|
WHAT KIND OF PEACE?
In
order to make a point with the governments of Syria and Lebanon, Israel couriered
its message via 500,000 refugees. For more than five days, Israel’s
army deliberately shelled and destroyed villages in South Lebanon using
America’s most sophisticated weaponry, subsidized by U.S. tax dollars.
For
the first time and without saying that its operation was aimed at
military targets, the Israeli government, through its Prime Minister
Yitzhak Rabin, stated out-rightly that its aim was to create an exodus
of refugees and to destroy villages on the Lebanon/Israel border. And
why shouldn’t the Israelis do that, since Israel never seems to be
held accountable for any act it commits, enjoying blind support from the
United States at the Security Council?
The
Israelis’ aim was to pressure the Lebanese government into forcing the
Lebanese movement resisting Israel’s occupation of Southern Lebanon to
stop launching attacks on Israeli occupying forces. Here, it is
important to note that the seven Israeli soldiers were actually killed
on Lebanese soil.
The
Israeli operation was timed a week before Secretary of State Warren
Christopher was due in the region on a mission to revitalize the
stalled peace negotiations. The question that comes to mind is whether
Clinton’s Middle East strategists were the ones who gave the Israelis
the green light to launch this attack as a means of paving the way for
Christopher’s real message which is: either the Arabs agree to
Israel’s terms for peace, or they face the alternative: an Israel
that will continue to occupy, invade and deport anyone and everyone in
the name of” national
security.”
This
question is relevant especially after hearing a statement delivered by
Christopher during one of his stops in the Middle East,
where he described the situation in Lebanon as perhaps
“...paradoxically, giving a new energy to the negotiations.”
When
certain countries that have been accused of shameful human rights’
records are slapped with strangulating economic sanctions and political
isolation, Israel constantly escape all criticism, even though its
“behavior” fits right under Ambassador Albright ‘
s definition for “rogue
regimes.” In the face of blatant international law violations, Israel
remains unfazed.
All
these events lead us to re-examine the real intention behind starting
the peace process and the outcome we might expect from it. An imposed
peaceful settlement would create a time bomb rather than stability in
the region.
During
the Gulf War, when Israel was shown to be a strategic liability to the
U.S., Israel’s friends were alarmed by the fact that the U.S. put
pressure on Israel to stay out of the conflict. This reality
contradicted all previous arguments that U.S. support for Israel was
based on Israel as a strategic base from which to quell the communist
spread in the Middle East and to protect U.S. interests. Whoever the
renovators may be, the Israelis are now trying to recast themselves as
the protectors of U.S. interests from the rising tide of Islamists, thus
creating an illusionary enemy. This dangerous path, if adopted by the
U.S., would complicate the situation, and it may lead to a larger
instability in the region with new elements which could bring about
unpredictable outcomes.
|
