Since the beginning of his United States presidency, George W.
Bush, together with his group of neo-conservatives, set for
themselves a Middle East strategy they dubbed "constructive
chaos,"1 which begs the question: How can chaos be constructive?
Nonetheless, this strategy became increasingly clear through its
concrete implementation on the ground. The propagation of chaos
through the dismemberment of countries and the displacement of
peoples is the key to U.S. hegemony over the region. This has been
amply demonstrated by what took place and is still taking place in
Iraq, Sudan, Lebanon, Palestine and, before that, Somalia. It is
all a manifestation of Bush's alleged commitment to spreading
democracy and building a new democratic Middle East. Commendable
words, but the real objective is another story. The occupation of
Iraq did not have as its aim the liberation of the Iraqi people
from the dictatorship of President Saddam Hussein, as was the
claim; it was primarily for the petrol. This is what Alan
Greenspan, the former chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve Board,
wrote in his recent book The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New
World. This was echoed by General John Abizaid, the former
commander of the U.S. Central Command, with forward headquarters in
Qatar.
'Everything Is Subject to Change'
The dismantling of the region's countries into mini-states along
religious, sectarian and ethnic lines lends justification to the
establishment of the Jewish state on religious bases and weakens
the Palestinian and Arab positions in confronting the issue and
Israel's occupation and expansionist policy. Thus, in addition to
petrol and the control over its production and marketing, the
"constructive chaos" strategy seeks to secure the superiority of
the state of Israel over the various Arab states, as well as its
control over the most strategic region in the world. The promotion
of American-Israeli hegemony over the Middle East can only happen
through the debilitation and fragmentation of the countries and the
peoples of the region.
In this connection, one recalls what former President Bill Clinton
said to the late President Yasser Arafat in Camp David II, when the
latter refused to buckle under Clinton's pressure to accept
then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak's demands: "You have to know that
you are in a region where everything is subject to change; not only
governments, but also geographical boundaries." This prompted
Arafat to retort: "I will go to Gaza and will invite you to march
in my funeral." Thus, American strategy pertaining to the region -
constructive chaos - predates and is not confined to Bush and the
neo-conservatives. However, they gave it a tangible dimension by
implementing it, thanks to American military superiority in the
world.
The whole region and especially Palestine are witnessing the impact
of this strategy. Instead of working for the consolidation of the
unity of countries and rallying the people behind just causes, we
find ourselves, consciously or unconsciously, immersed in the
policy of dismantlement. In effect, we are oblivious to the concept
of the unity of the people, the unity of the cause and the unity of
the political entity - the triad in any national liberationist
strategy, without which we stand to lose a great deal.
What Sykes-Picot Split…
The Arab decision-makers have to face up to the fact that, if it
was not possible throughout the past decades to unite the Arab
countries and nations that had been split up by the Sykes-Picot
Agreement, they have now become even more powerless to preserve
regional cohesion and have failed to address the Palestinian
question, deemed the primary cause of the Arab predicament.
The acute ineffectuality and fragmentation of the official Arab
order had its profound impact on the Palestinian people, their
political movements and leadership. They ended up being victims of
the same ailments affecting the Arab world, because of their
position within the Arab social and political map and in the region
in general. Additionally, the nature of their cause places them at
the center of political machinations in the region. Under the
pressure of the balance of power in the wake of the First Gulf War,
the Palestinian leadership went to Oslo alone in the belief it
would be able to achieve some gains for its people. It got involved
in the "political process," the outcome of which speaks for itself
today. The Palestinian leadership paid a hefty price, starting with
its acceptance of postponing to the final stage the basic issues:
refugees, Jerusalem, the settlements, borders, security and water.
In other words, it agreed to the fragmentation of the cause. With
the exception of the problem of the Palestinian refugees and their
right to return in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution
194, these issues are indivisible and they have only one solution:
the total withdrawal of Israel from the territories it occupied in
1967, including East Jerusalem.
Let us reflect upon Israel's subsequent actions. The occupied
territories were divided into Areas A, B and C, thus leaving all
control over the territories in the hands of the occupying forces.
Since March 2002, these divisions were effaced from the map, so
that reverting to this prior arrangement or even going back to the
September 28, 2000, situation have ended up being the Palestinian
demands of the moment, overriding the expectation for complete
withdrawal.
