Arab nation 'humiliated' - President Emeritus Guido de Marco

[Ederico]

http://www.timesofmalta.com/core/article.php?id=232922

Arab nation 'humiliated'

Herman Grech

President Emeritus Guido de Marco fears that the Israeli attacks in Lebanon could fuel more fundamentalism in regions beyond the Middle East. Israel's attacks are disproportioned by any stretch of the imagination, the former UN General Assembly president says.

Israel is waging its campaign in Lebanon to try and weed out terrorists. Is it creating more terrorists in the process?


Creating terrorists is not the correct term. Israel is waging an all-out war in Lebanon and those who some way or other resist the invaders are considered to be heroes. Their defiance of superior forces, which are killing hundreds of innocent civilians and causing untold harm to the infrastructure of Lebanon, are creating a measure of support for the Hizbollah, although they do not represent the majority of the Lebanese people.

So they're playing into their hands...
Precisely. And this is why I'm so concerned. I think there is utter disproportion between Hizbollah's provocation and Israel's reaction. The abduction of two Israeli soldiers does not justify the major bombing that has taken place in Lebanon. Hizbollah fired missiles in retaliation to the military attack launched by Israel. They (Hizbollah) initially had in mind the bargaining of two Israeli soldiers with Lebanese prisoners in Israel.

But Israel says Hizbollah has been launching missiles into Israel for the past months.


Maybe it was so, but the military attack was not prompted by some solitary rocket. This came about by the abduction of two Israeli soldiers, which I condemn.

Three weeks into the conflict, do you think Israel has achieved anything?


Israel is trying to annihilate Hizbollah. They are trying to ensure that Lebanon is not in a position to be of nuisance value to the security of Israel and in the process see to what extent Syria is involved.

Are you saying Israel is trying to provoke a conflict?


I think the Syrian issue has not been solved in the eyes of some nations. Israel and the US consider Syria a rogue state. Nor can Syria recognise Israel so long as Israel maintains its annexation of the Golan Heights and this in defiance of UN resolutions.

Can Israel afford to go it alone in this conflict?


A former Israeli Prime Minister once said: "So long as the US is on our side, we need no more friends nor do we fear enemies". I'm not saying the US wants to extend the conflict.

So you think the US is a player behind the scenes in this conflict?


We have to distinguish between Europe, part of Europe and the US. All the West is against the provocative action taken by Hizbollah. The majority of Europe is against the disproportionate reaction by Israel and has called for a ceasefire. The US is speaking about a sustainable peace. I think by this, the US means that Israel has to feel completely safe in its security and role in the Middle East.

So is the US, Israel and to a certain extent the UK isolated with their stand?


It depends what you mean by isolated. The rest of the world is also opposed to the Hizbollah provocation. But, yes, with the exception of these three countries, with possibly Germany, - which under the present administration is close to the Anglo-American approach- everyone thinks Israel's reaction is out of proportion and that the major victims are the Lebanese people.


Hizbollah have rockets but even if they fire many of them they can only represent a limited threat to Israel. Hizbollah has no planes, tanks, heavy artillery or ground forces to match Israel's defence. Hundreds of innocent people have been killed and untold damage has been caused in Lebanon, which, as its Prime Minister said, has been forced down to its knees.

In a recent interview, the outgoing Israeli Ambassador to Malta Ehud Gol said that us Westerners can never understand what it means to be living in constant fear of your neighbour, which explains Israel's aggressive reaction.


We have to first understand the siege mentality of the Israel people, who were born out of the Holocaust. This is a scar that the Israeli people will carry to the next millennium and unless we understand this scar we can never understand their overreaction to events. When three persons worked for peace - Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres - leading to the Oslo agreement, things were moving in the right way.


But then Mr Rabin was assassinated by Israeli extremists, Benyamin Netanyahu was elected and he was against the Oslo agreement. The Israeli settlements were not only not dismantled but were trebled and this on Palestinian territory and in constant violation of Security Council resolutions.


