Democratic Palestine : 17 (ص 10)
غرض
- عنوان
- Democratic Palestine : 17 (ص 10)
- المحتوى
-
and social rights in Lebanon, as well as their right to fight the
Zionist enemy from Lebanese soil.
As a result of these obstacles to a ‘‘surgical strike’’ on Syria,
the US and Zionist leaderships have adopted a stick and carrot
approach. The stick predominates, and the substance of the
carrot being offered to Syria has yet to be specified. Today,
however, it is more than ever characteristic of both US and
Israeli policy to try to enforce their own plans, verbally inviting
others to join, but without offering any concessions to the other
side.
SPECIAL ISRAELI CONSIDERATIONS
Israeli domestic politics have a bearing on any decision to
strike Syria. This is especially true in view of the situation in the
national unity government whereby Likud leader Shamir will
take over the premiership from Prime Minister Peres of Labor
in the autumn. It is common knowledge that Peres is anxious to
make a separate ‘‘peace’’ with King Hussein of Jordan, and
might call new elections to get a Knesset majority to pursue this
path and retain Labor’s leadership.
According to Middle East Policy Survey of January 10th,
sources close to Peres consider a breakthrough in the ‘‘peace’’
process as his best hope of retaining the premiership. For this
reason, he interpreted the first Assad-Hussein meeting optimis-
tically (from the Israeli viewpoint), emphasizing that no com-
munique has been issued. This optimism was not, however,
widely shared by other Israeli officials. ‘‘Last week in London,
Prime Minister Peres... said American go-betweens had assured
him that King Hussein of Jordan was ready to proceed with
negotiations, even if Syria and Mr. Arafat withhold their
approval’’ (New York Times, January 26th). ‘‘Israeli sources
say Shimon Peres, in a secret meeting in London some weeks
ago, pleaded with the king to meet him openly...’’ If talks with
Jordan do not materialize, Peres will have no issue for calling
elections. Shamir’s becoming prime minister would stop the
‘‘land for peace’’ efforts begun by Labor. ‘‘Some Arab diplo-
mats suggest Syrian President Assad could step into the void
with a drastic plan .’’ (Boston Globe, February 28th).
Peres is working hard to stave off this possibility. For this
reason, he dispatched minister without portfolio Weizman to
Washington in mid-May to encourage Schultz to make a Middle
East tour that would push forward the imperialist-Zionist set-
tlement plans. Schultz, however, would not commit himself.
The US is not ready to put its prestige on the line at this point,
having concentrated on its terrorist campaign to hit Libya,
Syria, etc. In view of uncertainty for his political plans, Peres
has surely considered a quick strike on Syria to remove it as an
obstacle to a separate deal with Jordan, now that chances were
enhanced for easily excluding the PLO by the king’s freeze on
cooperation with Arafat. In addition, if it were possible, Peres
would use a military victory as a plus in the anticipated election
campaign. Likud, for different reasons, would support such a
military adventure, in hopes that it would create a whole new
situation, reducing any. pressure on ‘Israel’ to give territorial
concessions. Other factors play a role as well. For example, if
the austerity measures of the current government begin to hit
military expenditures, sectors of the Israeli armed forces would
pressure for a pre-emptive strike to restore their own prestige
and funding. Thus, the bellicosity of statements against Syria
increased markedly in March. Shamir accused Assad of striving
for superiority ‘‘under the guise of talk about strategic balance’’
(Israeli Radio, March 2nd). Peres called Assad ‘‘the most
extreme and most serious of Israel’s enemies’’ (Jerusalem Post,
March 12th). Rabin accused Syria of ‘‘encouraging and aiding
terrorism in general’’ and said ‘Israel’ would have to change its
tactics to confront the rise of ‘‘terrorist activity’? in South
Lebanon (Jerusalem Post, March 11th).
THE COVERT WAR
In view of the many obstacles to a direct military strike on
Syria, a covert war of attrition is probable, especially with the
Reagan Doctrine for encouraging counter-revolutionaries
against ‘third world’ governments that do not do imperialist
bidding.
In line with this, the CIA has been beefed up considerably,
having gained 3,000 additional personnel in the recent period
10
(Washington Post, March 31st). Director William Casey has
become a major policy-maker, behind-the-scenes and publicly,
whereas in the past CIA directors rarely made public speeches.
