The image of al-jazeera _ the alternative satellite channel in the

This day, Sunday news paper, January 15, 2006, page 15-17 THE WORLD PREPARES FOR AN ISRAEL AFTER SHARON The image of al-Jazeera, the alternative satellite channel in the Middle East which served as a potent voice for the Arab world during the first Gulf War in the early 1990s had never been so much alive until it sought to counter the CNN and other global channels reports about the Gulf War at that time. Interestingly, that brought al-Jazeera into global attention in a rather dramatic manner. Thus while most embedded reporters, with the exception of New Zealand born Peter Arnett, sought to work within the stipulated reportorial guidelines, al-Jazeera simply went haywire, countering and providing alternative voice for some. Scenarios emerging from the media coverage of the current exit of Ariel Sharon, is akin to a throw back to that era. For last week, al jazzeera satellite channel had consistently aired pictures of jubilant Arabs and their utterances over Sharon’s ill health, saying that the exit of Sharon will lead to better peace and better political understanding in the Middle East. To most commentators who appeared on the programme, Sharon was the devil the Palestinians needed to get rid of. But on the other hand others regarded as more moderate Arabs appearing on the rival channel al-Arabiyah acknowledged that that the Israeli leader had become the Palestinians, “most serious partner for peace”. So will there be any fundamental change in Arab-Israeli relations in the Middle East? Or put differently, what would the shape of politics and policies take in the Middle East, either from within or from the West, with the exit of Sharon? This is the fundamental question that has continued to elicit mixed reactions from various scholars, academics, experts on the Middle East question. Policy makers and infact, members of the civil society, including the media. Interestingly while these issues are being debated, the man who obviously blew open the Pandora Box, Sharon, is fighting for his life in the hospital. Sharon, 77, is suffering from stroke which has landed him in a state of coma. Expectedly, his sudden removal from the center stage of politics in Israel has already started creating some terrific ripples in the Middle East. It is not only Israel that ponders the post-Sharon era with apprehension. In fact, going by the coverage of the Arab media in the recent days, the broader Middle East is also concerned about the imponderables of the postSharon era. But Nigeria’s former Foreign Affairs Minister and one time Director General of the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs (NIIA), Prof Bolaji Akinyemi says there would be no fundamental change in the politics and policies in the immediate post-Sharon period. The Oxford University trained Professor of Political Science who was at a time member of the UN Group of Experts on certain Aspects of the Middle East Question posits that Israeli politics is dominated by old players who would carry on their politics, thus ensuring that Israeli politics does not go into comatose. This day, Sunday news paper, January 15, 2006, page 15-17 He said: “In a way, Israeli politics is in several ways Oriental politics dominated by old men who would rather die on the job than give up. I think what distinguishes Israeli politics from other Middle Eastern politics is that at least; they go through free and open elections. They do. But in terms of old men refusing to quit the stage, Israeli politics is pure third World-Middle Eastern politics. Sharon, all the other big personalities who have been around for years, forever, who fought in the 1940s war for the creation of the State of Israel. They are still around. Even Sharon was a Second lieutenant in that war of independence. So it is like they have been around forever. And Israeli politics is very used to that. I don’t think that Israeli politics is going to go into comatose because Sharon is no longer bestriding the nation. Israeli politics will simply move on because the Israelis are used to that kind of politics. No, I don’t think that Israeli politics has this sort of Godfather complex as such. There are so many godfathers. So the grounding or the exit of one is not going to lead to any political earthquake.” Akinyemi added: “the United States has a one line politics on the Middle EastSupport Israel. This has nothing (everything ed. ) to do with American domestic politics, so whoever is there; they are going to support him. Any difficulty or anything blame it on the Arabs. Blame it on the Palestinians. And that would continue as long as you have this huge Jewish voting bloc in the United States. Those two planks of American-Middle East Politics would always be there. Third, is use a different yardstick in dealing with the Arabs. It would continue. The European Union has tended to work what they regard as a fairly balanced line. But the critical element in International Relations today is the sole superpower, the United States. So if the