelis and Arabs as ordained by God, and complete occupation and domination of Palestine as a necessary condition for the fulfilment of the Biblical "millennium," the End of Days, and the appearance of the Messiah who will rule the world for one thousand years from Jerusalem.

These right wing extremists exert a considerable influence in the Bush administration. The result is that the Jewish fundamentalists struggling to impose Israeli domination and the Christian fundamentalists working for the so-called "millennium" strengthen one another and increase the dangers of a religious war. They are allied for an agenda which aims at implementing a vast imperial restructuring of the Middle East, reinforced by the multinationals pirating for oil and the tremendous powers exercised by people like "Bush" and "Cheney" and "Condoleezza Rice" and the neo-conservative Zionists nesting in the higher levels of ruling power.

2. Whither Palestine

Irrespective of a few symbolic declarations from the Bush administration meant to help justify the craven policies of Arab regimes obedient to the United States in the eyes of the Arab peoples, and to encourage the illusion that the "peace process" is still alive Sharon therefore has powerful support from the United States. Only recently on two occasions Negroponte the US representative in the UN Security Council used the veto against two resolutions promoted by the Arab States. The first resolution called on Israel to cease building the "wall" separating between it and the scattered enclaves meant to "imprison" the Palestinians on limited areas of their land. The second was a resolution condemning the Israeli aerial bombing of Syria. These vetoes have endorsed the collapse of the "road map" comedy initiated by Bush. The building of the "wall" or "fence" composed of an armored zone of ditches, fences, sensors, and dirt roads for tracking footprints goes ahead. It is twenty-eight feet high in places. It occupies, steals and divides Palestinian farmland. It destroys Palestinian villages, homes and livelihoods. It costs one million dollars for each mile.
Only recently during the third week of October there were two simultaneous raids on "Rafah" separated by two days, the biggest raids since many months. The first killed eight people two of whom were children and made one hundred homeless. The second killed another eight people, wounded a hundred and destroyed 1000 homes by bulldozers or rockets and made one thousand people homeless. The Israelis in order to clear space between the "fence" and "Rafah" had already previously razed 620 homes to the ground.

Only recently the Herut offspring minister in Sharon's cabinet named "Ehud Olmert" proposed that "Yassir Arafat" be assassinated to be rid of him once and for all. And on September 16, 2003 the United States vetoed a UN Secretary Council resolution asking Israel to desist from its threats to deport him. Israel continues to build new settlements or expand old ones, to change the face of Jerusalem. Palestinians are being steadily corralled into shrinking Bantustans and made to subsist on grossly inadequate European or other aid.

As the days go by it has become clear that Sharon has no intention of dismantling the settlements and handing back occupied territory to the Palestinians. There are a quarter of a million heavily armed, and heavily subsidized Israeli settlers in these territories and their numbers are growing. Most of these settlers are prepared to kill if they are asked to move and many of them are hard headed fundamentalists with a terrorist strain. Israel has consistently and blatantly refused to respect UN resolutions asking her to withdraw from "Occupied Territories." Israel is also the only Middle Eastern State known to posses genuine and lethal weapons of mass destruction. Israel under Sharon has decided to keep control of the "Occupied Territories," and to get rid of the overwhelming majority of the Arab Palestinian population either by violence and forcible expulsion, or by depriving them of any means of livelihood so that in the face of starvation they chose to leave. Israel knows that with the Iraqi war the United States under Bush has finally decided to destabilize the Middle East and reconfigure the region in a manner that would be favorable to her.

If there are still people who think that "Sharon's" ethnic plans are unthinkable they should try to follow the steady erosion of opposition to these plans during the past years within Israel itself and which gives him a freehand. They should also remember the steady increase in land settlements and land seizures over the past twenty five years and the many statements made by right wing Israeli politicians and generals occupying the front scene some of whom are in the government today.

So thinking of all this, despite what Arab newspapers and ruling or opposition Arab politicians maintain would it be a fool hardy thing to say that the so called peace process is in its death throes. And if so back comes the question I asked at the beginning of this paper: "What does support to Palestinian Resistance concretely mean at this stage?"

3. Will Bush and Sharon succeed?

Much of what I have written in the previous pages arose from two considerations. The first is the need to be fully aware of what the new-conservative United States government now in power is planning for our region, of how serious the dangers are and so correctly asses the magnitude of the forces our people face. The second is to discuss the issue of support to the Palestinian Resistance as related to the more total situation so that we realize the need for careful thought and a comprehensive approach.
Maybe the previous pages have painted a rather bleak and frightening picture of what the peoples of our region face. One of the components of this picture is the existence of a growing Islamic fundamentalist force and the role it is playing in Palestinian resistance to Israel and probably in the Iraqi peoples resistance to United States occupation of Iraq. But I prefer to leave this issue so that this paper does not become longer than it already is, and because it is an issue that needs to be dealt with on its own.

