We have Met The Enemy....
The full quote goes "We Have Met The Enemy and He Is Us" and is attributed to Pogo author, Walt Kelly. It strikes as a very apt description of the state of affairs in the Mid-East. Divisions within the Arab and Israeli may be more of an impediment to peace than most people think.
The Arab Street is divided on the issues of terrorism and Lebanon, while Israel is divided about the withdrawal from Gaza.
Mahmoud Abbas and Ariel Sharon meet for peace talks and announce a cease-fire. Concessions are made on both sides. Prisoner releases begin, hope and optimism spring up in the international community....and then Islamic Jihad detonates a bomb last Friday, dealing a set back to that process. And yet....the set back doesn't seem to have completely derailed the process as terrorist acts have done so often in the past. The reaction is different this time. More one thing, PM Abbas said about the terrorists "We will not hesitate for one moment to follow them and to bring them to justice. We will not allow anybody, whoever he is, to sabotage our aims." Strong words, followed by immediate arrests.
There is no question that Islamic Jihad is a Palestinian terrorist group. The announcement claiming responsibility for the act was made by a Palestinian. Yet Israel has said that Syria is in part responsible for the act. Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz said "We have proof directly linking Syria to this attack." See http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/0447EAD8-3744-44DB-86B2-9135A36AFF4A.htm (NOTE: This is Al Jazeera reporting this.) To some extent, this takes the pressure off the Palestinian government of Mr. Abbas.
And Syria is involved in other controversy within the Arab world. Syria maintains an armed presence in Lebanon, about 15,000 troops. Allegedly a "peace keeping" force, this presence has become increasingly unpopular with the Lebanese people. Then Rafik Hariri, a billionaire that helped rebuild Beirut and a former Prime Minister, was murdered by a massive car bomb. Hariri was, to put it very mildly, a critic of the Syrian presence in Lebanon. His murder galvanized the Lebanese people to demand that the Syrians leave. The US has supported the Lebanese people. Saudi Arabia bluntly told Syrian President Bashar al-Assad that Syria must withdraw all its troops "soon." Assad offered a partial withdrawal. He was told by several parties, including the US, that a partial withdrawal was unacceptable.
In the meantime, Iran and Syria have signed a mutual support treaty. If either is attacked., the other pledges to support them. At least one Iraqi politician has said that they are united against the process of democratization in the Middle East. Mithal Jamal Hussein Al-Alusi said in an interview. "I am trying to make it clear to everybody that the Iranian and Syrian governments are against liberalization in Iraq." Alusi is also pro-Israeli (so much so that he was expelled from Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress for attending a terrorism conference in Israel) and has said "I think we and Israel have the same interest, and there is no reason to have war." Certainly Alusi is a radical and not representative of majority thinking (his party received less than 5000 votes in the National Election) but others, including those with significant power in the region, have echoed similar sentiments.
"State sponsors of terrorism such as Iran and Syria are with the terrorists and therefore against all of us," said Frances Townsend, homeland security adviser to President Bush. At the same speech, she said that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are "ever stronger partners in the war against terror." (I'm not sure that I am in agreement with this, but note the use of "stronger" as a relative term. Giving LESS aid to terrorists makes them a STRONGER partner, doesn't it?)
So, we have on one side of the street Iran and Syria and on the other side Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan with maybe the government of Mahmoud Abbas. Where does Iraq fit in? Does the new government of Iraq take the traditional stance of opposing anything that the Iranians support? If the power in the Middle East is to be redistributed (as happened after World War I and World War II) it is certainly good to be on the winning side.
Now Ariel Sharon is under fire in Israel as well. The right-wing hardliners have pushed for a referendum on Sharon's plan to withdraw from occupied Gaza. Sharon's son was also indicted in an election fraud scandal. Sharon is too conservative for the Liberals and too liberal for the conservatives. The thing is, I don't think that there is a viable alternative. What worries me is that he will either become too ill or face an assassination attempt. But maybe I am just paranoid. It would be incredibly ironic if Ariel Sharon was the man that signed the document granting Palestine an autonomous state.
I am afraid that tried to link too many events in one article. My thesis is stated in the first paragraph. Comments please.