PALESTINIANS & EUROPE
(Author’s
note: This essay was written in May of 2002. Unfortunately, it has proved
to be somewhat prophetic.)
My arrival to Spain
this year has coincided with the sickening turmoil that has become the
situation in Israel-Palestine --- Islamic suicide bombers, heavy handed
Israeli retaliation, on and on, in the words of that police pummeled petty
thief, Rodney King, “can’t we all just get along?”
It doesn’t take long for a visitor
from Disneyland to realize that the European attitude
with regard to this conflict is radically different from that of the average
American. It would not be an exaggeration to say that most people on this
side of western culture see the Israelis as the LAPD and the Palestinians
as Rodney King. The Israeli leader, Ariel Sharon, is considered the political
version of Mike Tyson, out of control and out of his mind. It might even
be said that European support for the Palestinians is more solid than
American support for Israel. Being that any European who cares
a blip for any of this gets their information from somewhere, there is a
logical inference that their media sources have been promulgating this
attitude. (Perhaps with the exception of our puppy dog
friends in England). The print media is especially pro
Palestinian, treating the Israelis in much the same way American journalism
views Cuba.
If the Israelis are seen as wearing
the black hats in this drama, it is generally as the sicarios working
for their American capo. In just my first ten days of residence
by the Roman Sea, a number of people representing
a cross section of Occidental nationalities,
have wanted to know why the United States seems to be so overwhelmingly pro
Israeli. Though this writer tends to agree with that assessment, it’s
quite possible that most of my compatriots, reacting to their own media
sources, see a more balanced approach perhaps lightly favoring Israel. Being more prone to agree with the
European version, my explanations usually run something like this:
One cannot really analyze America's reactions to the Middle East situation without discussing how
the people governing the country see the big picture. The Bush Gang goes
back a long way together and are still intact as they get their second
crack at the Presidency. What is their attitude towards the world’s
problems?
Early in his reign, President Papa
Bush found himself floundering in a world that made little sense to him.
Here’s a man who had spent his whole political life, which included
a stint as head of the CIA, reacting to the threat posed by the Soviet
Union and an ideology which seemed poised to destroy baseball, apple pie
and everything held sacred by anyone who faithfully read “Peanuts”.
The Wall had come down, the Big Red Machine had been dismantled, and the
ship carrying American foreign policy was now rudderless and adrift. Adding
to this confusion was that nobody, embarrassingly, even remotely saw this
coming. Where to drop anchor? What port to head for? Other than to kick
the crap out of anyone who dared mess with our sacred pools of oil, Papa
Bush never came to grips with this new script for global drama.
Life goes on. A well-greased, fine
tuned Conservative muck machine will stop at nothing to bring down Bill
and Hillary. After a series of fruitless forays --- remote business dealings
in the backwater forests of Bill’s forgotten ancestral home; clandestine
encounters with painted ladies dieing to tell their stories to Larry King;
power struggles in heretofore unknown federal agencies … in truth,
a whole host of petty, trumped up accusations that could only be the work
of a politically instigated witch hunt --- they finally nab him with an
erection inserted in an improper orifice. The Bush Gang, now represented
by “Mini-Me” Bush, makes its way back to the White House.
After eight years of watching from the sidelines, they have decided on
how to deal with the Post Soviet world.
Before explaining this policy, which,
due to its simplicity will not take too long, it’s relevant to note
the following: this latest incarnation of the Bush Gang has inherited
a world where the big "players", lead by the United States, have no appreciable predators and
possess immense amounts of resources. (In spite of the hysteria generated
by September 11 th, we are still talking about
a flea biting an elephant). It is a perfect moment in history to try and
tackle some of the more pressing problems that have continued to be a
ball and chain around the ankle of progress. Foremost here are the unconscionable
disparities that stubbornly separate the “haves” and “have-nots”
of the world. Now that the paranoia of two Herculean military forces poised
to destroy each other (the world?) has been eliminated, isn’t it
an ideal moment to see if some of this obese indigestion of wealth can
somehow find its way into the poverty ridden destitution of third world
misery? Wouldn’t it be an ideal moment to try and upgrade these
conditions, to implement a rational birth control program, to improve
the health and sanitary conditions in the developing world, to improve
its infrastructure, its agro-capacities, to inculcate it into the technology
of the future, to give it its fair stake in the “New World Order”?
Isn’t this an ideal moment to assess and rectify the burgeoning
ecological problems confronting our planet?
Wouldn’t this
be the answer to the immigration problems that are exploited by racist
demagogues like Jean LePen?
In the end, we get what we deserve.
What a sorry commentary on the human condition is reflected in the return
of the Bush Gang to power. They are just the wrong people for this moment
of relative peace and prosperity in the world. If we peel away the usual
masks and ambiguities with which respectable foreign policy is camouflaged,
we see an Administration that has decided on a primitive course of action.
It is mired in a remote genealogy of primal conflict inherited from some
bygone Darwinian struggles that human beings should have now evolved beyond.
"We've got the guns, we’ll do as we please.”
Instead of being the
guiding force for an integrated world out to solve its most universal
problems, the United States has decided to rule for its
own benefit. This is a mistaken course of action, even for this one stated
goal. The refusal of this government to sign a whole series of treaties
and agreements is already well documented, but its latest action of this
kind is perhaps the most hypocritical (and pitifully laughable) of all:
one can only look on with dumbfounded bewilderment when the world’s
most strident voice for “human rights” refuses to enter into
an agreement with more than 60 nations (including all its principle allies)
calling for an International War Crime Tribunal, claiming it might be
used trivially against its own military actions. This is something like
the mafia refusing to recognize the judicial system because they might
be accused of murder, extortion and illegal trafficking. This, at a time
when the United States was the driving force behind the war crime trials
now being used against Serbian leaders; this, at a time when it is holding
hundreds of alleged terrorists? soldiers? animals?
vegetables? --- what
exactly are those people being held at Guantanamo? --- without
legal representation, without charges being set forth. One can only come
to the conclusion that this American government will only accept war criminals
of their own definition.
This
attitude, disguised as a foreign policy, has been transferred to the events
in the Middle East. (Certainly, what I’m
about to attribute to the Bush Gang was further encouraged by the events
of 9/11, but a world power, like a good tennis player, cannot let an occasional
bad call destroy its composure so that the long term goal is compromised.)
One must remember that for eight years the Clinton
administration had been deeply involved in the process and appreciable
progress had been made. It might be said that 2 steps forward had been
taken, although serious problems still remained. By the end of this mandate,
an upturn in bellicose Islamic activity had set things back a step. The
incoming administration decided to label this a failure. This gave them
the excuse to stay out of it until such time as the warring parties showed
some inclination towards peace. Translation: the Israelis, our guys, have
the guns, let’s turn’em loose. This policy has destroyed everything
accomplished in the last ten years and has created such chaos that only
an outcry of international repugnance has forced the Americans back into
the game.
If a silver lining might be found in
the wreckage of these decisions, perhaps it is this: the situation has
now become so insufferable, so untenable, that it might encourage a quick
resolution. The dismay and hardship, on both sides, caused by the failure
of this administration’s policies, might, ironically, have brought
us closer to an independent Palestine and an Israel recognized by the Arab world. Even
if this best-case scenario were to happen, this does not excuse American
policy for the extreme trauma that could have been avoided with a more
reasonable approach.
I hasten not to think about anything
less than this best-case scenario.
|
