|
By Tariq Shadid
It seems to have stopped raining in Lebanon. But as we hold our hands up in the air, to gauge if we can trust that it really has, and we gaze up at the sky, and see dark clouds still hanging there, many of us everywhere in the world feel that somehow, at some time - in fact at any time, it might start to rain again.
After the ceasefire between Lebanon and Israel, the atmosphere seems to have some similarities to that described above. The rain, of course, does not consist of drops of water, but of lethal American and Israeli missiles and bombs, with the destructive power we have now become all too familiar with, from seeing the effects of this high-tech weaponry first in Afghanistan, then in Iraq, then in Palestine, and recently in Lebanon.
One of the other characteristics of this rain, is that it pours down generously on those areas designed by the Israeli-American axis to be ‘rebuilt’, in some way or another, into ‘modern democracies’. It is especially generous towards civilians. The destructive and lethal power of this rain, after all, helps to stimulate the economy of corporate industries that are anxious to rebuild all that has been destroyed. Also, by the market effect of the millions of dollars worth of explosive devices and missiles used, it gives a big boost to the military-industrial complex.
The rainmakers speak highly of their product, almost as a blessing, which should be received by those peoples who have been chosen to be dealt a generous share of it, with open arms, as the heralding rain of a new era. According to the American and Israeli marketers who try to advocate their strategy in Europe, a ‘new Middle East’ is on its way, which will put an end to oppression, dictatorship, and sectarian domination.
To some extent, they have succeeded in selling this concept, and have managed to persuade a number of European governments to grudgingly accept these military moves, most notably England, the Netherlands and Germany. Their hesitance may be based on humanitarian considerations, but may also be strongly influenced by the fact, that these European governments realize that the general public will not necessarily accept the morbid Bush-formula as easily. Nevertheless, as a worst case scenario, the hesitance could even simply be hypocrisy.
Naturally, the wrapping up of large ‘terrorist networks’ helps fuelling the fear of the public, and inciting Islamophobia. Then, in the media, the rhetoric and the dogmas of the new Bush doctrine, under the umbrella of the ‘War on Terror’, are applied to Middle East conflicts that bear no relation to any of the terrorist groups allegedly involved in the bombings in Europe. In this way, a certain segment of the population will most certainly have been lured into adopting the American-Israeli position towards the Lebanese and the Palestinians.
However, the public’s increasing doubts about the truth of the events surrounding 9/11, fuelled by many serious analyses of the available video footage of the horrors, soil samples from ground zero, and witness accounts, have continued to create a sense of distrust towards the Bush doctrine. The administration’s lies about Saddam’s alleged ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’, are not likely to be forgotten easily by the public. Massive terrorism wrap-ups might even be seen in a completely different light, if the existing 9/11 doubts were to be corroborated even more, as the continuing investigations unfold.
Secretary of state Condoleeza Rice seems to be acting under a policy of slowly allowing the public get used to the concepts of “a New Middle East”. Gradually, she is revealing the strategy behind all these wars, that have erupted in the Middle East, since the beginning of this century. Thousands of dead Arab and Afghan civilians, after all, should simply be seen as ‘birth pangs of the New Middle East.’
Now it may be, that according to some forms of colonial mentality, this is a valid way of thinking. But while about 50 % of Americans seem to be accepting this logic, and a large majority of Israelis, according to several polls, seem to identify with it, it is very possible that the European public will eventually reject it. After all, in the post-colonial period, and more explicitly in the post-war era, most Europeans were raised on the values of the equality of all races, and the value of human life.
Still, it seems as if not everyone in Europe, at this stage, seems to be willing to accept the theory, that Israel and America have a shared agenda, even while their declared aims of ‘reshaping the Middle East’ are far from secret. But why not type the words “Clean Break 1996” into your search engine, and decide for yourself what to think of the things you will find?
It could be true, that the European public has, indeed, to a large extent discarded its doctrine of humanitarian values, acquired after the horrors of the Second World War. If we were to only base our judgment upon the apparent cooperation of many European countries with two belligerent nations, that consider themselves to be elevated above international law, and whose history is stained with an endless list of violations of these laws, then this might be a valid conclusion.
Both the United Kingdom and the Netherlands have made their airports available for the transport of American weaponry, including cluster bombs and phosphorous bombs, to Israel, during its massive bombardment of Lebanese civilians. This is a fact, that may have a resounding effect on how the objectivity and evenhandedness of these countries, towards the decades-old struggle against the continuing colonization of Palestine, is viewed in the world. It also casts very serious doubts on the effect of this cooperation with American and Israeli war crimes, upon the human rights records of these European countries.
Still, we need to keep in mind that the Spanish people replaced Aznar’s government with a government, less willing to cooperate with the US-Israeli Axis of State Terrorism. The Italian people followed suit by replacing Berlusconi - so could it also be that the Europeans are gradually getting tired of being made a part of the American and Israeli-incited ‘War on Terrorism’? Might they not prefer their governments to choose their own course, putting their faith in the economical and political clout of their own European monetary unit?
There is, indeed, a new Middle East on the way. The main question, however, is whether the American-Israeli recipe can make this Middle East look even remotely the way they have envisaged it. It is a serious question, because it touches upon a very basic issue. In this new era of active colonialist aggression by the superpowers, the voice of popular resistance has learned a new and infectious melody, sounding from the hills of Lebanon and Palestine. This sound has been heard, loud and clearly, and who is to say it will not still increase in volume?
Before the rain starts falling again, let us try to remember the reasons why modern humanity came up with the concept of international law. While in reality, no law can be expected to have any effect, if it is not enforced by the ruling power, let us hope that at the level of ordinary people, the basic concepts of these laws will remain to be respected. Because as long as this is the case, the American-Israeli doctrine of the ‘New Middle East’ will be lacking in credibility, feasibility, and in nobility, but most of all, in legitimacy, and will therefore become harder and harder to sell to a public, that still has the card of democracy in its hands.
|
Home 
Articles 