new Israeli leadership tells the Americans that in order to consolidate my position, I need to crack down on the Palestinians, the United States would look the other way. And if he says give me time, I would come up with a peace plan or proposal in nine months time and in the meantime, we would be bombing Palestinian villages, territories, the United States would look the other way. So the post–Sharon period, I don’t see it leading to a fundamental restructuring of American policy of the Middle East or towards Israel irrespective of whether it is a Democrat or a Republican that is in the White House”. But there are those who see some uncertainty and a bit of change in the politics of Israel in the post-Sharon era. That within Israel and in the broader Middle East question. Those who hold this view frequently quote Moshe Dayan, the then Israeli Chief Of Staff when Sharon was military commander of the paratroops. This was how Gershom Gorenberg put it: “Do you know why you’re the one who does all the operations? Because you never ask for written orders. Everyone else wants explicit clarifications. But… you just do it,” Moshe Dayan said to Ariel Sharon half a century ago, explaining why the two young officers got on so well. The comment also hints at why Sharon and George W. Bush got along famously as national leaders. This day, Sunday news paper, January 15, 2006, page 15-17 Gorenbeng who authored several books on the Middle East question noted in one of his writings “At the time, Dayan was Israel’s chief of staff and Sharon was head of the paratroops, assigned to carry out cross border raids in retaliation for Arab attacks. Counting on the same kind of co-operation, Sharon would write, Dayan assigned him to break a Palestinian insurgency in Gaza in 1971. Sharon would do what was required, by his own methods - call them daring or reckless-and leave no paper trail leading to those who wanted the job done. So when Sharon became prime minister in February 2001 just after Bush entered the White House, he had qualities designed to make him not only an ally but a friend: he preferred unilateral action, particularly military action, to diplomacy. He had no desire to see America pushing peace negotiations; but he was willing to coordinate his moves with Washington. In short, Sharon was eager to get the job done on his own, without Bush’s involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The massive stroke that ended Sharon’s political career last week, therefore, was another piece of bad news for the Bush administration. Depending on Israel’s volatile politics, Sharon’s exit could even create pressure for the Bush team to get involved in a peace effort- an outcome it has devoutly sought to avoid for five years. According to Gorenburg, in the coming elections. “If Netanyahu wins, any further Israeli pullback from the West Bank will be shelved. The Israeli- Palestinian problem will be harder for Washington to avoid. But if pressured to revive the road map, Netanyahu is likely to seek support from the Christian Right as he has done in the past. Bush could find his base in revolt”. But amidst these, world leaders have continued to assess Sharon. Egypt’s president Hosni Mubarak has described Sharon as “a man of peace, “echoing his Tunisian counterpart Zin El Abidine Ben Ali’s “esteem and admiration” for the Israeli leader. Sharon also has a surprising number of friends in other Arab countries, from Oman to Mauritania, Qatar, Jordan and Morocco. In the wider Muslim world, Sharon has fostered a “working dialogue” with leaders in Indonesia, Bangladesh and Pakistan, with a view to establishing diplomatic ties. What appears to have changed that was what Israel’s interim Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert describes as “the Gaza magic”. This was the first time that an Israeli leader had made a unilateral withdrawal from disputed Arab territory without being subjected to internal or external pressures even though as experts declared that the withdrawals where simply because those territories were no longer defaceable within the Israeli defence calculations. But when viewed from another perspective, the Gaza pullout presented Sharon as a leader who had given up Gaza in a tactical move to be better able to hang on to the West Bank. That image not only appealed not to Likudniks, Sharon’s former party colleagues, but also to the more enthusiastic partisans of Greater Israel. They preferred to ignore what they saw in Gaza and focus This day, Sunday news paper, January 15, 2006, page 15-17 on what Sharon said about his determination not to make any more unilateral concessions. Without going far back into history, it is sufficient to glance at some of the dozen of wars in Europe, Asia and Africa in recent decades to see that all ended at the peace table. But the Israel-Palestine conflict has defied all known peace deals. This has become the only conflict to defy a resolution. Paradoxically, many Palestinians say, even in public that they would rather see Sharonist unilateralism at work than a prolongation