President Bush’s recent endorsement of Ariel Sharon’s policies has mostly hurt one important group- moderate Arabs. The new US position received extremely angry reactions from Middle East leaders and activists as well as many European and other international leaders. Political leaders and commentators alike attacked the US president for his legitimization of the some of the illegal settlements and his call on Palestinians to give up their inalienable right to return to their homes and lands. These attacks concentrated on the fact that Washington has shifted its long held positions. While the attacks came from persons of all political colors, the most intense attacks came from the moderates who saw in them a scary signal as to what might happen in the future. The postponement of Jordan’s King Abdullah from a scheduled meeting on the 21st with President Bush reflect how this US move has hurt America’s closest Arab allies.

For years Palestinians and Arabs have been arguing among themselves as to what is the best strategy to reach independence. Moderates argued that the world community is the Palestinian’s best ally. They constantly referred to UN resolutions and repeated that they wanted any peace agreement to be based on “international legitimacy.” Radicals on the other hand rejected these arguments insisting that the world doesn’t understand or deal with the politics of weakness. They argued that the only language that brings results is that of force.

When President Bush stood next to Ariel Sharon at the White House lawn on April 14th he settled the argument. Despite his earlier talk of his vision of a Palestinian state, what he was saying clearly to Palestinians now was that their salvation and freedom will not happen due to international will. The US, now the world’s only superpower, was finally saying what many have said it believed all along. This new US honesty was a blow to those who had believed the pro peace US words and had turned a blind eye to its pro Israel deeds. The result was clear. The only sensible reading from those pro Sharon words was that Palestinians have two choices, either to capitulate to the US and Israeli dictates or try and gain freedom with their own powers and means.

President Bush put a total end to the naiveté of moderate Palestinians who believed in the values that America stood for. When he spoke about settlements what George Bush was saying in clear terms was that might is right. These facts on the ground that were built in violation of the Geneva Conventions and contrary to the world communities will have to be accepted as the new reality, he said with Sharon next to him. In 1990 when President Bush Senior rejected the facts on the ground created by Saddam Hussein in Kuwait no one expected that he would accept the reversal of 95% of this aggression. Later Bush Senior denied giving loan guarantees to Israel because of its illegal settlement policy in occupied Palestinian lands.

If President Bush dealt a blow to anyone in his recent words of support to Ariel Sharon it was the moderate Palestinian camp. The statements that he made unified Palestinian moderates and radicals more than any time before. And instead of moderates being able to convince the radicals of the need to worry about international law and public opinion, the radicals are the ones who are saying “we told you so.”

When the President of the United States advises refugees and oppressed people to accept the realities that happened with the power of the gun, he only legitimizes the rule of the jungle rather than the rule of law.

More than any time before, the question must be asked of the Bush administration whether might is right or right is might. If might is right then Palestinians have to bite the bullet and take whatever crumbs the “benevolent” Israeli occupiers and their US defenders throw to them. And if right is not might, why should Hamas and other groups carrying out terrorism worry. Clearly the new values of the American empire are not based on justice and fairness but simply on sheer power. If you are unable to reach your goals because they are right, why should you worry about the methods employed so long as your goals justify your means.

Today America is so powerful that few dare oppose it even when it violates international law and acts in contradiction of its own values. The question that America must ask is what will happen when the US is not so powerful?

Between capitalization to the dictates of the powerful or joining radicals, a third way must be found. This third way has been where most honorable Arab moderates have found themselves. The latest US actions have dealt a blow to those of us fighting for this third way.

During the difficult negotiations following the signing of the declaration of principles on the White House lawn in 1993, Palestinians tried to convince Israelis to give up Netzarim and Kfar Darom. After all, Palestinian argued, these two tiny Jewish settlements were located in the center of an extremely populated area of the Gaza Strip.

Jerusalem — The Bush administration is passing up an important possibility for winning the war on terrorism: a military intervention and international supervision of elections in Palestine.

Few anti-terrorism experts would disagree that solving the Israel-Palestine conflict can offer an important impetus for winning the global war on terrorism. Failure to resolve this conflict has been repeatedly stated as a source of irritation in the Arab, Islamic and most of the developing world.

Every conceivable peace plan has faltered over one issue: the cycle of violence between Israelis and Palestinians. Whether it is the assassination of Palestinian leaders, bulldozing of Palestinian homes and digging up of Palestinian lands, or armed attacks against Israeli soldiers and suicide attacks against civilians, the underlying impediment has been the unending violence. Stopping the violence is the fastest road to peace.

But neither Palestinians nor Israelis have been willing or able to stop the violence. The most obvious solution is clear: a neutral armed outside force. And surprisingly enough, neither Palestinians nor Israelis are strongly opposed to such a possibility.

Palestinian officials and the public alike have been on the record urging the international community to intervene militarily. Palestinian leaders have repeatedly called on the international community to activate the "road map" clause calling for armed monitors. Palestinians have endorsed the plan drawn up by the United States, the United Nations, Europe and Russia. Although it has expressed 14 reservations about the plan, Israel is also on the record accepting the road map.

