October 5, 2003

‘On issues related to the Islamic world, there is a sort of distribution of roles or division of labour between the US and the European Union. Their interests and targets are very much the same,’ says Egyptian scholar Dr Mohammad El-Syed Selim

DR MOHAMMAD El-Syed Selim, an Egyptian scholar based in Cairo, believes that even though Israeli and US policies have plunged the Middle East into a deep crisis, even if Yasser Arafat is eliminated by the Israelis, “nothing more than wild protests” will take place, as Arab regimes lack the capability to maintain a balance of power, and remain under tremendous American pressure.

Talking to the Dawn Magazine recently, Dr Selim, who is a professor of International Relations at Cairo University’s faculty of Economics and Political Science, said he believed that it was only a matter of time before the United States would itself occupy Palestinian territories, and would send troops to mop up Palestinian resistance leaders there, “to finish the job which the Israelis have not been able to do thus far”.

The following are excerpts from the interview:

Q. How do you view the Mideast situation after Israeli threats to the life of Yasser Arafat and the US veto in the UN Security Council?

A. The Middle East situation after the American veto has slipped the region further in the direction of total political chaos. Since 9/11, Bush and Sharon decided to consider any resistance movement as a terrorist movement, and after the initiation of their (US) roadmap in March 2003, this new development is a very serious one. It has become quite clear that the US is protecting Israel in its mission to destroy the Palestinian Authority.

The European Union has done the same thing. They abstained in the voting on the resolution, and also they have put Hamas on the list of terrorist organizations at this critical threshold. So this is another contribution to the green light given to Israel to destroy the Palestinian Authority.

If things continue in this direction, I will not be surprised if the Americans, in a few months or a few weeks, decide to send their own troops to destroy the Palestinian Authority, to occupy these territories and to finish the job which Israel has not been able to do. The US is seriously considering to send a NATO contingent to occupy Palestinian territories and to destroy resistance groups and prepare the ground for the Sharonian project. Recently, NATO has taken over in Afghanistan under the German command. This model will be developed in Iraq and I think it will also be implemented in Palestine, maybe even before it happens in Iraq.

Q. Do you think Sharon’s arrogance has something to do with differences between Mehmood Abbas and Arafat, and how deep is the split?

A. The split was deep because Abu Mazin had the vision of the future which more or less goes along the line of the Israeli regime. For example, he favoured considering the issue of the refugees as an issue of the past. His view was not in line with the view of the majority of the Palestinians. That was the reason of conflict between him and Arafat.

The Americans and the Israelis coerced Arafat into selecting him and coerced the Palestinian National Council not to remove him from the prime ministership. The American Consul in Jerusalem met members of the Legislative Council personally, threatening them against giving a vote of no confidence against Abu Mazin.

To that extent they were involved and wanted their man to be the Palestinian prime minister. That did not go well with the Legislative Council and with Arafat. It was not a personal rivalry for power, it was rivalry between two visions for the future.

Now whether this difference between Arafat and Abu Mazin has encouraged Sharon, I believe it is not the case. Sharon has his own vision. Don’t forget that this man virtually committed all the massacres in 1948, in 1956 against the Egyptians, and in Lebanon in 1982. So the man has a project, and that is simply to kill to subdue the Palestinians and to create a Palestinian state in Jordan, West Bank and Gaza. So Sharon wants a Palestinian state not in Palestine, but in Jordan.

They wanted Abu Mazin (Abbas), but they did not give him the instruments of power which would have established his credibility among the Palestinians. They even insulted him and even continued crackdown on the Palestinians. In order to succeed, Abu Mazin had to get good concessions from the Israelis to show that his approach was working. But the Israelis did not saddle him with that. They insulted him, they did not give any concessions, they continued to harass the Palestinians and closed the Gaza Strip. So his credibility was eroded. Even then they wanted this man as the prime minister of Palestine.

Sharon is a bulldozer who has a cause of action and that will never change unless he is removed from power. But this will not happen because the more he become fascist, the more he becomes popular. His popularity has now increased because he has become a lot more fascist now. This is the real dilemma of the Middle East situation. How to get out of it when we have a fascist leader in Israel who is supported by the US openly. So I don’t think the conflict between Arafat and Abbas has encouraged Sharon in any way.