of the stalemate that has lasted since 1948.It was clear that Sharon, his denials notwithstanding was planning to claim victory for Israel and impose an Israeli peace arrangement. That appears to be the secret agenda because his recent unilateral withdrawal. That Israeli peace deal under Sharon may probably see Gaza and perhaps up the 90 percent of the West Bank allocated to a putative Palestinian state, while Israel would demarcate its permanent border on the ground, part of which would run along the security fence. That would not be the kind of land-for-peace deal that UN resolutions have called for since 1968, nor would it satisfy the Arabs whose lands and territories Sharon and other Israeli hardliners had unilaterally occupied. So what happens in a post-Sharon era? Perhaps, only time will tell. This day, Sunday news paper, January 15, 2006, page 15-17 ISRAELI POLTICS WON’T CHANGE FUNDAMENTALLY IN POST-SHARON ERA, SAYS AKINYEMI Bolaji Akinyemi, former Nigerian Foreign Affairs Minister and a Professor of Political Science is not new to the subject of Arab-Israeli relations and the wider Middle East question he was at a time a member of the UN Group of experts on certain aspects of the Middle East. As a member of that world body, Akinyemi is naturally at home with the emerging issues in post-Sharon period in the politics of Israel and in the wider Arab Israeli relations in the Middle East. The Oxford University trained Political Scientist spoke with Oma Djebah. Do you foresee any fundamental change in the politics of Israel in a post-Sharon era given the critical health situation of Sharon currently and the subsequent appointment of an acting prime minister now? Well to answer that question, one has to physically talk about the Sharon factor in Israeli politics and in International Affairs. I find the whole Sharon factor ironic because when we talk about man made disasters, one has to be very, very clear that perhaps the Sharon factor is the best illustration that you can use, when you talk about man made disasters whether you talk about Israeli domestic politics or international politics. Sharon created problems that is now been applauded for solving the problem, the problem which he created in the first place. Number one, Sharon has been the godfather of Settlement. He encouraged setting up settlements on Arab land. He got his support from these programmes and he funded some of them. He encouraged illegal acquisition of Arab lands and yet he is now being praised by everybody for withdrawing from some of those lands. And yet people are not even asking his motive for giving up some of the lands he had encouraged or been instrumental to acquiring in the first place. His motive is not that he now admits that he was wrong in what he did or that it is morally and legally wrong to acquire Arab land. It was simply because he thought all these settlements are no longer defensible in terms of defence, the defence requirements of Israel. That is his motivation. So anybody who is expecting that Sharon would move forward in withdrawing from all acquired land are terribly mistaken. He wants boundaries that can be defended militarily. And he was instrumental to building the wall, that long wall so much that the Israeli Supreme Court has had problems with it, not to talk of International Court of Justice. Because this wall has not been built on Israeli land alone but has been built on conquered Arab land. Dividing families. Having negative impact on economic activities of Arab territories and families. They justify this by saying that it is necessary to cope with the violence, Arab violence. But people seem to have forgotten that what actually precipitated the second Arab uprising against Israel was Sharon’s visit to the Alaska mosque which Arabs considered a desecration. Why did Sharon do it? Why? Why did he do that? There was an understanding even amongst Israeli politicians that they should leave sacred places of each religion out of politics. But This day, Sunday news paper, January 15, 2006, page 15-17 Sharon insisted that he has a right as an Israeli to go to the Alaska mosque and he went there with his supporters and this was what inflamed Arab sentiment. Nobody is talking about that. If the late Yesser Arafat had done that by leading his supporters to the Wailing Wall, Arafat would have been condemned all over the world. And yet nobody condemned Sharon. And thirdly, even though Sharon was not personally accused, the family of the assassinated Israeli Prime Minister hold the whole of the right wing Israeli movement, of which Sharon was a prominent member responsible for the kind of passion which bred the kind of sentiments that led to the assassination of Israeli prime minister. These are matters of historical record. So in a way the lesson that seems to be going out about the Sharon factor is that it is not really what you do that is of importance but be on the side of the main superpower. And once you are on the side of the main superpower, you can get away with anything. You would be judged with