|
What US President George W. Bush has recently said and done on the Middle East has not contributed to the advancement of the stalled Israel-Palestinian peace talks within the framework of the "roadmap" for peace, which the United States itself has advocated.
In his address to the United Nations (UN) General Assembly on Tuesday, Bush delivered an unbridled attack against Palestinian President Yasser Arafat and called for a new leadership in the statehood-soliciting territory.
"The Palestinian cause is betrayed by leaders who cling to power by feeding old hatreds, and destroying the good work of others," Bush said. "The Palestinian people deserve their own state, and they will gain that state by embracing new leaders committed to reform, to fighting terrorism and to building peace."
Clearly, Bush is crazy about removing leaderships or the change of regimes in other people's territories. He has succeeded in Iraq. Now he has set his sights on Palestine.
Bush did not mention Arafat by name in his speech. Yet everyone could see that Bush was referring to Arafat given his recent attitude towards the Palestinian leader.
At a news conference with Jordan's King Abdullah last Friday, the US president called Arafat "a failed leader."
Earlier, the United States cast a veto against the UN Security Council's resolution prompting Israel to give up its provocative decision to remove Arafat, although the United States said it was opposed to the Israeli decision before the vote.
Israel made such a decision after Palestinian militants were involved in two suicide bombings earlier this month which killed 15 Israelis.
The decision has been severely condemned by the international community because it was regarded possibly to bring about more violence to Israel, Palestine, and the entire Middle East if it is implemented.
Israel should know the consequences. So should the United States.
Washington remains the most influential player in Middle Eastern politics. It also acts as the only party which can exert decisive influence upon Israel.
Only the United States could prompt Israel to change its stance, if Washington were inclined to do that.
But it is not, much to the dismay of the international community.
Washington's stance on Arafat has undoubtedly added fuel to Israel's going ahead along its established policy.
As expected, Israel said it would continue to keep Arafat's removal plan unchanged, following the UN General Assembly's overwhelming resolution last Friday urging Israel to abandon such a plan.
There are reasons for the United States to stand with Israel, given that Israel is its key ally in the Middle East.
The United States has already done so in the past Israeli-Palestinian conflicts.
The Palestinian leader, in his response to Bush's remarks, said the crimes of the Israeli army, its killings of Palestinian civilians, destruction of Palestinian towns, villages, and even refugee camps, were committed exactly under the connivance and support of some foreign forces, obviously referring to the United States.
But incorrect measures the United States takes may not necessarily serve the interests of Israel.
Arafat remains the only one in Palestine who could exert predominant clout upon Palestinian politics. Without his participation, Palestine's peace process with Israel would be difficult to press ahead.
The resignation of Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian former prime minister, can prove this.
The forced removal of Arafat by foreign countries would be even more catastrophic to Palestine, given subsequent turbulence occurring in the country.
The result would bring about more violence to Israel from a chaotic Palestine, which is not in the interests of Israel nor the United States.
More importantly, as the leader elected by Palestinians, Arafat's destiny can only be decided by Palestinians themselves.
No foreign country can replace Palestinians in exercising such a right.
Bush is interested in slandering leaders of other countries, from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), Iran, Libya, to the former Iraq.
But Bush only demeans himself with these actions.
In his UN address, he called on Palestinians to follow the example of democracy of Iraq.
Bush has so far not delivered democracy and stability to Iraq as he has promised.
The model of post-war Iraq's "democracy and stability," if it comes some day, also does not mean its complete feasibility as a plan for Palestine.
French President Jacques Chirac said at the UN General Assembly that Arafat remained the only one who can impose a Middle East peace deal on Palestinians.
This is really the case.
Bush should not do anything that possibly contributes to the opposite result.
(China Daily September 26, 2003)
|
