 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 25 February - 3 March 1999 Issue No. 418 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
 |
 |
|
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 25 February - 3 March 1999 Issue No. 418
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
|
|
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Features Travel Living Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Settling old scores
By Gamil Mattar *
The establishment of a committee in the Israeli Knesset to claim compensation for Jewish property in the Arab countries passed almost unnoticed by the Arab media. The official silence of Arab governments on this matter could mean either that the governments have not heard of the Knesset's action, or that they simply do not care. Over half the Arab countries are not affected by the decision; yet none have taken urgent measures in response, justifying their passivity by the belief that the committee will take a long time to reach any decisions, a settlement will take place before then anyway, and the entire peace process is on hold for now.
The establishment of the committee, however, could mean something else altogether. It may provide new evidence that the "Israeli" peace process has not come to a halt, although the "other peace", to which the Palestinians are partners and on which the Syrians and Lebanese are keen to make progress, has been stalled. In "Israeli" peace, Israel makes formal concessions to the Palestinians in return for the approval of the international community and the permission to create new realities on the ground by building settlements, altering topography, and fragmenting the Palestinian people into minuscule agglomerations. The establishment of the compensation committee could be construed, therefore, as a step towards the implementation of the Pax Israeliana. In other words, Israel may be confident that it is proceeding towards its own peace at a good pace, which will permit -- or compel -- it to prepare itself for the post-peace period.
Compensation has never been on the agenda of any peace negotiations. It was raised neither at the Camp David talks nor in negotiations between Syrians and Israelis in the United States, in Madrid or Oslo, by the Jordanians and the Israelis, and certainly not at Wye.
While nothing seems certain at this point, the Israeli negotiators seem to have decided to refrain from raising this complex issue (or preferred to postpone it) during their meetings with the Arabs, perceiving that it could only aggravate an already complicated situation. On the other hand, raising the issue after the negotiations are over would seem the logical consequence of "normal" relations, and would not impede normalisation in its early stages. The delay may have been precipitated by the fear that any mention of compensation during negotiations would encourage the Arabs to claim concessions from Israel.
Israel has tried to avoid opening the refugee file, including compensation for their property and their right to return to their homes in Palestinian territory. The other channels of Israeli peace, the majority of which are mostly unknown to the Arab public, seem to have settled a considerable part of the refugee problem and separated the issue of refugees from that of compensation for Jewish property in Arab countries.
The postponement of the compensation issue, however, could have other implications. Until an Israeli peace is established, Israel will remain, as far as the Arabs and certain other members of the world community are concerned, an aggressor. At best, it will be seen as a partner in difficult negotiations with the Arabs, a situation which does not guarantee Israel the best chance of obtaining compensation. An ideal situation would be one in which Israel, backed by the Jewish lobby abroad and US decision-making centres, could still claim weakness, persecution, and unjust treatment. This tactic has been adopted every time Israel has demanded compensation, whether against Germany or against Switzerland or Italy. In all these cases, the conditions of strength and weakness were satisfied.
The memory of the Holocaust is still vivid. The West recently witnessed an intensive campaign to revive memories of the war through films, international exhibitions, special museums, and demonstrations, aimed at sensitising and reeducating the West, but especially at preserving an indelible picture of the torture inflicted on the Jews by Europe. Israel and Diaspora Jews have used moral terrorism, blackmail and threats of severe economic sanctions to obtain compensation for the gold deposited in Swiss banks, although the amounts cited by the claimants do not seem to have been checked by impartial observers. Zionist public opinion seemed confident that the international media campaign would not reflect negatively on Israel or the Jews, damage Israel's relations with Europe, or in any manner compromise the status of Jews living in Switzerland and elsewhere.
Such confidence is based on three main considerations: Jewish influence on the Western media; the support of the US government and key players in political and judicial institutions; the prevailing belief among Westerners that the Jews deserve whatever they claim, which may well stem from the fear that any hesitation or objection to Israeli blackmail will be interpreted as anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism, of course, is outlawed in Europe; in the media or academic institutions, anyone accused of the crime would be shunned automatically.
Most of the conditions that have enabled Israel to demand compensation from Western countries are not available to it in the Arab world. Israel does not enjoy the same influence over political and media establishments as it exercises in the West; its technological and military capabilities are of little effect. It therefore deems it necessary to gain a foothold in the media and to influence policy-making and legislative centres. The public, as well as the politicised intellectual elite in Arab countries, have not been brainwashed into believing that the Jews were always persecuted in the Arab countries where they lived, or that Israel was the victim of Arab aggression. Efforts are being made, therefore, to duplicate the favourable conditions present in the West, and to draw the Arab states into negotiations over compensation. In every peace agreement, it has been possible to introduce one or two items about the "campaign against Israel". Israel has infiltrated political and media circles in most Arab countries. Societies have been established to attack those who oppose Israeli practices in Palestine or in other Arab countries. A large number of these groups have devoted themselves to organising campaigns applauding Israel's peaceful initiatives and the contribution its economic activities have made to the Arab countries. In several parts of the Arab world, certain thinkers are even suggesting that Jews should be invited to return.
Some of these advocates are well intentioned, and support their views with strong arguments. But the problem is that they, like those who are less well intentioned, attach the highest priority to the issue of compensations. Since most of the Jews who could return to the Arab countries in which they once lived would be 60 or 70 today, they will most likely decline the kind invitation and instead ask to be compensated for their lost wealth and property. So should we also consider inviting their offspring to "return"? Would we call them "Arab Jews", "Jews from Arab countries", or "Jewish Arabs"? Would they receive compensation on behalf of their grandparents and relatives, as was the case of Jews in the US and Europe, who were compensated on behalf of their parents and grandparents in Switzerland, Germany and France?
In most cases, Jewish property in the Arab world was confiscated because its owners had formed Zionist organisations which helped them go to Israel via Europe, and because Israel was at war with the Arab countries. In other cases, they left their property and fortunes behind before emigrating to Israel, having become active in some secret organisation, as was the case of the Jews in Yemen.
Whatever the case may be, however, a number of Arab countries will have to brace themselves for another confrontation with Israel, this time over compensation. I imagine that, in at least two cases, Israel will ask for exorbitant amounts which the "defendants" will be unable to provide. These states, therefore, would do well to establish committees to face the issue of compensations when raised. The public must be made aware of the issues at stake, and legal, economic and political resources mobilised to address this new attack. Switzerland and Poland provide the best, if only the most recent, examples of just what Israel can do.
* The writer is the director of the Arab Centre for Development and Futuristic Research.