totally different records that are used to judge other people. So really, I wish Mr. Sharon well. I hope he recovers from his medical situation but I m sure that history objectively written would not be kind to Sharon. Sharon caused a lot damage in the Middle East and some of the problems that he now claims that he is now solving were problems that were created by him by his kind of politics. After Sharon, nothing is going to happen. The settlements are still there. The right wing Israeli movement is still there. Of course when a key and forceful character like Sharon is removed from active politics, there is bound to be some repercussions. So what would these be? On the one hand, the right wing movement may feel even more emboldened to do some of the things which Sharon himself was starting to realize were not helpful to the Israeli state. I mean whatever may be his motivation, withdrawing from some of the Arab land was a recognition that attempts to continue to hold on to those Arab land would cost Israel more. A new leader may not be strong enough initially to take such steps. He may even feel that he needs to crack down more on the Arabs to consolidate his own position. And I believe this is what is likely going to happen. There is no leader who would be strong enough from the very beginning to take hard decisions that need to be taken. With Sharon out, how do you look at the Sharon-Netanyahu battle for the soul of Israel… Netanyahu may be the main benefactor if the illness of Sharon. Because he has been Prime Minister before. The Israelis remember him as an uncompromising hardliner. He never believed in the Oslo Agreement. He never believed in making concessions to the Arabs. And I particularly remember that the wife of the assassinated Israeli Prime Minister refused to shake his hands because she feels or the family regarded Netanyahu along with Sharon as responsible for creating the kind of passion that led to the assassination of her husband. I see Netanyahu being the likely beneficiary and given his background the peace process is back in trouble. This day, Sunday news paper, January 15, 2006, page 15-17 What should be the natural line of action that needs to be taken by the acting Prime Minister in the absence of Sharon? Well, you don’t know what a man would do when he becomes his own man. In his first political move, I would say he has been astute in the sense that he played down the opposition within the cabinet not to allow the Arabs in East Jerusalem to vote. He was in favour of them being allowed to vote in the Palestinian elections. Of course, there are laid down regulations approved by the Israeli government. So the gesture may be just that. And then when they spell out what the conditions under which those votes would be accepted, it is then that we would really know how much of a concession he made. But I think he created a space for himself as someone or somebody who is prepared to consider all options rather than the usual action of no Palestinian presence in the East Jerusalem, No Palestinian rights in East Jerusalem. Besides the negative impact of Sharon on the domestic and international politics of IsraeliPalestinian conflict, don’t you think that the domineering figure, the godfather figure of a Sharon would be missing in Israeli politics? In a way, Israeli politics is in several ways Oriental politics dominated by old men who would rather die on the job than give up. I think what distinguishes Israeli politics from other Middle Eastern politics is that at least they go through free and open elections. They do. But in terms of old men refusing to quit the stage, Israeli politics is pure third world- Middle Eastern politics. Sharon, all the other big personalities who have been around for years, forever, who fought in the 1940s war for the creation of the State of Israel. They are still around. Even Sharon was a Second lieutenant in that war of independence. So it like they have been around forever. And Israeli politics is very used to that. I don’t think that Israeli politics is going to go into comatose because Sharon is no longer bestriding the nation. Israeli politics will simply move on because the Israeli are used to that kind of politics. No, I don’t think that Israeli politics has this sort of Godfather complex as such. There are so many godfathers. So the grounding or the exit of one is not going to be any political earthquake. In Concrete terms, what do you foresee would be the political response of the West to his exit? Or do you think there would be a change in positions internationally with respect to the West stand on Israeli-Arab relations… The United States has a one line politics on the Middle East-Support Israel. This has nothing to do with American domestic politics, so whoever is there; they are going to support him. Any difficulty or anything blame it on the Arabs. Blame it on the Palestinians. And that would continue as long as you have this huge Jewish voting bloc in the United States. Those two planks of American-Middle East politics would always be