Munish Nagar Interviews Ramzy Baroud
Ramzy Baroud is a veteran Palestinian-American Journalist and is Editor-in-Chief of the Palestine Chrinicle. He worked
in Al-Jazeera as a producer, and an author of The Second Palestinian Intifada: A chronicle of people’s struggle. Ramzy
is a virtuoso media professional and has been a guest speaker at many Universities of the world. He talked about on the
war between Palestine and Israel with Munish Nagar through e-mail.
Q. What is the importance of Hizbollah’s last year victory to Hamas and other Palestinian groups?
Hizbollah’s victory is important for more than one reason; one aspect is pertinent to the timing of that victory, which
comes at a time that the US had just discovered the limitation of its military capabilities in Iraq. Israel was trying
to achieve a military victory for itself and others: US, those who were set to benefit from the elimination of Hizbollah
in Lebanon and for the region’s traditional US allies (corrupt regime, business elites, etc). Following its Lebanon
adventure, which was weighed in at least one year in advance, Israel has also learned that its military power as well
had its own limits and was taught a hard lesson, and the results of that lesson continue to reverberate throughout
Israel’s political scene.
Another factor is that Hizbollah emerged as a formidable foe in Lebanon, and is now trying to translate its popularity
and military strength into political strength, stirring a battle (mostly a political one that had recently spilled into
violent confrontations following the debilitating strike) whose outcome is yet to be determined.
Moreover, the US hoped that a quick Hizbaollah defeat would both intimidate Iran before the sheer might of the Israeli
military, which also served an American purpose. The opposite transpired, as Iran emerged more powerful and confident,
further exasperating American’s woes in the region, but also compounding fears of a regional Shiite-Sunni clash.
Q. It’s in the hands of Israel to stop or end violence on Palestinian people or Israel is being played like a puppet in
American Hands?
Israel is by no means a puppet in American hands. The relationship between the two is rather unique. Israel is not
exactly a ‘client regime’ per se, yet it doesn’t necessarily ‘control’ American foreign policy in the region. What is
taking place is rather an exchange, equitable or otherwise, where both parties are hoping to advance their own interests
in the region, while mutually benefiting from each other’s unique advantages. Traditionally, Israel served as an
American proxy and ally, whereby the US uses Israel’s strategic positioning to further its own designs in the region,
warranted or otherwise. Israel, on the other hand, has benefited tremendously from American financial and military aid,
in addition to political backing that has shielded it rather successfully from any accountability to international law.
To guarantee its interests in America, Israel had relied heavily on several lobbying bodies, notwithstanding The
American Israeli Public Relations Committee (AIPAC), whose degree of success in fortifying Israel’s position is hardly
debatable. However, during the George W. Bush years, that relationship began tilting more in Israel’s favor than in
favor of the traditional American foreign policy view; this was due to the ability of the neoconservatives - a group of
influential pro Israeli ideologues, purporting as patriotic Americans – to sway US policy in the Middle East to fit
Israel’s regional agenda, thus getting the US to achieve what Israel couldn’t do alone, hense the regime change in Iraq,
containing Iran and Syria, etc. The neoconservatives shrewdly convinced the US administration that what is good for
Israel is good for America. 3068 dead and 40,000 wounded American soldiers later, the US is beginning to realize this
fatal mistake, despite the stubbornness of the President.
Q. At what extent you are right that Israeli leader with the support of US and allies to dominate the Arabs? Was the
Iraq’s invasion by US and allied forces and the execution of Saddam was a step towards the domination of Arab World?
In many ways America had often determined its relationship to Arab states based on these states’ perception and/or
relationship with Israel and the so-called peace process. Most Arab states are more or less dominated by the US and even
‘rogue’ states had at times good relations with Washington and were very willing to become client regimes at a whim. But
while some either agreed to normalize with Israel openly (Jordan, Egypt, Mauritania), others did so in more subtle ways
(some Gulf countries, Morocco, etc). Those who rejected Israel’s terms of peace or exhibited hostility toward the
Zionist state were branded as ‘rogue’, and there sins were augmented beyond reason. (The submissive camp was dubbed
moderate and friendly, despite the fact that some were brutal and utterly despotic).