In early April, Casey addressed the main component of the US
Zionist lobby, the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee,
emphasizing Soviet military support to Libya and Syria as a
danger which is squeezing ‘Israel’ and moderate Arab states. He
also spoke openly about CIA-Mossad cooperation in the ‘‘war
on terror’’
The US and ‘Israel’ have utilized the ‘‘counterterrorist”’
campaign to strenghten their own intelligence cooperation and
make it more overt. ‘‘The other day, Pentagon officials were
quoted as saying ‘military intelligence support’ had been
offered to Israel for retaliation for Middle East terror’? (New
York Times, January 7th). During his May visit to ‘Israel’, US
Attorney General Edwin Messe, said that ‘‘there was readiness
for full cooperation in the fields of prevention, in the fields of
current activity and in the field of determining policy’’ (Inter-
national Herald Tribune, May 13th). During his visit to Was-
hington, Rabin made it clear that ‘Israel’ expects international
action against Syria (Guardian, May 10th). Imperialist mea-
sures against Syria have, in fact, been more closely coordinated
since the Tokyo Summit, especially between the US, Britain and
West Germany. Britain, for example, expelled three Syrian
diplomats in May, although they had agreed to waive diplo-
matic immunity to be questioned about the Heathrow bomb.
The Syrian embassy in London specified that the interview be
conducted in the embassy, but the British government rejected
this and instead expelled the diplomats.
THE LONG—TERM STAKES
The so-called war on terror is in reality the current phase of
the imperialist-Zionist attempts to impose their joint hegemony
qn the entire region. As the 1982 invasion of Lebanon marked
the first phase of the military campaign to impose Camp David,
so the aggression on Libya and the threats to Syria headline the
current phase. The ultimate aim of this military and political
crusade stems from economic and strategic interests - control
over Arab resources, manpower and markets. It is therefore
that Peres proposed a massive aid program for the Middle East,
patterned on the Marshall Plan whereby the US rebuilt capita-
lism in western Europe after World War II.
During his spring visit to Washington, Peres argued that such
a plan would avert impending bankruptcy in ‘‘moderate’’ Arab
countries (Egypt and Jordan in particular) and thus avoid the
instability that might be expected to follow in the region. ‘‘Israel
wants to see the formation of a peace front composed of all
states in the Middle East that, by abjuring force, embrace nego-
tiations as the sole means to resolve their conflicts... Egypt,
Israel and Jordan are the natural initial associates in such a
peace coalition... (Los Angeles Times, April 3rd).
Reagan picked up on the idea for presentation at the Tokyo
Summit, not wanting the US to foot the whole $20-30 billion
cost of such an endeavor. A senior US official explained the US
motivation: ‘‘We are looking for an economic framework
because the political framework is broken up...’’ (Wall Street
Journal, April 22nd). ‘‘Schultz is strongly committed to the idea
of using economic incentives to regain the initiative in the
Middle East and to convince moderate Arabs that the US still
has broad interests in the region that go beyond fighting terro-
rism’’.
In reality, ‘‘counterterrorism’’ and economic incentives are
two sides of the same plan to enforce the imperialist settlement.
This presupposes undermining the nationalist regimes, espe-
cially Libya and Syria, that possess significant economic or
military power-either toppling them or luring them, under
duress, into accepting the imperialist plans. (One US official
advertised for the ‘‘Marshall Plan’’ as a way of offering aid to
Syria!) Thus, the recent attack on Libya and the threats against
Syria are not passing phenomena, but part of the US’s long-
term war to ensure its exploitation and control of the strategic
Middle East region. Success of the ‘‘Marshall Plan’’ in the
Middle East would increase the exploitation of the Arab masses
and rule out restoration of the Palestinian people’s rights.
Countering the imperialist-Zionist plans is thus a major task for
the Arab national liberation moverment, as well as the Palesti-
nian revolution, in the current phase and the future. - هو جزء من
- Democratic Palestine : 17
- تاريخ
- يونيو ١٩٨٦
- المنشئ
- الجبهة الشعبية لتحرير فلسطين
Contribute
Not viewed