Our Life – American Intervention

In 2002, a conflict flared up between the Palestinian Parliament and former President Yasser Arafat regarding the implementation of reform and the battle against corruption. At the height of the struggle, Arafat gave in to the Legislative Council’s demands, until the Israeli invasion undermined any opportunity for reform. After the invasion and siege against Yasser Arafat, we were surprised to learn that Muhammad Rashid was meeting with American officials in Washington to discuss what was described as “the introduction of reform in power.” At the time, we wrote that our pens wouldn’t dare discuss democratic reform in the government or the battle against corruption, so long as the one raising the flag for reform was Khalid Salaam — the biggest and most volatile reagent for corruption and nepotism surrounding the occupation since his rise to power. Arafat was the dictator then until his own accountant, Khalid Salaam, refused to work for him in spite of centralized control over his administration. During the formation of the first government under President Mahmoud Abbas, the Americans intervened and gauged support for Abbas, according to what Bush and others considered it to be. They were intervening in Palestinian affairs, aiming to undermine Arafat — not for the sake of being altruistic, but for egotistical motives.

Perhaps the Americans were disappointed in Abbas primarily because his government resigned after 100 days of being in power. Currently, the Americans are doing the same thing — having gauged approval for Prime Minister Salam Fayyad before his resignation, and after it.

Perhaps this American approval is unwarranted, considering the quickness of Fayyad’s resignation — he didn’t want it to seem as if his orders came from the hand of Washington. The Americans said nice things about Abbas, and Bush said his famous words about the [Apartheid Wall] — describing it as a snake — but withdrew from his position, which had opposed colonization, after just weeks. The Americans put in good word for Fayyad as well — supporting him internally and politically, but they never supported him in facing Israel. Since U.S. politics are still not balanced in our favor, U.S. intervention — in Palestine’s case — reflects adversely on whomever it is trying to support. Over the decades, foreign flattery began to become a problem for any Palestinian figurehead, since it would reflect poorly internally.

Whenever the Israelis highlighted a Palestinian figurehead in the past, Palestine was considered some kind of political agenda. And whenever the Americans would glorify a Palestinian individual, his popularity would automatically fall, since that praise doesn’t go well with opposing the occupation — he is an impostor! As I recall, an important Palestinian individual is absent from the scene because Bush, Sr. complimented him in front of an Arab leader, and he gained too much of an ego. He was expected to have become the next president. He gained an ego, the Americans deceived him and then he was gone. I’m saying all of this not because American praise is a trap; however, there are qualified individuals who have gone to Washington and applied to be our future leader … And there are advanced students who won’t be making the acceptance cut for the University of Um Al-Sharayet.

It is strange how American praise, which was cool and refreshing during the days of President Arafat, has become hot and bloated for Salam Fayyad, since he is not for the Americans.