[Peace-discuss] One Israeli's view of things: The mystery of America

[Morton K. Brussel]


w w w . h a a r e t z . c o m



Last update - 10:18 10/10/2006
The mystery of America



By Gideon Levy

It happens once every few months. Like a periodic visit by an  
especially annoying relative from overseas, Condoleezza Rice was here  
again. The same declarations, the same texts devoid of content, the  
same sycophancy, the same official aircraft heading back to where it  
came from. The results were also the same: Israel promised in  
December, after a stormy night of discussions, to open the "safe  
passage" between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. This time, in what  
was considered the "achievement" of the current visit, Israel also  
promised to open the Karni crossing. Karni will be open, one can  
assume, only slightly more than the "safe passage," which never  
opened following the previous futile visit.

Rice has been here six times in the course of a year and a half, and  
what has come of it? Has anyone asked her about this? Does she ask  
herself?

It is hard to understand how the secretary of state allows herself to  
be so humiliated. It is even harder to understand how the superpower  
she represents allows itself to act in such a hollow and useless way.  
The mystery of America remains unsolved: How is it that the United  
States is doing nothing to advance a solution to the most dangerous  
and lengthiest conflict in our world? How is it that the world's only  
superpower, which has the power to quickly facilitate a solution,  
does not lift a finger to promote it?

What happened since 1956, when the U.S. made Israel withdraw from  
Sinai overnight with a single telephone call, immediately after the  
"Third Kingdom of Israel" speech by the strongest Israeli leader of  
all times, David Ben-Gurion? Now, as the occupation continues for  
years, with a government no less dependent on the good graces of the  
U.S. than in the past, why is America a bystander?

Countless trips by presidents and secretaries of state, peace  
initiatives and peace plans aplenty, from the Roger's Plan to the  
Road Map, via "reassessment," fruitless talks and flowery  
declarations, pressure and promises, discussions and decisions - and  
nothing has happened. And in the background, a fundamental question  
echoes, without a response: Is America at all interested in bringing  
about a solution in the Middle East? Is it possible that it does not  
understand how crucial it is to end the conflict?

As things appear, America can and does not want to. No government in  
Israel, and surely not the most recent ones, which are terrified of  
the American administration, would stand up to a firm American demand  
to bring the occupation to an end. But there has never been an  
American president who wanted to put an end to the occupation. Does  
America not understand that without ending the occupation there will  
be no peace? Peace in the region would deliver a greater blow to  
world terrorism than any war America has pursued, in Iraq or  
Afghanistan. Does America not understand this? Can all this be  
attributed to the omnipotent Jewish lobby, which causes Israel more  
harm than good?

The declared aim of U.S. policy in the Middle East is to bring  
democracy to the region. For this reason, ostensibly, the U.S. also  
went to war in Iraq. Even if one ignores the hypocrisy, self- 
righteousness and double-standard of the Bush administration, which  
supports quite a few despotic regimes, one should ask the great  
seeker of democracy: Have your eyes failed to see that the most  
undemocratic and brutal regime in the region is the Israeli  
occupation in the territories? And how does the White House reconcile  
the contradiction between the aspiration to instill democracy in the  
peoples of the region and the boycott of the Hamas government, which  
was chosen in democratic elections as America wanted and preached?

The U.S. also speaks loftily about peace. At the same time, its  
president warns Israel against any attempt to forge peace with Syria.  
Here America is taking a stance that not only fails to advance an  
accord but even undermines it. Ever since it began to give Israel a  
free hand to impose the brutal occupation in the territories, it has  
become a party that bequeaths undemocratic values to the entire  
world. Where are the days when there was still concern in Jerusalem  
about the U.S. reaction before each military operation? Israel then  
thought twice before every liquidation and each arrest. Every  
demolition of a Palestinian home and each nocturnal groundbreaking of  
a settlement raised fears about how Uncle Sam would react. And now -  
carte blanche. There is a blank check for every belligerent action by  
Israel. Should this also be called an effort for peace, for democracy?

The recent years have not been good for America. From "the leader of  
the free world," it has become detested by the world. Not only do  
South Africa, Asia and Africa feel strong animosity toward it, most  
of the public opinion in Europe has also turned away from it. Is  
anyone in the administration asking why the world loves so much to  
hate America? And what implications will this growing global feeling  
have on the strength of the U.S. in the years ahead? Can the dollar,  
the Tomahawk and the F-16 provide an answer for everything?

In the Middle East, the U.S. has an opportunity to fundamentally  
change its image, from a warmonger to a peacemaker. And how does the  
U.S. respond to the challenge? It sends Rice to tell the excited Ehud  
Olmert how she falls asleep easily on her unnecessary and ridiculous  
flights to and from the Middle East. 
-------------- next part --------------
Skipped content of type multipart/related