|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CAIRO (Islam Online) Aug 8 - In a recent episode of mutual accusations between Egyptian and American newspapers, three main national Egyptian newspapers responded last Saturday, August 5, to a New York Times article by Thomas Friedman published on August 1, entitled "The Egypt Game." In the article, Friedman wrote a fictionalized editorial in which United States President Clinton sent a personal note to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak scolding him for his recent stance on the Camp David negotiations. Three Egyptian writers wrote the same day in response to the editorial appearing in the Times' concerning what they labeled as the 'American Game.' They responded, in their view, to the seeming favoritism shown in the piece for Israel, and the neglect of Arab interests. As if Clinton were telling Mubarak, Friedman wrote - " I am going to be frank with you, you're skating on thin ice here. The number of people on my foreign policy team, or in Congress, who have a good word to say about you or Egypt today could be counted on one hand - may be on no hands. More and more people are asking me: what exactly are we getting out of our relationship with Egypt - not to mention $30 billion in aid to Egypt since 1978?… You flew to Saudi Arabia and joined with Saudis in urging the Palestinians not to make any compromises on Jerusalem. Well, thanks a lot… But that's not the only reason we're losing patience with you. Where do I start? You just arrested Saad Eddin Ibrahim, an American University of Cairo democracy specialist who has a U.S. passport and whose crime seems to be that he was working for democratic elections in Egypt. I say 'seems' since you've been holding him without charges while your press smears his name. (Your press seems to be free only to spew hate at Israel or spin conspiracy theories about the US)… Tell me, Hosni, when was the last time you did something really hard for us or for the peace process? When was the last time you risked anything?" Ibrahim Saida, of the weekly Akhbar El Youm, responded with a similar personal note as though written by Mubarak to Clinton, entitled "The America Game." Saida wrote, "Remember, dear Bill, that you told me that the Jewish lobby was behind these vicious attacks because of your determination to move forward the peace process and your understanding of the Palestinian people's rights, which enraged Netanyahu, so he lobbied the Jewish groups against you in order to terrorize you and set you off your course, a course, in which you maintained positive neutrality between the Jewish and the Palestinians sides." "I didn't blame you because you changed your stance from one end to the other concerning the Mideast peace process, because of the forthcoming presidential elections and your efforts to secure your seat to your party's successor. I am convinced that what you say and do for Israel now doesn't reflect your personal convictions and doesn't help the American interests in the Arab region either, but its only for the sake of winning the presidential elections." "You know, as well as I do, that if it were not for me this summit wouldn't have taken place in the first place, and you can ask Chairman Arafat that. He came to me telling me he was not enthusiastic about attending the summit because he thought it was no use. And although I shared the same opinion, I urged him to go and defend his people's rights for the millionth time, so that the Jewish propaganda wouldn't accuse the Palestinians of quitting the peace process. This fact is well known to you, because you called me immediately after you knew Arafat agreed to attend. You also thanked me for my efforts, but for which, there wouldn't have been the summit that you had great hopes for." Mubarak added in the imaginary response letter, "You never called me from Okinawa while attending the G8, you only called before you went to Japan, you never said there were major obstacles in the way of the negotiations. You asked me to help in something when I was not aware of all its details, and all I said is that we back the peace process and the international legitimacy in order to fulfill this peace. If you had told me that the Jerusalem issue was the main obstacle in the negotiations and asked me to postpone it to a later phase, I wouldn't have agreed to that. Because any agreement that you may endorse, without dealing with the Jerusalem issue would never have any support from any Arab country. "I further say, there is no Arab ruler who would dare to renounce the Muslim and Christian Arabs' rights in Jerusalem, and if there were one, his people would denounce him. Being the leader of the greatest democracy in the world, you sure know that the people are always stronger than their rulers." "You said in your letter that I joined the Saudis in urging the Palestinians not to make any compromises on Jerusalem, although this is an accusation that I don't deny and an honor that I don't claim, yet my visit was not to observe what was going on in Camp David, but to reinforce common interests between two Arab countries and their people. All I agreed upon with the Saudis is to support whatever brother Arafat proclaims, asks for and whatever he refuses to accept." Who benefits from your aid? "I don't wish to brag about what Egypt did for the U.S. and how much we helped change the old stereotype of the imperial and colonial Uncle Sam. Your predecessor, President Bush, always confirmed that but for the Egyptian stance during the Gulf War of 1990, not much would have been accomplished when Saddam Hussein's forces invaded Kuwait. As for the aid, American firms benefit a great deal due to trade with Egypt. Finally, I am surprised at your mentioning the issue of Saad Eddin Ibrahim in your letter. His case is in the hands of the judiciary court and I don't think you mean to ask me to interfere within the proceedings of the courts." A gang by all means Samir Ragab, of the Gamhouria newspaper, wrote commenting on the Friedman article saying that it is obviously clear now that there are some desperate American and Israeli efforts to put pressure on Egypt because of its role in resuming the rights of Arabs in Jerusalem. Ragab also criticized Stienberg of the Jewish Conference for claims that he made earlier about Jewish properties in Egypt. Ragab referred to the establishment and maintenance of Jewish properties as a gang act that desired to misappropriate land as much as it could from any situation. He also added that both Israelis and Americans disregarded what happened to Egyptian POWs, and crimes committed against them by the Israeli army during the wars between the two countries. Ragab frustratingly commented that recognizing this, the U.S. presently attempts to talk about imaginative compensations after they have stolen a whole country and its properties. Ibrahim Nafee of Al Ahram, wrote, "There is no Arab or Muslim leader who can compromise on the holy issue of Jerusalem for one billion Muslims, not for a mere 15 million Israelis. Yet deferring it could be a different matter. "Friedman mixed the two issues together and didn't mention that proposing to defer the Jerusalem issue was only proposed after the Palestinian delegation refused to give any more compromises, confusing it with the idea that the conflict over Jerusalem has ended forever. It is illogical to say that the Palestinians can end the conflict while the Jerusalem issue is not yet resolved. It only means their acceptance of the status quo." Nafee mentioned that the aid to Egypt served American interests as well, because most of it was directed towards military and strategic expenditures securing oil flow to the U.S. and its partners. It also helped open new markets to American products in Egypt and other Arab countries, enabling the U.S. to make a trade surplus of $45 billion over the past 20 years. Referring to the Saad Ibrahim case, Nafee said it was dealt with in the courts and newspapers published both sides of the story. The New York Times has caused reaction from other Arab writers as well. The Riyadh newspaper of Saudi Arabia denounced the editorial stating that Friedman was totally out of line. The Riyadh paper also accused Clinton of a biased alliance with Barak, and added that the prejudice against Arabs and the "endless animosity" is not unusual for American policy. However, the recent crisis has elevated the animosity from media talk to influencing official U.S. policymakers. The Riyadh also denounced the U.S. for its tendency to blame others for its own "arrogant policies." Other Egyptian journalists warned of American reaction to the failed negotiations. Makram Mohamad Ahmad, of Al Mossawar, an experienced writer on Egyptian political authorities, wrote that the American administration might desperately accuse Arab countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which supported Arafat during the recent negotiations, using them as scapegoats for its own failure. Ahmad said that in doing so, the administration would be making a grave mistake, and would waste the efforts made throughout many years to reach a peaceful agreement in the Middle East. Other Egyptian political analysts believe the tension in U.S.-Egyptian relations is expected to elevate due to pressures of on-going campaigns of the American presidential elections, and the influence of the Jewish lobby on the nominees. |
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