So what has happened following the murder of Saddam and the intimidation of Syria is not exactly an overhauling of the
relationship between Washington and Arabs, but rather a redefining of that relationship. America is realizing that is
has to change the rules of the game to guarantee that ‘rogue’ states become a thing of the past. It wants to deny even
its allies in the region the most basic bargaining power so that the relationship shifts from that of superpower-client
state to a super-power and mere proxies. This is what Washington is currently concocting. There are many obstacles
standing in the way of course, including the resurgence of Islamic forces, Hamas and Hizbollah and the resistance in
Iraq.
Q. Palestinians are suffering from the Israeli forces since long time. What role has played by United Nations Human
Rights Commission in this regard?
The United Nations Human Rights Commission is to a large degree free of US influence in the UN. The US uses various
control mechanisms to influence the proceedings of various UN bodies, including the use of veto at the Security Council,
political pressure in the General Assembly and withholding of funds from various UN arms. UNHRC however, despite
occasional failures has held its ground and on many occasions called Israel on its brutality. The commission however has
little or no executive power. It can embarrass Israel at times, and has repeatedly called on the international community
to interfere on behalf of Palestinians. The commission’s position however, was hardly ever translated to an actual work
plan at the UN for the US’ control mechanisms were much greater that the commission’s limited powers and ability to
withstand pressure.
Q. The Article 3 of UN Declaration clearly states “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of persons”.
But the killings of Palestinian civilians by Israeli forces made to think that rules and regulations are meant to be
broken. Do you agree with this?
The UN founding principles and original declaration are very noble as they clearly spoke out against the cruelty of WWII
where human dignity and the sanctity of life sunk to their lowest levels in recent memory. However, aside from the
theoretical aspect of this, since its founding nearly six decades ago, the UN is yet to become an equally representative
organization that is capable of translating its principles into action, guiding and guarding its Human Rights
Declaration in a serious enough manner that is capable of challenging the arrogance of both super powers like the US or
smaller entities that violate international law such as Israel and Ethiopia. To answer your question more directly,
while the spirit of the UN declaration shall endure, it is yet to be substantiated with concerted and meaningful action;
at least as far as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is concerned.
Q. What would you like to say on the “Ceasefire” concept of Israel?
Israel doesn’t believe in ceasefire as a step toward calm, thus peace. Israel is a state that still believes that
military supremacy must be maintained and exercised at all times to ensure the submission of its enemies, and it does so
disproportionately and frequently. Israel would resort or use the term “ceasefire” in the three following occasions: as
a farce, meaning using the term but not implementing its conditions to evade criticism; two, when its forced to do so,
as was the case in Lebanon following the July-August war with Hizbollah. Even in this occasion, this was a tactical
ceasefire. Third, as a political strategy, such as strengthening Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’ position
against his rivals in Hamas. As a concept in itself that aims at establishing meaningful peace, ceasefire is yet to
exist in Israel’s lexicon.
Q. If the violence on the Palestinians by Israeli forces will remain same, then where will be Palestine stand over next
ten years?
It’s unlikely that there will be any truly sovereign Palestine in the next 10 years. Indeed, all signs are pointing to
the contrary. Even if one wishes to circumvent the question, for now, regarding the viability of a Palestinian state
over parts of the West Bank and Gaza, one cannot expect that the current balance of power, the dishonesty of the US, the
absence of a strong third party, the fragmentation of the Arabs politically and the regional upheaval that was
engendered by the US chaotic Middle East policy, and notwithstanding the Palestinian eternal strife, could possibly
create a situation that would convince or force Israel to heed to the calls for peace and respect international law,
thus withdrawing from the Occupied Territories.
*************
Munish Nagar is an Indian Cyber Journalist based in India. He contributes to a South Korean Web news Portal and works
as a staff reporter in a local e-newspaper in India.