Arab Regimes 75

Posted on Feb 1, 2011

 By William Pfaff

 The events in the Arab world during the past three weeks have ended
 the era of American-Israeli domination/intimidation of the region.
 This is all but universally acknowledged outside the United States,
 although many in Washington refuse to admit it--as does, with
 considerable concern, the Israeli government in Jerusalem.

 The spectacle of confused and confusing administration and State
 Department responses to the popular uprisings in Tunisia and Yemen,
 and to the huge mass movement in Egypt, protected by the Egyptian
 army, as well as prudent prime ministerial change in Jordan, suggests
 that, until now, no one in an American government office has
 considered--or been allowed to consider, more likely--that this day
 would inevitably come.

 The presence of the U.S. in the Mideast has lost its ability to
 intimidate the more than half a billion people who live in the Arab,
 Egyptian and North African states, once politically united under the
 Ottoman Turks, and before that under the Arab Caliphates, but which
 until now have seemed discarded by history.

 The reaction of the Israeli government has been more shocking still.
 There seems to have been panic, rather than the confusion and seeming
 impotence in Washington--both liberal and conservative Washington, and
 in whatever other sectors of opinion that these days also exist in in
 that troubled city, which has yet to emerge from two meaningless and
 un-won wars fought ostensibly for democracy, and which now is shocked
 to confront democracy among the Arabs.

 Israel, since its defeat of combined Arab armies in 1948, has believed
 that it could survive in the Middle East only through total military
 domination of its Arab enemies and control without concessions of the
 subjects of its military occupation of Palestine. Israel has been
 supported in this, more or less willingly, by every American
 administration since that of Dwight Eisenhower--the last to say "no"
 to Israel.

 The contempt initially shown toward Israel's Arab enemies was ended by the
 1973 surprise attack by Egypt and Syria, the rise of Hamas (whose
 creation Israel over-cleverly supported to counter the Palestine
 Liberation Organization; how could religious enthusiasts do anything
 to harm Israel?) and the resistance of Hezbollah to Israel's 2006 (and
 second) invasion of Lebanon. The result of that was to give Hezbollah
 political predominance in Lebanon.

 Lebanon is the nation that once, using conciliation rather than
 intimidation, might have been turned into Israel's passport to peace
 with the other Arab countries. Israel's eyes were already on complete
 possession of Palestine when I first visited Beirut in 1955. The
 swagger of the Lebanese then was that, given unrestricted relations,
 the Lebanese could easily outsmart, out-trade and outwit the Jews. The
 Zionists should have taken up that challenge.

 The Israeli calculation today is that if "Mubarak goes" (which is
 usually stated as "If America lets Mubarak go"), Egypt goes. If
 Tunisia goes (same elaboration), Morocco and Algeria go. Turkey has
 already gone (for which the Israelis have only themselves to blame).
 Syria is gone (in part because Israel wanted to cut it off from Sea of
 Galilee water access). Gaza has gone to Hamas, and the Palestine
 Authority might soon be gone too (to Hamas?). That leaves Israel amid
 the ruins of a policy of military domination of the region.

 Now, it is only America that can save us, Israelis say. But Washington
 has sent new emissaries to Cairo, undoubtedly to tell Hosni Mubarak
 that departure in September is not good enough. Now is the time to
 go--with a graceful acknowledgement of the popular will and good
 wishes to his successors. He has already named reliable and moderate
 men to take over, whom the Pentagon and CIA trust. Will that be good
 enough? I think not. The people do not want a makeover of
 U.S.-dominated government. I doubt seriously that they would accept
 the "orderly transition to meet the democratic and economic needs of
 the people" that Hillary Clinton kindly proposes, adding that America
 stands "ready to help with the kind of transition that will lead to
 greater political and economic freedom." I would imagine that the
 popular feeling is that they have had quite enough help from
 Washington.

 Would the people accept Mohamed ElBaradei to conduct a transition to
 elections, the ex-U.N. nuclear agency chief whom Washington considers
 an enemy? Possibly. The best thing the U.S. can do is to keep out of
 this, speak only when spoken to and hope that the common sense that
 has prevailed thus far in Tunisia and Egypt will continue.

 The trouble is that the people who are handling these things in
 Washington are the same ones, or the proteges of the ones, now
 retired, who were responsible for American policy in the Middle East
 under both Democratic and Republican administrations since Franklin
 Roosevelt, late in the Second World War, and made a deal to trade
 guaranteed security for Saudi Arabia in exchange for guaranteed oil
 for the U.S. Certainly since President Richard Nixon clapped the Shah
 of Iran on the back and said, "We restored you to your throne in 1953,
 young man--I mean, Your Imperial Majesty. From now on, you are our
 gendarme in the Middle East. Just tell the Pentagon what you need."
 Israelis take notice.

 Visit William Pfaff's website for more on his latest book, "The Irony
 of Manifest Destiny: The Tragedy of America's Foreign Policy," at
 www.williampfaff.com.