| |
|
|
Tongue
Tied
By
Ahmed Mustafa
Yasser Arafat is
now a “terrorist” surrounded by Israeli-operated
American tanks and artillery in the
Tora Bora compound of occupied Ramallah in Palestine. He is
facing the same fate of Mullah Muhammad Omar of the Taliban,
for harbouring the “terrorists” of Hamas, Jihad,
Fatha, and all Palestinian
factions on land offered to him by the generous occupiers.
|
Oslo
and subsequent compromises were aimed mainly at bringing
in Arafat and his previous resistance comrades from Tunis,
Egypt and Yemen to protect the civilized occupiers from
uncontrollable “terrorists” in Gaza and parts
of the West Bank.
Arafat was one of the first pragmatists to swallow the
new world order after the Gulf war, believing that America
is the sole saviour of Palestinian national aspirations
by “honest” brokerage between the occupiers
and the occupied. His pragmatism failed him, and now there’s
no luxury to examine whether he got “honesty”
or not.
The end result is that his main backer, Egypt, is not
answering his phone calls out of fear that the Americans
bugs in the Cairo presidential palace would record the
phone call. That is the situation as Washington is considering
breaking ties with Arafat and his Palestinian National
Authority. These ties were the main gain for Arafat in
return for halting the first intifada of 1988. Apart from
Arab regimes’ rhetoric about the need to distinguish
between “terrorism” and legitimate resistance
to occupation, the main players overseas, only receive
Sharon’s version of the situation Arafat and his
people failed to fulfil their commitment in stopping “terrorism’.
So, breaking ties with Arafat would definitely alleviate
American pressure on him to compromise more, at a time
he’s got nothing more to compromise on.
The trap in which Arafat was caught, strangling Palestinian
people with him, is the reliance on Arab and Islamic support
to his pragmatism. He actually helped faltering Arab regimes
to find a pretext to get rid of the moral burden they
could no longer afford: the need to liberate occupied
Arab and Muslim land. Then came the American prolonged
war on terrorism, inflating these regimes’ fear and
cowardice. Almost everybody knows that all their rhetoric
is mere hypocrisy. The Americans, and Europeans as well,
recognize their irrelevance and incompetence more than
anybody else. Arab and Muslim people may not like the
way Osama bin Laden led, and they may not agree with his
explanation of Islam, but they most probably are not buying
the American propaganda. They may be unable to express
what they believe in an explicit, daring way.
Why can’t we express ourselves clearly and in a blunt
way? Why do we’ve to go round what we believe in?
Why are we experiencing deceit and concealment? We’ll
be accused of anti-Semitism and intolerance, in the least,
or you bring in to yourself the label of ‘terrorism”.
Why do we always ignore- on purpose – a very basic
fact: A bunch of criminal losers from East Europe and
Caucasia occupied Arab and Muslim Palestine in the beginning
of last century massacring its population, terrorizing
them and driving them out of their homes in floods of
refugees to neighboring countries. Long- term occupation.
Arab military defeats and political compromise, American
inspired British-formulated UN decisions, and Arafat’s
pragmatism does not mean that this growing gang of mercenaries
– cleansed from Europe in a racist flush of Jews
outside Asians domain – would be accepted in the
region. They’re aliens, foreigners, occupiers, and
settlers by terrorist means.
Pharaonic ages in Egypt were great in building huge and
durable symbols that lasted thousands of years. But these
symbols were built through oppression and slavery; the
Pharaoh was the ruler and god in the meantime. Nobody
could have challenged his wisdom, or orders. Tyranny was
the norm then, and we now see it as a great civilization.
Greeks and Romans did the same. Jew were always there,
financing brutality or knotting plots for palaces and
courts of power. Now the Americans are doing the same
– with Jews playing the same role. Why can’t
we say that, though it’s clear-cut?
The first victim in a war is the truth. The ongoing Anglo-American
campaign against terrorism is a campaign of victimization.
We’re not in a process of defining terrorism. Nobody
should brother about that except those who are incapable
of action, and can only mouth rhetoric. Actions are the
real books and articles, real literature. Action everywhere
is American, American-led, American-assisted or blessed.
Such action is defining terrorism: Not loving and believing
American~ Can anybody challenge this notion?
Yes. Kofi Annan would say. Not loving and believing in
the chartered principles of free and modern world! That
means Anglo-American rhetoric, in an international disguise.
Finally, terrorism seems to be what’s against my
interest. That’s simple, clear, and save a lot of
us the moral burden of being hypocritical.
There’s no morality or principles to refer to, and
no reason to talk about double standards in international
order when it comes to human rights, the Generva Convention
and so on. These rhetorical constitutions and charters
are there for politicians to use when needed, and for
thinkers to work on in their hollow discussions.
When brutal occupiers kill Palestinians in their homes
they’re defending themselves and pre-empting possible
“terrorist” attacks against their soldiers in
West bank or Gaza. When a desperate Palestinian triggers
his body as a bomb in a gathering of celebrating occupiers,
wounding them he is a “terrorist”. Why do we
believe that Anglo-Americans, when they hold Arabs and
Muslim morally hostage for a suicide attack on occupiers,
are not anti-Arab and anti-Islam? And when the Anglo-Americans
justify occupiers’ attacks on innocent civilians
and assassination of unarmed Palestinians why can’t
we say they’re assisting and harboring terrorism.
Palestinians are not in need of Arab hypocrisy to clear
them of Anglo-American accusations, as what they are been
accused of is their only way to independence. |
|
|
|
