Dr Salim Nazzal.America old new Middle Eastern policy: denial as a way of making

from Dr Salim Nazzal -

In his lecture “building security in the middle east” at the Washington institute for the near east, Phil Zelikow, the state councilor reveals the new policy of the United States towards the Middle East.

America old new Middle Eastern policy: denial as a way of making policy!










In his lecture “building security in the middle east” at the Washington institute for the near east, Phil Zelikow, the state councilor reveals the new policy of the United States towards the Middle East.

In the Palestinian question Zelikow reveals beyond any doubt the administration’s hostile policy towards the aspiration of Palestinians to be a free nation, a hostile position which has characterized the American policy for the last 4 decades. This is obvious in the language use: Regarding Lebanon for instance, the language talks continually about democracy and the struggle of the Lebanese to push Syria out of Lebanon, but where the Israeli occupation of Palestine is concerned the language changes and the smell of double standard fills each word.

It is obvious that forty years of illegal Israeli occupation and 60 years of a continuous Palestinian tragedy did not deserve, in Zelikow view, to be an independent point in his ten points lecture. Instead, he referred to the Palestinian question on the last point which was tenth under the title of “Israel and its neighbors”. Even by American standard this policy seems to have gone too far in overlooking major political issues such as the Palestine question .In 1917, the American president Wilson had declared the rights of all former Arab parts (including Palestine) of the Ottoman empire to self determination.

More importantly, Zelikow lecture contradicts the American policy of the post of September towards promoting reform and democracy in the Middle East. In the aftermath of the September attacks the Lebanese political analyst Rajeh Khory observed that the United States was satisfied before of preserving its interest in the region with the traditional political systems as the Saudi Arabia regime regardless of their view of its political (and cultural) system. The new in Khory’s view is that
America has added in addition to the American interest the question of political culture (democracy, human Rights, women etc.).
This, he thinks, is a result of the fact that most attackers were Saudi citizens brought up in the Saudi culture. This probably has made the new conservative of America come to the conclusion that it is not enough to be politically friendly with traditional Arab states when the structure of the culture is hostile.

Zelikow outlines the framework of the new American policy in the Palestinian question in one major point, which is to create an alliance between the Arab moderate states, against what he called the destructive forces (of Syria and Iran). In other words, America goes back to its old policy implemented in the cold war time in supporting the states which opposed the soviet block. In more words the USA wants to create a sort of “Arab Nato” composed of eight Arab countries against the “Warsaw pact” of Syria and Iran”. This policy demonstrates that the USA reverts to its old Machiavellian policy which justifies doing any thing as long as it serves the US interest. The obvious question in this regard is what are the reasons behind the USA policy revision, if it is possible to call it so? In my perspective there are many reasons to this new stance;

Firstly, the American initiative for democracy was never out of good faith. We know from past history that revolutionary states which exported its ideas applied ideas on it self first. The French revolution declared its republic and was not un normal thing that it conflicted with ancient regime .The communist Russia went in conflict with the capitalist countries and was natural that it allied it self with the socialist forces every where. Such policies make sense, but what does not make sense is to watch a swinging policy which lacks integrity or the maturity or the will or the qualification. This is the evidence: First; the best friends of America in the Middle East are the owner of the worst record in democracy and human rights, Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. And in contrast America is fiercely fighting the only government which was freely elected in Palestine. In simple logic that any school child would understand, it is not possible to stand for democracy and to support regimes based on occupation and terror.

Secondly: The attempt at democracy in the Middle East has brought the Islamists hostile to American policy. The tragic example in Palestine demonstrates to the blind, that Palestinians are starved by America and Israel because they voted freely to the “wrong party”. This lesson has made the USA comes to the conclusion that democracy in the Arab world will bring anti US forces, the Latin America examples of bringing anti USA elected regimes have probably confirmed this view. One does not need great imagination to explain why Arabs would vote to anti American forces: Arabs are fed up with the Us double standard policy, whoever will come to power through elections will oppose the American policy, regardless of who are they and which ideology they represent : secular, religious , half secular or half religious or even Buddhists.

Thirdly, As a mater of fact this policy as evident during the past years has demonstrated that the American call for democracy in the middle east was an ideological weapon to legitimate its intervention and occupation. In other words it was a surface value policy that was never taken seriously in the white house, and more importantly, never taken seriously by the Arab democratic forces. America simply did not want to see serious conclusions as a report suggests in Jordan and Egypt by respectable American figures such as the American ambassador Edward Georgian which points out that American support to Israel is the major reason for Arab hostility towards America.

Recent reports show more evidence of the importance of the US/ Middle East policy. According to Al Jazeera a report done by 16 CIA agencies demonstrates that the American occupation of Iraq has increased terror. All these facts points towards one conclusion, the failure of the American policy is because of its double standards and its lack of addressing the key issue in the Middle East, which primarily Palestine. The recent visit of Rice is the implementation of the policy of dividing Arab regimes into (builders and destroyers!). In other words Rice is seeking to create an Arab civil war instead of uniting Arab efforts to support the Palestinian rights. The question as Talal Salman in the Lebanese Al Safir Newspaper puts it, where is Rice taking Arabs, to new Iraq in Palestine or to new Iraq in Syria or to new war with Iran? In addition to Salman question I may add one more: is encouraging the fragmentation of the Arab world and putting Arabs against each others is the latest American invention to bring peace to the Middle East? The immediate answer which is based on a half century of American support to the Israeli occupation and to Arab oppressive regimes demonstrates beyond doubt that America is not ready to learn any thing from past experiences .Past experiences has demonstrated that American policies ended to failure .

* Dr. Salim Nazzal is a Palestinian historian. He has written extensively on social and political issues in the Middle East .E mail:  gibran44@hotmail.com