Here is a translation I did of a March 2009 article by Salaama Ahmed Salaama (of Al-Ahram fame, now at Al-Shorouk) about recent US policy in the Middle East and America’s relationship with the Israel lobby. It’s no surprise here that despite Salaama’s comfortable relationship with the Egyptian government, he is disappointed with Egyptian policy towards the Palestinians and is irate over US policy, claiming that “American policy also remains, despite everything, hostage to the Zionist pressures from which it is incapable of breaking free.”
Salaama is a respected, widely-read, and thus influential Egyptian commentator. It wouldn’t be far off to say that his opinion has influenced and/or is representative of a large part of Egyptian popular opinion. I have aimed in this translation to keep Salaama’s tone and employ the specific expressions he uses, which do not always translate perfectly to the English speaker’s ear. The article in its original Arabic can be found here.
Barren American Policies
Salaama Ahmed Salaama
March 16, 2009After fifty days in the White House, American opinion polls have shown that President Obama has lost a portion of his popularity, and that he has softened some of his campaign promises as he is faced with a political power that has long branded American policy, especially in regards to the Middle East. This is whereas many in the Arab states had cheered him believing that he would pursue a more moderate and balanced course regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict in comparison with his predecessor, Bush.
The first battle that Obama lost in the face of the overarching power of the Zionist lobby was when he was forced to abandon his choice of Ambassador Charles Freeman for the chairmanship of the National Intelligence Council, a choice that was based on Freeman’s vast experience in the Middle East where he served as ambassador to Saudi Arabia and in security and intelligence fields. This took place under pressure from certain leaks that described Freeman as a controversial figure because of his criticism of the Zionist lobby’s influence on American policy and its rejection of any criticism of Israeli officials.
However, what deserves more attention in this regard, is that despite evidence that indicates that the region is about to begin dealing with a racist government in which the foreign ministerial-ship is held by a person such as Lieberman, the leader of “Israel Beytanu,” which does not recognize a two-state solution and which does not negotiate with the Palestinians, Washington has nonetheless proceeded with enthusiasm with the implementation of the American-Israeli memorandum of understanding which Livni and Rice signed just hours before the end of Bush’s rule. It focused on what they called the prevention of “smuggling” of weapons and military equipment to the terrorists in Gaza, that is, to Hamas and to the Palestinian resistance organizations! Washington then commenced rallying a number of its partners in NATO to oversee and prevent the smuggling of weapons across the Mediterranean Sea, the Gulf of Aden, the Red Sea, and East Africa, despite the opposition and reservation Egypt displayed regarding this agreement, which is considered a course of action that is outside the scope of international law. Not to mention the memorandum’s complete lack of comprehensive goals in keeping with the peace efforts, or an account of the extent of Israel’s commitment to the Quartet’s conditions regarding the cessation of aggression and settlement activity.
The meeting was attended by Israeli envoys in London. But Egypt, which certain parties would have had play a role in the tightening of the siege of Gaza, refused to attend the conference. Observers from the Palestinian National Authority did not attend the conference either.
There is no doubt that these initiatives come at a time of profound sensitivity vis-a-vis Egypt’s enormous efforts towards reconciliation between the Palestinians. Such moves have been a stab in the back of the endeavors to solve the controversial issues between the factions in regard to progress towards peace, by way of striving to come up with policies that will permit the Palestinian Authority to continue efforts towards a peaceful settlement, yet without aborting the Palestinian people’s right to resistance, especially in light of the latest brutal Israeli attacks on Gaza.
Among the contradictions that mark these devious Western policies is the influx we are seeing of Western parliamentary and political delegations and personalities that are holding meetings with Hamas representatives to convince them to recognize Israel, to accept the Quartet’s conditions in exchange for recognition as a political party in negotiations, and to commit to abandoning violence. This at the time when Israel has unveiled its right-wing extremist face being led by a government that acknowledges not one of the Quartet’s principles thanks to the vague and unjust policies Washington is adopting and which countries like France, Germany, and Britain go along with, even though they claim to be acting for the sake of peace and stability.
Despite everything, Obama is taking a chance in trying to solve the issue in Afghanistan by pursuing secret communications with Mullah Omar through Saudi mediation. But American policy also remains, despite everything, hostage to the Zionist pressures from which it is incapable of breaking free.