Q. What the Arab governments are doing?

A. Very little. Don’t forget that through Arab negligence and lack of ability to build or rectify the balance of power, the equation is overwhelmingly in favour of Israel. The entire Arab air power is almost obsolete when compared to that of Israel. They know Israel wants a regional war to create a new situation so that the old situation is forgotten. They can only appeal to the US, appeal to the UN and call for negotiations. But the ground reality is that all Arab regimes are cornered and unable to deliver.

Take, for example, the question of nuclear weapons in Israel. Arab countries go to the IAEA, asking it to take appropriate steps against Israeli nuclear programme, but the agency does not take any notice of the Israeli nuclear bomb which has destroyed the Middle East. Arab regimes and countries are on the defensive. The only card with the Arabs is Intifada and that is why the Americans want to end it and to prevent its revival in the future, by destroying the leaders and by putting them in jail so that the bargaining chip will never be in the hands of the Palestinian negotiators.

Q. So what will happen to the region if Arafat is killed or banished from Palestine?

A. There will be a sort of political chaos, a convening of the Security Council to discuss the matter, but not much beyond that. I am talking to you about what will happen in reality. I don’t think much will happen. Some people in the Arab world, including Amar Musa, the Secretary-General of the Arab League, have said that if this happens then the Arab countries should sever all relations with Israel, including Egypt, Jordan and all Arab countries that have Israeli liasion offices. But this is only a call by Amar Musa. I do not think it will happen. There will be some symbolic acts, like we may not trade with Israel and suspend this and that, but not much will happen that will change the balance of power and the political landscape. It is unfortunate, but true. And Israel knows that very well.

As far as the Palestine question is concerned, the US is openly more supportive of Israel than the EU. However, the latter pursues an approach on the question (conflict prevention and the introduction of confidence-building measures) that facilitates the American approach. The latter aims at achieving a settlement that would ensure the security of one actor, that is, Israel.

Q. What about the Arab League’s interim recognition to the foreign minister of the occupied Iraq?

A. Yes, they recognized the man from the US-sponsored Iraqi Governing Council as representing the Iraqis and the US-appointed foreign minister sat in the chair of the Iraqi representative at the League session, but the whole episode at the League was also under American pressure.

However, I personally think that this move on the part of the Arabs and the League was a wise one. Even though it is a Council appointed by the occupier, but had they refused to recognize it, it would have provided the members of the Governing Council the pretext to say that since the Arabs have rejected them, so they have also decided to reject the Arabs, and go with Israel. In fact, that is very much what the US wanted to happen.

I believe that the US will win in any case. So the Arabs chose the best option that was available to prevent cooperation between Iraq and Israel, and the latter’s recognition by the occupied Iraq.

Q. Do you think that the Israelis are going to change the military reality in Palestine much before Syria, and the Americans will send their contingents to act against the Palestinians, before taking on Syria?

A. Yes, this is an urgent matter for them because there is a war going on today in the occupied territories. There is no war with Syria. Therefore, I think this will be more urgent.

Q. What do you think of the EU’s role, was it just posturing or was there difference in reality?

A. On the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Iraqi question, the Iranian issue and such other things, there is a sort of distribution of roles or division of labour between the US and the EU. On the Iraqi question, the EU, including France and Germany, did not really obstruct or object to the invasion of Iraq.

What happened was that France and Germany gave the impression to the Arabs and to the Muslim world that not all the Western countries were for the invasion, and by doing that they achieved many objectives. They provided the US the golden opportunity to collect all the information from Iraq. By saying that they were against invasion, they persuaded Saddam Hussain to open his country to the inspectors who took stock of everything in Iraq. They even took measurements of the residential palaces.

While the preparation began, they looked the other way, and pretended as if they had never seen that invasion and knew nothing about it. Some of them even came out openly supporting the invasion. Even after the invasion, they supported Resolution 1483 which legitimized the occupation. So this is the nature of distribution of roles so that each one of them may somehow safeguard its economic interest in the Middle East.

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)