I realize that such a bleak and rather frightening picture can become counter productive in the struggle against the neo-imperialists forces we face. These forces are intent on convincing people that they are so powerful, so overwhelming that there is no use trying to resist. If they succeed in doing so truly all is lost. But more and more people all over the world have become, or are becoming convinced that resistance is desirable, and possible, and that their resistance sooner or later will prevail.

People who think that way do not limit themselves to remembering the massive pre-war demonstrations that broke out before the Untied States and the United Kingdom launched their attack against Iraq. On 25 October, 2003 a new wave of demonstrations swept through the streets in countries including the United States.

Since what is happening in the United States will have an important effect on future events in the Middle East I will try to summarize what may be its more important aspects.

"Bush" was hoping that resistance to his aggressive policies would be vanquished by the exercise of overwhelming military force first in Afghanistan but more important in Iraq. Once the Iraqi army was crushed the United States occupation forces would be able to destroy, to coerce or to bribe any potential resistance. Then the United States administration could move on quickly to privatizing Iraqi oil and with its next "major theatre" wars against Syria, Iran, North Korea, and others.

But things have not worked out that way. What is happening in Afghanistan is largely surrounded by silence. The truth is that apart from "Kabul" the occupation forces control nothing. The rest is divided up among the warlords, but more significant is the fact that the "Taliban" are steadily regaining control of important parts of the land they had lost, and that the United States forces there are facing something akin to the war of attrition that sapped the life blood out of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

However the more pressing problem is Iraq. With 150,000 troops stationed in the country, attacks against the occupation forces are spreading, control is loosening and difficulties are increasing everyday. American families are losing their "sons." General Anthony Zein former head of the Central Command of U.S. military forces asks "Are we facing another Vietnam?" as the "resistance fighters" gain more experience and versatility, and as popular resistance expresses itself in a variety of ways. Some of these "fighters" may be coming from other places, some of them may be fundamentalists but the majority come from the ranks of the Iraqi people who for so long have had it the hard way. The chances of an early withdrawal, of the "boys" coming home are becoming more and more remote as the period of active service for the troops is continuously extended. A month or so ago a small item appeared in the "New York Times" announcing that new forces would be recruited for the National Guard and the Reserves which are drawn upon for the Iraqi occupation forces.

With a total national deficit which has reached almost half a trillion (500 milliard dollars) the "Bush" administration is asking for an extra 87 billion dollars for "Emergency Spending" on Iraq and Afghanistan . This is in addition to the first installment of 75 billion dollars agreed to previously by Congress . The occupation of Iraq costs 6 billion dollars a months shouldered by American taxpayers in a situation where they face growing economic difficulties. In 2002 the number of unemployed rose by 1,350,000 and the number of those who were no longer covered by health insurance increased by two million, at a time where the rich are made to pay less taxes.

All these factors combined with a rapid loss of whatever civil liberties and democratic rights were enjoyed by American citizens has reflected itself in recent "opinion polls" which show that in the past six months those supporting the "war policies" of the Bush administration have dropped from 70% to 49%.

The "Bush" administration is therefore facing mounting pressures which make a military blow against Syria or Iran more unlikely although some neo-conservatives in the administration seem to think that the policy of the "worst" gives them a freer hand to follow the path they have chosen. Besides Israel is always there to act as a proxy with full United States support.

4. How can we support the resistance of the Palestinian people to Israel aggression and occupation of their land?

It is not easy for me to find what I feel are suitable answers to this question. By the word suitable I mean concrete practical and applicable suggestions for a situation which has become more and more difficult and complex as the days go by.

1. The main problem we face in the Arab countries stems from the weakness, dispersion and division of popular progressive forces, from the fact that there is no organized democratic movement. If we want to support Palestinian resistance how can we do that if we are not capable of making changes at home in the corrupt dictatorial regimes allied to the Untied States that dominate and control? Effective support to the Palestinian people can only be a function of what we do at home. So in a way the best support we can give is to engage in effective struggle against our own regimes.

2. We have to reinforce our ties with Palestinian movements, associations, civil liberties organizations engaged in one or other forms of resistance in occupied Palestine, including assistance in facing problems of livelihood, health, services etc. Wherever communities or groups of Palestinians are living in exile (the diaspora) we should strengthen our ties to them especially with those living in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, etc. We must break through the barriers created between Arabs in the different countries of the region and Palestinians.

3. Work toward setting up Arab Palestinian Solidarity Organizations and find out from the Palestinians themselves how best we can assist.

4. Examine the possibility of a "go to Palestine" popular movement so as to increase the buffer effect, and internationalize the internal resistance in Palestine.

5. Analyze and reexamine the results of the anti-war, anti-corporate globalization demonstrations so as to combine them with more permanent, organized, daily forms of resistance aimed at pressurizing, paralyzing, or dismantling our regimes and enforcing democratic changes within them.

6. Discussing problems related to

a. Armed resistance
b. Terrorism and its concepts.

Sherif Hetata