The importance of outside military intervention has never been clearer. With every Israeli incursion and every Palestinian bombing, innocent civilians on either side pay a heavy price. The Israeli army insists on being tough, to create a sense of deterrence. Palestinians refuse to appear weak and insist on taking revenge. The result is a cycle of violence.

Both sides seem bent on making sure they get in the last licks. This cycle of violence has gotten worse as the Israeli prime minister has indicated a willingness to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza. Israel worries that such a withdrawal would be viewed as a sign of weakness. Therefore Israelis have escalated their violence against Palestinians, an escalation that climaxed recently with the assassination of the spiritual leader of Hamas, Sheik Ahmed Yassin.

A foreign military intervention is seen by many as the only way to end this fatal embrace. The military force could be a U.N. multinational one, a NATO force or even a U.S. one. While Israel has repeatedly refused to consider such an idea, many in that country believe their government would have a hard time refusing to allow a U.S.-led force to act as a buffer between Palestinians and Israelis.

Such a force should be temporary and be deployed as part of a cease-fire agreement between both sides. It should be part of a plan that encourages both sides to sit down and hold serious political negotiations without the constant interference of violence by this party or that, this radical group or that right-wing ideologue.

The presence of such an international peacekeeping force could also provide a chance for the Palestinian people to carry out overdue elections: local, parliamentary and presidential. The last time Palestinians chose their mayors and city council members was in 1982. Legislative and presidential elections were held in 1995.

The siege on Palestinian territories and the security situation have made it impossible to hold elections. With the convening of elections, the Palestinian body politic would get badly needed young blood to replace the existing leadership, which has largely failed its people. Elections would also provide various political groups, including the Islamists, with a civilized, tangible and productive way to reflect their political ideas.

The Bush administration has made important political progress by declaring a vision for peace in the Middle East based on an independent and viable Palestinian state alongside a safe and secure state of Israel, by 2005. For this vision to be implemented, an immediate end to the cycle of violence is crucial. Right-wing expansionist politics, hatred, anger and desire for revenge have fueled the fatal present cycle of violence. The intervention of an international military force to put an end to the violence and prepare for local and national elections would go a long way toward fulfilling this plan for a two-state solution. And it would undoubtedly stabilize the Middle East, removing a problem that has been a major source of terrorism and anger in the region and the

Reform is not a new issue in the Arab world. It has been the demand of Arab democrats and human rights activists for years. Most of those fighters for democracy have been muzzled, detained, tortured, or have disappeared or been killed by Arab dictators and even leaders who are believed to be moderate in the eyes of the western world.

Visit any major European capital today and you will find a crowd of Arab thinkers, intellectuals, journalists, human rights activists, and scientists who have chosen exile rather than continuing to live under the tyranny of their regimes. Many independent Arab media outlets have thrived in capitals like Paris and London, and many regional Arab NGOs make their official bases outside the region.

Satellite TV and the Internet have been a godsend to many of those opposing authoritarian regimes. The independent TV station Al Jazzera made many of these activists known in the Arab world through programs like the Al Itijah al Muakes (Opposite Direction) and Aktar men rai (More Than One Opinion), and others. The Internet has also provided a censorship-free, difficult to trace, and inexpensive means of mobilizing and raising awareness.

With such a strong Arab democratic movement, an objective observer would expect a strong embrace from Arab intellectuals and human rights activists to the recent calls by the United States government to place serious pressure on Arab regimes to reform their governments. But an eerie silence has fallen on political opponents, both inside the Arab world and in exile. In fact, an unusually overwhelming comprehensive attack has been expressed against the new US reform plan. These attacks, which have appeared in the opinion pages of major Arab newspapers and in satellite talk shows, have focused almost exclusively on three areas. The attacks have questioned the credibility of Washington and expressed major misgivings in the real goals of the US government in general, and the Bush administration in particular. Critics have also attacked the Americans for their high-handed attempts, without consulting with Arab governments or independents, before offering their formula for saving the Arab world from itself. Finally, almost all attacks have called on the US to help solve the Palestinian problem, instead of shifting attention to the issue of the need for reform.

There is a lot of truth in the above mentioned criticism. The US, EU, and any other party interested in reform in the Arab world must take a serious and close look at the issues raised in reaction to the US plan. It seems that this has happened already; the US Secretary of State has been quoted as saying that the US is not trying to impose its plan, and it is clear that a wave of consultation is taking place directly and indirectly with the Arab world.

