|
Online edition of India's National Newspaper Thursday, May 24, 2001 |
|
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Science & Tech |
Entertainment |
Miscellaneous |
Features |
Classifieds |
Employment |
Index |
Home |
|
Opinion
| Previous
| Next
New cross-currents in West Asia
A COLLECTIVE SHOW of political unity by the Arab states over the
basic Palestinian question is their direct answer to Israel's act
of sending F-16 combat aircraft on a bombing mission over a
territory that had already been entrusted to the Palestinians
under an earlier understanding. The decision by the Arab League
Foreign Ministers to observe a political boycott of Israel is
quite unusual even by the polemical standards of West Asia's
prolonged diplomatic standoff between the Jewish state and its
neighbours. On this occasion, the evocative mood of Arab
solidarity has been made possible on this scale by a singular act
of war-like rage by Israel's ultra-nationalist Prime Minister,
Mr. Ariel Sharon. He ordered the U.S.-supplied F-16s to pound a
security post within the perimeters of the acknowledged
Palestinian territory. The raid, the first involving fighter
planes in that sub-region for a number of years, was decreed in
explicit retaliation for a suicide-bombing attack by an extremist
Arab group inside the domain of the Jewish state. For the grisly
record of cyclical West Asian terror, the Israeli air strike in
question claimed far more Arab lives than the number of Jews
killed in the earlier suicide-bombing. In the thinking of the
protagonists of Mr. Sharon's show of force, therein lies the
purported message that the Jewish state, which is widely believed
to command an overwhelming military strength in the region,
cannot be trifled with. The sub-text of the message is that
retributive force will be used to subdue any escalatory militant
move by the ``rebellious'' Palestinians - a Jewish label for
those seeking legitimate political and civil rights.
Israel and its adjoining Arab territories have thus been turned
into a battleground for theories of violence by the Jewish
military supremacists as also the Palestinian votaries of
unbridled angst. Almost inexorably lost as a result is the
fragile peace process. The fading moves towards peace in West
Asia were set in motion by the United States, in nominal
conjunction with Russia (with its recessive influence of the
Soviet vintage) and by Norway (as a facilitator) in the early
1990s. The peace process later reached its zenith at one stage
during the presidency of Mr. Bill Clinton in the U.S. The prime
diplomatic question now in West Asia is whether the present Bush
administration in Washington will decide to play either a
facilitator or a mediator or both in respect of at least the
Israel-Palestine track of the layered peace process.
For the moment now, the U.S. is echoing the latest Mitchell
Commission's report by counselling the Israelis and Palestinians
to give up violence and discuss modalities of meeting their
expectations of security before beginning `final status' talks to
crack the political puzzle over full-fledged Palestinian
statehood. The U.S. Secretary of State, Gen. Colin Powell, has of
course hinted at the possibility of a more activist diplomatic
role by Washington if warranted. The U.S.-sponsored document
deals with some of the issues at stake including Israel's
practices of establishing and safeguarding controversial Jewish
settlements. The report has in fast induced Mr. Sharon to float
the idea of a truce. But Washington, which alone seems to possess
the diplomatic wherewithal to make a positive difference to the
current crisis in West Asia, must first sort out America's own
priorities, given especially its perceived preoccupation with
toppling Iraq's ruler, Mr. Saddam Hussein, in the same region.
Assuming importance, as a result, is the scope for diplomatic
intervention by Egypt and Jordan, two Arab states which variously
made ``peace'' with Israel over time, in regard to the Palestine
issue. However, the latest decision by the Arab League can only
diminish the chances of a new Egypt-Jordan initiative. Both being
privy to the League's move, their sense of indignation is the
defining Arab mood today.
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail
|
|
Section : Opinion Previous : The CDS appointment Next : Burying the Indira doctrine | |
|
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Science & Tech |
Entertainment |
Miscellaneous |
Features |
Classifieds |
Employment |
Index |
Home | |
|
Copyrights © 2001 The Hindu Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu |
|