Arab Acquiescence
With renewed attempts at reviving the Israeli-Palestinian
negotiations, the call these days is to cleave to the Road Map, but
which Road Map are we talking about? Is it the one that has been
drafted by the Quartet? Or is it the one to which then-Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon introduced his 14 amendments that were
endorsed by the U.S. administration in a letter addressed to him by
Bush on April 14, 2004? Neither version mentions the issue of
prisoners - an issue that concerns every Palestinian household. And
where has international legitimacy gone? And resolutions at their
core: the right to self-determination for the Palestinian people on
all the land occupied in 1967 and its capital East Jerusalem; the
right of refugees to return to their homes according to UN General
Assembly Resolution 194; the illegality of occupation, settlements,
the separation wall, the changing of the features of Jerusalem and
many others?
An issue that raises great concern is the mentality the
Palestinians and Arabs have of internalizing whatever the enemy
wants - even seemingly from a position of opposition or even
resistance. This was the case in Oslo, when the Palestinian
leadership split the national cause by accepting to postpone the
discussion of the major issues; and in Oslo II, when it accepted to
have the occupied territories divided into Areas A, B and C. And
this has recurred with the talk about land swaps and the
implication thereof of acquiescing to Israel keeping lands and
positions it wants inside Jerusalem and its hinterland, as well as
the big settlement blocs. There is no precedent of the PLO having
consented to such an arrangement, although the subject was brought
up in Camp David II, and we all know only too well the outcome of
that summit. The utter failure of the talks drove Clinton to
admonish the Palestinian side, threatening that his plan would
cease to be valid after his leaving Camp David and the American
presidency.
Expressing a New Arab Stance
During the Beirut Summit of March 2002, Abdullah bin-Abdel Aziz,
the Saudi crown prince at the time, came up with an initiative that
was endorsed by all the members with the introduction of some
rectifications; it came to be known as the Arab Peace Initiative.
Sharon's response was to invade the Palestinian Authority areas and
to lay a siege to the Muqata'a, Arafat's headquarters in Ramallah.
To date, Israel has not accepted the Initiative in spite of the
fact that the Arab leaders have recently renewed their commitment
to it during the Riyadh Summit. And as part of the follow-up
committee emanating from the summit, the Egyptian and Jordanian
foreign ministers went to Israel in an attempt to secure Israel's
endorsement of the Initiative - in vain.
It is worth noting that the Initiative shows an essential
transformation in the official Arab stance in favor of Israel. This
is especially true of the issue of refugees, whereby instead of
holding to the spirit and letter of Resolution 194, which
stipulates the right of the Palestinian refugees to return to their
homes and to be compensated for all damages, the initiative talks
about "a just and mutually agreed-upon solution on the basis of [UN
General Assembly] Resolution 194." This weakens considerably the
Arab position with regard to the resolution even before the start
of negotiations. The other important feature of the Arab Peace
Initiative is the collective Arab readiness to recognize Israel and
to normalize relations with it if it withdraws from the territories
it occupied in 1967. This constitutes an advance and collective
relinquishment of claims on the part of the Arab countries, even
before Israel has agreed to embark on implementing its commitments
to the relevant international resolutions regarding ending the
occupation of the territories. Israel dealt with the Initiative and
the delegation commissioned to discuss it with utter disregard. It
took what it found useful for its public relations campaign, but
rejected the Initiative per se, which contributed to the weakening
and fragmentation of the official and collective Arab
position.
A Need for Unity
To compound matters further, a geographical and social split took
place in the territories as a result of Hamas' military takeover in
Gaza, allegedly in self-defense against the security apparatuses or
Fateh elements, after it had agreed to the political parameters set
out by the Palestinian leadership, and to the Mecca Agreement with
all that it implies. This propelled the Israeli and American
strategy of displacement to unprecedented dimensions on the
Palestinian arena and placed the Palestinian people and their cause
in a most vulnerable position. It is incumbent upon the Palestinian
people - irrespective of their allegiances - to organize their
ranks and forces and to rally behind their cause and unity.
Upholding the right of return is a non-negotiable individual and
collective right guaranteed by international legitimacy for over 60
years. However, it must be integrated with the right to
self-determination and the establishment of an independent state
with its capital East Jerusalem, for one without the other becomes
meaningless. This was stressed repeatedly in the PLO's political
program proceeding from the National Council. The meeting that took
place in Annapolis in November [2007] must not lead to the
deepening of the existing rifts or to the substitution of the PLO,
for all this will only exacerbate the fragility of the national
unity and the steadfastness of the people. Today, we face an urgent
need to solidify the cohesion of the Palestinian people and the
unity of its cause in order to confront all attempts aimed at
fragmenting the nation, regardless of intentions or means.
1 According to philosopher Leo Strauss, the father of
neo-conservatism in the United States, real power cannot be exerted
if one remains in the status quo, but only, quite the contrary, in
the act of destroying all forms of resistance. It is by plunging
the masses into chaos that the elites can aspire to ensure the
stability of their position.
