Middle East's Problems More Complex Than Ever
21 April 2018
By Eyad Abu Shakra
The blood that was shed in the occupied Palestinian territories on the
anniversary of 'Land Day' will be followed by more of the same if the 'March
of Return' continues until Nakba Day on May 15.
The Palestinian wound has been bleeding for 70 years and, with the current
Israeli and global leaders in place, the prospect of any meaningful compromise
is virtually non-existent. Rather, it may be said that the conflict has never
been so far from settlement as it is today, and there are a number of reasons
for this.
The first reason is Palestinian division. This division serves the tactical
interests of many regional and international players, as well as serving
opportunistic groups within the Palestinian territories that benefit from the
division. Therefore, despite the desire of every sincere Palestinian for
unity, the beneficiaries are not willing to give up their gains.
Second, Israel's continued evasion of peace. Any real peace must be based on a
sincere desire for a coexistence that rejects oppression, domination,
captivity or 'transfer'. But, when we look at the political programs of the
partisan Israeli forces, we can only conclude that the Israeli evasion of
peace is fixed and that any other talk or goodwill is a variable.
A third reason is the regional reality. Despite the centrality of the
'Question of Palestine', it is no longer the only issue in the Middle East. As
well as the occupied lands in Palestine, there are occupied lands in the 'Palestines'
of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen; and in addition to Israeli occupation, we
now complain of Iranian, Turkish, Russian and American occupations in the
region.
Fourth is the international situation. The state of Israel was originally
established by a resolution adopted by the UN Security Council, which became
the representative of global legitimacy after the end of the Second World War.
Yet, over the past 70 years, Israel has been one of the leading violators of
UN resolutions, either through total disregard or thanks to the protection
provided by the American veto. In fact, a major part of the region's dilemma —
and indeed the world's dilemma — is the reliance of rogue governments on
absolute power, or the protection of the American veto in the case of Israel,
and Russian and Chinese vetoes in the case of Syria.
With regard to Syria, US President Donald Trump — in the midst of the
tit-for-tat diplomat expulsions with Russia, and the accelerating sectarian
cleansing by Moscow and Iran in Syria — announced his intention to withdraw US
troops after "knocking the hell" out of Daesh (ISIS).
Up to this point, the statement was clear. However, the second part of his
speech was a bit strange, as he went on to say: "We'll be coming out of Syria,
like, very soon. Let the other people take care of it now." In Syria, the
"other people" he referred to are Russian and Iranian forces, which are
supposed to be Washington's most serious opponents, both globally and
regionally. Therefore, there is a need to clarify the background of what the
American president meant; and here the issue of different priorities within
the administration arises.
Apart from the recent changes that affected prominent figures — including
replacing Secretary of State Rex Tillerson with Mike Pompeo and the
appointment of John Bolton as National Security Advisor instead of H.R.
McMaster — the power struggle within some US institutions is familiar,
particularly, during Republican administrations. It is no secret that the
biggest role in the preparation for the 2003 invasion of Iraq was played by
the Pentagon and the 'hawks' in then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's team.
Over the past two weeks, Washington observers have seen the removal of
Tillerson and McMaster and the choice of Pompeo and Bolton as a double victory
for the 'big stick' approach to foreign affairs at the expense of those who
cherish compromise and soft diplomacy. A number of European allies have even
expressed fears that the White House would adopt radical positions, but
Trump's words gave a completely different indication.
Undoubtedly, US foreign policy is not limited to one region of the world and
is generally based on priorities, strategic and tactical balances, and
compromises. Besides, many statements and initiatives are meant to be testers
for the intentions of friends and foes.
However, as far as the Middle East is concerned, it is wise to deal with
crises with two different approaches. First, the specifics of each case should
be taken separately due to the different 'composition' of Arab entities and
their geographic locations and demographics. Second, there is a need to
recognize there are more pervasive dangers, beyond the current existential
limits, that seek to change the broader regional reality.
A deep understanding of the Middle East is vital, not only for the forces
concerned with their own destinies but also the powers that deal with the
region as a mere chessboard. Consequently, if the policy used to deal with the
phenomenon of Daesh — i.e. to treat the symptoms and neglect the causes — is
repeated, the world will have to wait much more than 70 years before it is
relieved of its Middle East concerns.
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments