Managing a crisis
Tragic developments in the Middle East and the legions of victims – mostly Palestinians, but Israelis as well – are being dealt with, correctly from one point of view, on an emotional level; not only by Europeans and Americans but by the political leaders of various states. However, what is at stake here is, and always has been, political and not related solely to the goals of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon or Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat, nor the capability of the so-called pro-Western Arab states. Above all, it has to do with the role the US will eventually play as the sole superpower, and the stance of the less powerful political entities, namely the European Union, Russia and China, with regard to Washington. The American role as leader has been recognized since the time when, as the head of Western nations in NATO, it dealt with the threat from the USSR and its communist allies, eventually defeating it without having to fire a single shot. That conflict, provoked solely by the expansionist policies of Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, fed American hegemony. Its successful outcome strengthened the feeling that Americans were all-powerful and superior. Despite this, the winner does not necessarily back down on the collapse of one’s opponent. The goal of NATO and American policy ceased to involve dealing with specific states, particularly after the fall of the communist regimes, but rather with crisis management. However, no one recognizes a leader if there are no crises, and at the same time there has never been a time in world history in which a major power has not tried to achieve hegemony, at some level, and has not brought destruction upon itself when it oversteps the limits, even if those limits cannot be determined in advance. That in no way means that the US provoked the crisis in Palestine, since the current situation is primarily the outcome of decisions by Sharon and Arafat, even if some responsibility is also borne by forces that over time have had an influence on developments in that region. However, for the United States, the crisis in Palestine is, politically, a unilateral exercise in hegemony. For neither the EU nor Russia nor China believe they are able to intervene, while the EU would suffer the consequences of broader instability because of its dependence on energy on the Middle East. Others also stand to lose out, above all Sharon himself, whose policies are only hastening the creation and recognition of a Palestinian state, and the Jews of Europe, where anti-Semitism is re-emerging. As for the Americans, they will defend their interests and if they believe it expedient, they will ignore both Israel and the American Jews. For the time being, the crisis in Palestine for the USA is a question of crisis management, which the Bush administration appears to be handling in the clumsiest way possible.