But while the criticism is correct at face value, I have two problems with it. Many of those expressing it, and most of the media that has carried these opinions, have their own credibility problem vis a vis democracy and human rights. When the Saddam Hussein regime fell, documents were revealed of an extensive network of payments to leading Arab journalists, commentators, and intellectuals. The independence of the media in the Arab world leaves a lot to be desired. I believe that many of the articles expressed in these papers represent many of the authoritarian regimes themselves. I am not saying that these articles were commissioned or paid for by the regimes, but that many Arab leaders seem to be happy with them, and must have privately encouraged them. Many of these regimes would not dare publicly oppose the US on any idea it presents. This is a rare case in which they can appear to be supporting freedom of expression while allowing seemingly independent intellectuals to be their proxies in opposing the US calls for reform.

I also have a problem with those wanting to link reform in the Arab world with a resolution of the Palestinian problem. For far too long, Arab regimes have hijacked the Palestinian problem to divert attention away from their own incompetence and internal troubles. The Palestinian cause will gain, not suffer, from real reform in the Arab world. If such reform would actually happen, and there is a real question that it will, Arab governments will have to be much more responsive to the demands of their people. And the demands of the Arab world today are that their governments support Palestine in deeds, and not just in words. Furthermore, the Palestinian problem is not a real issue when it comes to reform in many Arab countries that are not immediately surrounding Palestine. There is no need to link reform in, say Morocco or Oman, with the resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Frankly, what is bothering me with the US call for reform, and the reactions to it, is the silence displayed by genuine Arab intellectuals regarding the substance of, and the need for, reform, rather than the parties behind it. It is true that in such horrible times such as the Arab nation is going through now, it may seem to some that silence is a very good remedy. But I beg to differ. Since Arab democrats have failed to reach their goals through their own efforts, it seems to me that there is no harm in supporting any idea that fits with theirs, irrespective of the messenger. If real intellectuals are not able to make this distinction, they allow hired intellectuals and disguised Arab spokespersons to do all the talking. With any disease, healing begins with the proper diagnosis. If intellectuals are unable or unwilling to properly diagnose our problem, and if they fail to speak, the problems in the Arab world will only worsen, and the desired reform will not take place, irrespective of whether it comes from within or as a result of pressure from without.

Along with a number of other Arab leaders, the prime minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon, is expected in Washington next week. Many analysts expect the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and Sharon’s plans to withdraw from Gaza to top the agenda of the meetings.

Sharon has said that after getting the US approval for his plan to leave Gaza, he will put it to a vote in his own government. And because of the possibility that Sharon might be indicted on corruption charges, this could be the last visit by Sharon to Washington.

Never has the importance and the centrality of the US in making Middle East peace been so obvious. Many might also say that never has there been an American president as forcefully and blindly in support of Israel, but this seems to be the fate of today’s unipolar world.

What President George Bush will say to Sharon and what the two leaders will agree to will certainly have an important and far-reaching effect on the Palestinians, the Israelis and the region as a whole.

The US government is on the record as being, repeatedly in opposition to settlement activity, to the expropriation of land and to building the separation wall inside occupied territories. Furthermore, the US is on the record as urging all the parties to the conflict not to carry out any actions that will negatively affect the long-term goal for the region. This goal has been best explained by Bush in his vision for a democratic Palestinian state that exists and lives in peace alongside a safe and secure Israel.

Seen in isolation, unilateral actions are not necessarily a problem in this regard. The real problem is the price that Sharon seems to want in return for the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. The Bush administration should not be pushed into the trap that Sharon seems to have prepared for him, namely that the US approve or agree not to oppose annexation of Palestinian lands to Israel or make any commitments on behalf of Palestinians.

The US should act as the superpower, with interests in regional peace and as a self-appointed representative of the Palestinians. In the past, whenever the Palestinians would complain to the Americans about Israeli actions, US officials would repeatedly counsel Palestinians on the need to talk directly to the Israelis. This must be repeated now by the Bush administration. Bush should defer any issue that is directly of interest to the Palestinians to the concerned parties, namely the legitimate representatives of the Palestinians.

The Americans must be careful about contradicting their long-held beliefs and their present pro-democracy strategy. The US can’t expect to teach the Arab world about democracy while it refuses to deal with, and encourages Israel to continue to ignore a freely elected leader. People in the Middle East are more interested in actions and examples than in empty rhetoric about representative governments.

Finally, in dealing with Sharon, the US president must make it crystal clear that the rights of the Palestinians are not negotiable. Whether we are talking about the right of Palestinians to determine their own future or the sanctity of the life of every single Palestinian, human rights are universal and must be respected, irrespective of the latest political plan or the latest trend in the Middle East conflict.

During the past year, the United States, along with the UN, the EU and Russia, agreed on a clearly defined roadmap. The Palestinians have enthusiastically embraced this plan, the Israelis accepted it with some reservations. Nothing that has happened since has shown that the Quartet, especially the US, has the will to enforce this roadmap. Instead, Washington appears to be reacting to the latest plan presented by Sharon rather than pushing its own plan.

If Bush real means what he says, he must say what he means. If the roadmap is the only game in town, then the world’s superpower must insist that this plan, and no other, be adhered to by all parties. If Sharon gets this message loud and clear, we can be on the road to real and serious movement towards peace and security for all the peoples of the region.