The Israëlo-Arab conflict, which was originally a late episode of the European colonial conquest, was developed in order to hinder Arab unity. It was no longer a case of affirming the strength of the Western powers in the Middle East, but of making sure that the Arabs did not constitute a bloc which could compete with them. At first colonial, the logic of the conflict became imperial by aligning itself behind the United States.
But today, the Western powers which have dominated the world for the last few centuries are in decline, while Asia, the bearer of other civilisations, has once again become the centre of the world. It follows that the pressure brought to bear on the Arabs is dwindling. It is in this context that President Trump is putting an end to the Cebrowski doctrine of the destruction of social and State structures in the region, and is attempting to pacify the Israëli conflict.
Donald Trump’s personal team for international negotiations - composed of his faithful lieutenants Jared Kushner (his son-in-law) and Jason Greenblatt (ex-vice-president of his conglomerate, the Trump Organization) – therefore approach the Palestinian question from a geopolitical angle . Since they have no diplomatic experience, their plan is not to find a solution which satisfies all the protagonists, but to reduce the pressure on this population in order that they might live a normal life according to the ideal of the right to happiness as it is set out in the US Constitution. This is a major objective for Donald Trump, who intends to dissolve US imperialism and replace it with the logic of commercial competition.
Of course, it is easier for Kushner and Greenblatt, two Orthodox Jews, to understand the Israëlis rather than the Arabs, but from the point of view they have adopted, it doesn’t really have much importance. Whatever they say, their objective is not to arrive at peace, but simply to unblock the situation. They use their Jewish identity as a winning card, because it influences them not to explore the question of responsibility – a question which will arise, however, if they seek to establish a fair and definitive peace .
The « Trump method » in which they have been trained for long years, may be resumed as follows:
first of all, to acknowledge reality, even if that implies abandoning well-tried official rhetoric;
secondly, to consider all the advantages that can be taken from anterior bilateral agreements;
and thirdly, to take multilateral Law into account as far as possible [1].
The two men, who abstain from any public declaration, travel throughout the region without ever revealing their plans for the next day. However, their interlocutors are much more talkative. Little by little, they allow the developing plan to become known.
Dennis Bernstein: Welcome Vijay Prashad, Good of you to do this.
Could you tell us about Shujaat Bukhari in the context of his working in that dangerous part of the world?
Vijay Prashad: Shujaat Bukhari was highly respected in Kashmir and well known in other parts of India. Shujaat was for many years the bureau chief of the Hindu newspaper, for which I write. Then he was the head of station for the magazine Frontline. These periodicals highly valued the reports Bukhari submitted from Kashmir. He was a very honest reporter, in an age when many journalists are simply stenographers who amplify the voices of the powerful. Then there are real journalists, who challenge the narrative about how the world operates. Bukhari reported in a heartfelt way on what the conflict in Kashmir meant from the standpoint of the people. Genuine journalists are an endangered species. When you set out to report about the world from the standpoint of the people, you cross the line of somebody powerful. I have seen so many friends–in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, in Turkey–killed by the state. A friend of mine who was working on the Bin Laden story was picked up by Pakistani intelligence in May of 2011 and his body was found mutilated north of Karachi.
DB: Could you explain exactly how he was murdered? I believe his murder followed his reporting of the killing of an activist, Kaiser Bhat, who was run down on the street at a protest.
Prashad: Why don’t all Kashmiris revolt?
VP: Let me give you some context. From the standpoint of the state and the stenographer/reporter, someone like Kaiser Bhat, who was run over by a jeep, was an aberration, a terrorist. But what Bukhari and others with great sensitivity demonstrated is that Kaiser Bhat is just an ordinary Kashmiri. He reverses the question of the burden of proof: We don’t have to wonder why Kaiser Bhat became a militant. What we should wonder about is why all the other young people don’t become militants. The context of Kashmir almost demands that the population rise up in revolt. The Indian state certainly didn’t appreciate the kind of reporting that Bukhari was doing on Kashmir. It was also reporting that the militants didn’t always appreciate. He was also critical of the way that some militant groups had inflamed the situation, working for their own advantage rather than the will of the people. He was killed by masked gunmen who came on a motorcycle. It is unlikely that they will be caught or that their handlers will be identified. But whether or not we are able to establish forensically who killed Bukhari, we know who killed him. It was people in power who were threatened by the honesty of this very brave journalist.
DB: This was not the first threat to this courageous journalist. He was kidnapped in the past.
VP: Those who have reported from areas of great conflict know the dangers very well. After he was abducted, he made a statement to the effect that he didn’t know who the enemies were. When someone points a gun at you, you don’t know whose gun it is. You’re not out there to have a debate with the person. If some militia group stops you at a checkpoint and puts a gun to your head, you’re not thinking about which side you are on. You’re thinking, this is the end of my life. Remember that this is not just about a checkpoint in the middle of nowhere. It is also the United States, which targeted the Al Jazeera office in the Palestine hotel in Baghdad during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. This is a serious issue, this disregard for the person who is out there to get the story. We know that control of the story is a very important part of warfare. Going after reporters who are trying to tell different stories is very much a part of the agenda of war-making.
...
The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan has traditionally been in the 'western' camp. It is politically attached to the United Kingdom and the United States as well as to Saudi Arabia and other Sunni majority Gulf states. The Jordanian King Abdullah II has in the past been hostile to Iran. He was to first to publicly stoke fear of a 'Shia crescent'. But the new Saudi and U.S. plans for 'peace' with Israel are a threat to Jordan and to King Abdullah's personal legitimacy. He needs to change his position. Provided with the right incentives Jordan could, eventually, join the 'resistance' side with Iran, Syria and Hizbullah.
The country ruled by King Abdullah has nearly ten million inhabitants but is relatively poor. It has few natural resources. The generally well educated population attracted some foreign investment in its industry. Many Jordanians work abroad and send remittances. But all that is not enough. The country needs foreign subsidies to keep its standard of living.
The King of Saudi Arabia derives legitimacy from his title as "Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques" in Mecca and Medina. The King of Jordan springs from the thousand year old great Hashemite dynasty. He heads the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf (Foundation) and is the custodian of the Islamic holy sites in Jerusalem, the Al-Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock. This responsibility is the only prominent function left for the Hashemite family. It is the source of King Abdullah's legitimacy.
The changes in Saudi Arabia's policy towards Israel and the Zionist 'peace plan' the Trump administration develops create a new situation for Jordan. It is put under immense economic pressure to agree to these plans.
Jordan took part in the war on Syria. While Turkey provided support for the "rebels" attacking Syria from the north Jordan played a similar role in the south. Weapon and ammunition supplies from Saudi Arabia and Qatar were shipped through Jordan and smuggled into Syria. The country welcomed the families of the 'rebels' as refugees and provided medical support. The "southern operation room" of the 'rebels', run by the CIA, was hosted in Jordan's capital Amman.