there. Third, is use a different yardstick in dealing with the Arabs. It would continue. The European Union has tended to work what they regard as a fairly balanced line. But the critical element in the International Relations today is the sole This day, Sunday news paper, January 15, 2006, page 15-17 super power, the United States. So if the new Israeli leadership tells the Americans that in order to consolidate my position, I need to crack down on the Palestinians; the United States would look the other way. And if he says give me time, I would come up with a peace plan or proposal in nine months time but in the mean time, we would be bombing Palestinians villages, territories, the United States would look the other way. So the post-Sharon period, I don’t see it leading to a fundamental restructuring of American policy of the Middle East or towards Israel irrespective of whether it is a Democrat or a Republican that is in the White House. As an expert in International Relations, assuming you were the new man that has just assumed power as the acting Prime Minister of Israel, how would you tackle the issues and politics of the day? Would you go back to the Oslo Agreement? Arab-Israeli affairs have been the graveyard of too many prophets, too many analysts, too many political Scientists such that to me it is not helpful if I were in that position. There are too many factors that are out of control of anybody. Whether it is the orthodox views, whether it is Fatah movement, whether it is the blood settlement movement in Israel, whether it is the Israeli Armed forces, so many factors, so many elements are not subject to the control of the authorities. So it is no longer a question of saying Israeli government had said this, and that is what is going to happen. You would find challenges. The instability in the Israeli government, if it were in a third world, only God knows what people would have said. They can never form majority government. They have all these patched work of alliances. Sometimes, some people bring in two votes and on the basis that they keep insisting on some policies, just for the sake of those two votes that they are going to get in Parliament. So no Israeli government has not really been strong enough to have a coherent and long term policy on fundamental issue. For the Palestinian authorities, you have Fatah, you have Hammas. Since Arafat died there has been a split in the PLO ranks. So how do you bring all of this together to have an atmosphere that is conducive to progress? I can only wish whoever took over from Sharon, well. I wish him well. Now that Sharon is out, if Arafat were alive, how do you think he would have handled the situation of a post-Sharon era from the PLO perspective? I think that even the Palestinians realize that vis a vis Israel, they are in a no win situation. Under Clinton, you had the Camp David, the last one between Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Arafat. Even though Clinton and the American administration blamed Yasser Arafat for the collapse of those talks on the ground that the Israeli Prime Minister made so many concessions to him and that Arafat did not have the vision to seize that grand opportunity. But in fact other American officials who took part in that Camp David negotiation had said that the concessions that Barak was offering Yesser Arafat, no Arab leader would accept and survive. Network patches of Arab settlements, separated by Israeli territories, so there was no way they could have formed one coherent Arab state. No agreement, no concession on This day, Sunday news paper, January 15, 2006, page 15-17 Jerusalem. And as Arafat said the Arab leader that would give up Jerusalem has not yet been born. But given the nature of international media and the nature of American politics, the whole blame was then heaped on the head of Arafat. It looks to me that in American politics, the Arab leader they love is the one that accepts whatever Israel wants, even if he ends up paying with his live as it happened to Saddat. So fundamentally, you don’t see any change in Israeli-Arab relations with the exit of Sharon? I don’t see any. No. You build a wall, acquire more Arab territories and then you withdraw from some settlements. What you give with the left, you grab with the right. But if you were to construct a political statement and perspective to the post-Sharon era, don’t you think that there would even be changes in the political movement in the political movement in Israeli Arab relations? There is always movement in politics but at the end of the day would the movement result in progress? That is the issue. And that is the situation in politics as in life. And politicians like creating the illusion of movement, that we are doing things, we are reviewing policies, and we are changing policies. But at the end of the day what changes? Nothing. And that is how I would describe the Arab-Israeli politics. There would always be cosmetic changes. But fundamental issues being addressed in the immediate post-Sharon period, don’t expect it.