|
Edited on Wed May-13-09 10:20 AM by Yotun
Abdullah's concept of peace for the Palestinians had up until the 90s been the annexation of the West Bank and Gaza into his own kingdom - in pursuing that goal he collaborated with the various Israeli governments to undermine the status of the PLO as the representative body of the Palestinians, attempting to take that role upon himself - despite the fact that the PLO had been designated both by the Arab league and the Palestinians themselves as better representing their wishes, and that their goal was self determination in a Palestinian state rather than as part of Jordan. No negotiations between Israel and Abdullah ever came close to fruition, because all plans of annexation proposed by Israel envisioned retention of large parts of the West bank, and Abdullah could not agree to them, but its unquestionable that Abdullah's actions helped in postponing final diplomatic recognition of Palestinian representatives.
Similarly, Abdullah had few hesitations in 1970 when he worked with Israel to drive the Palestinians refugees out of Jordan and into Lebanon (from which they were driven off later after the Lebanese war), when he felt that the Palestinian community there was becoming powerful and self-sufficient - creating a new refugee problem and new bloodshed in the process.
Granted, one can argue that Abdullah truly felt that he could be the better representative, and that his goals in diplomacy were aimed to aid Palestinians (though I personally feel personal ambition had much to do with it as well), and that in 1970 he was acting to preserve his own power. Similarly, Jordan was the only neighbouring Arab country to fully grant citizenship and absorb refugees after 1948 (though note that many other Arab countries simply did not have the resources and ability to do so). Thus though his legacy may be mixed, and in many cases his actions driven by good intentions, there's no question he is viewed by many as an American puppet all to willing to betray principle and acquiesce to Israeli wishes, to expand his territory and trade Israeli occupation for Jordanian. A huge issue is also the fact that after completing his own seperate peace agreement with Israel in the 90's (I think it was 94?), he claimed and gained the representation of the non-Jewish (I cannot remember if it was Muslim, or Muslim and Christian both) holy places in Jerusalem. Given that East Jerusalem is one of the main demands of Palestinians, and that Jordan in no way held Jerusalem under its territory, this was seen as a grave blow to the Palestinians (which it was, as it was mainly agreed to by Israel to block Palestinian demands for East Jerusalem).
As for Egypt, Mubarak is despised in the Arab world, especially after his government's complicity in maintaining the Gaza siege, and keeping the Rafah border closed, especially this January - to the extend that I've seen many Arabs and Palestinians in various public demonstrations to publicly call for the Egyptian army to oust him. Again the hatred is not unjustified. Mubarak is a heartless dictatorial bastard, who's brought nothing to the Egyptians, and who's been more than willing to sit idly while Palestinians were starving to death outside his own borders.
I hate to break it to you guys, but the Arab world won't be impressed by Obama when he talks in Egypt. Trust me, Middle East and Palestinian issues are my only passion and work. Obama will be seen as just another US president who'll talk a lot but won't really do much to help the middle East. And the reason he'll be seen as such is because it's true. Believe me, I'm not saying this as a criticism of president Obama - for all I know he may really and truly wish to change the situation. The fact is, he can't. You see, the problem with the peace process in the 90's was that it created the illusion that there was diplomatic progress being made, and that a peace was close, when in fact no progress was being made on any substantial issue, and the process kept going as a smokescreen, and out of hopes that eventually some breakthrough would be made. For the Palestinians, all the process did was legitimise the occupation by their own participation in it, while real life on the ground became gradually worse and worse. This was made clear to them after the fiasco in Camp David II - the failure of which was blamed on them by the way. Obama, however much anybody cares about the middle east, is the US president, and he has to care first and foremost about the US - issues like healthcare, the economy, etc. To have bargaining power with those he was to maintain a certain popularity, and the actions he would have to take to create real progress in the Middle East would be highly unpopular.
To the Arab world, Obama will be speaking to the Arab world from the country of a dictator seen as an Israeli puppet, who actively colluded in confining more than a million Palestinian to a lifestyle of eating boiled grass and dying of fever due to lack of even the most basic pharmaceuticals. He will be another leader talking from Israel from the knesset, and to the Arabs from the Israeli authorised allies of Israel. There's no question of what would be the best place for Obama to talk to the Arab world. If he wants to impress and show intentions for real change, he should talk from Palestine - go to Ramallah, or the prison in Qalqilia, or be brave enough to make a statement, and talk from Gaza or Tel Rumeida. He won't, because that would displease Israel and make him unpopular in the US - and as long as even the 'reaching out' efforts are dictated by Israel, the Arab opinion of the US will stay the same.
ETA: However, in a final analysis, where Obama talks to is of little significance. There seems to be the belief in wide circles in the United states, that apparently the Arabs in general, and the Palestinians in particular, are stupid or cannot comprehend the position of the US. That what must be done is to talk to them to show them that the intentions and actions of the US are good, and that they should not be afraid of US policy - that is, that the objective is to carry out various iconic actions to make Arabs understand the policies of the US which they do not understand now. The problem is, the problem is not one of impressions. Palestinians in particular are VERY politically aware and very knowledgeable of what's going on around them. The problem is that the actions carried out by US policy ARE in fact NOT in the best interests of the Palestinians (and the Palestinian issue is key to the Middle East), not how they're dressed up and how the US reaches out to people. When real change in actions takes place, then the image of the US in the Middle East will change as well, but no speech is going to do that. There's been far too much blown up rhetoric in the modern history of the region.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