Through the Oslo agreement, Mr Arafat was the first person who acknowledged the existence of Israel and was prepared to share Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and Palestine. But his constant requests to stop the illegal settlements were met with defiance. President Arafat was treated in a humiliating manner in front of his own people. He was only allowed to leave his bombed office when he was moribund. I'm saying this because it adds to the poignancy of the situation. It makes a return to an international conference on the Middle East a real step forward for the future of the region.

To what extent is Iran helping Hizbollah?


I have no idea. But one cannot exclude the possibility of a Shi'ite brotherhood in the circumstances.

Do you believe Hizbollah timed the capture of the two soldiers to divert attention from Iran, which was coming under increasing

pressure to give up its nuclear programme?


I'm against all nuclear programmes. An Iranian government is bound to take into consideration that countries like Pakistan, India and reportedly Israel have nuclear weapons. Notwithstanding this, I believe the international community has to do its utmost to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons, including Iran.

The UN is appearing completely helpless.


The UN is as strong as its member countries want it to be. I think Kofi Annan is trying to do his best as he asked for a cessation of hostilities. The G8 came out with a good suggestion that a UN force should be put on the border between Israel and Lebanon. In the meantime diplomacy is dragging its feet and Israel's war campaign continues.

And who do you think is responsible for this?


There are different points of view about how the Lebanon issue should be solved. The Americans, the British and the Germans have similar approaches that there has to be a sustainable ceasefire. Most of the other countries in the world are for an immediate ceasefire.

Do you believe an immediate ceasefire will solve the problem?


An immediate ceasefire is essential for discussions to start. It's only through discussions that solutions can be found.


What do you think of Ehud Olmert as Israeli Prime Minister?


He is in charge of a country which considers itself to be under siege. He is a Prime Minister who, contrary to his predecessors like Mr Rabin and Ariel Sharon, does not belong to the generation of generals. He wants to prove himself no less a defender of Israel's sovereignty and security. I think Dr Olmert wants to ensure the military superiority of Israel over all states in the region, including political movements in arms.


The Arab nation is being humiliated and people are turning to extremists to represent their resistance. Unless we are careful in our foreign policies we could end up seeing fundamentalists run governments in nearby countries like Tunisia, Libya and Egypt. We have to win back the support of the Arab nation, not only of its leaders, but the average Arab person.

Do you think Dr Olmert is flexing his muscles to the extent that he's not realising the possible repercussions?


I think Dr Olmert is doing what he thinks is best for his country. I disagree with his disproportionate reaction.

He is surrounded by countries that are bent on destroying Israel, including the government of the Palestinian people.


That's true, but the Hamas government is the result of the way Prime Minister Olmert and others treated President Arafat. The Fatah movement certainly did commit mistakes in its governance but the main reason Hamas is in government is because President Arafat was mistreated and portrayed as ineffective.


When Kuwait was invaded and I was president of the UN General Assembly, the Palestinians stupidly took Saddam Hussein's side. I went to visit the Palestinian refugees in Gaza and West Bank and they explained to me how the UN had done nothing to liberate them from Israeli occupation for decades. They asked whether it was because they had no oil in their veins. Though this reasoning was wrong, I could understand it.

Do you fear that the Lebanon conflict could spread beyond the Middle East and indirectly underline the chasm between West versus East?


Yes, this is a danger whether it's in Egypt or Libya. This is not a hypothetical situation. Fundamentalists could be in charge of oil supplies. And don't forget that fundamentalism was not initially an Arab notion but it was, and is, an Islamic notion. Islam goes beyond Arab nations. Pakistan is not an easy country, nor is Indonesia.

How do you see the Middle East in five years time?


We are contributing to prejudice and a hate mentality. You no longer win wars by defeating armies. There is something more basic - the emotions of people. Unless something dramatic is done in a short time to bring about the parties at an international conference we'll end up by creating in these Islamic countries troubled areas that will spread like wildfire. We will be ourselves making a reality of Huntington's clash of civilisations. You can't end the suffering by rockets and killing innocent civilians. As I had occasion to say elsewhere, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth can be a mistake, but 10 eyes for an eye and 10 teeth for a tooth is much worse. This is what's happening in Lebanon.